Northern rock loan over £25,000

NorthernRockVictim

TimTheBear wrote: »

Does this mean its still ongoing? despite the ruling date was yesterday?

I think that the previous case overran slightly.

carlyberyl

So if they win, what happens next? Or if they lose, can they try and appeal again? I think we're all fed up of this now, it's just dragged on for too long! I'm not giving up but it's so frustrating for us all, and going to be so disappointing if they win, when the judge previously said they should treat us the same as the under £25k

Bignosher13

Not a decision but at least it got a mention!

"29.04.15
NRAM plc v McAdam and Hartley in the Court of Appeal
On 27 and 28 April, the Court of Appeal heard an appeal by NRAM plc against the judgment of Mr Justice Burton in NRAM plc v McAdam and Hartley.

The broad issue underlying the proceedings is: What are the consequences of a creditor processing and documenting an agreement which is not in fact regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) as if it were CCA-regulated? In particular, does the agreement give the borrower the right to receive periodic statements complying with section 77A of the CCA and to be relieved from liability for interest and default sums if the statements provided are not compliant?

In the Commercial Court, Mr Justice Burton held that the borrower was entitled to the benefit of section 77A, along with the other provisions of the CCA which are capable of being applied to a non-regulated agreement. He reached this conclusion on the basis that statements in the agreement that it was regulated by the CCA had the effect of incorporating the applicable provisions of the CCA into the agreement.

The issue is relevant to the 41,000 or so borrowers who, between 1999 and 2008, entered into non-regulated fixed-sum credit agreements with NRAM plc (then called Northern Rock plc) as part of its popular Together mortgage product.

The Court of Appeal (Lords Justice Longmore and Richards and Lady Justice Gloster) has reserved judgment.

NRAM plc has been represented in the proceedings by Malcolm Waters QC, leading Patrick Goodall QC, on instructions from Ashurst LLP."

carlyberyl

Ok, what does that mean

keg1keg

Reverse judgement - does this mean a previous decision made by a court was wrong !!!

Barny1979

keg1keg wrote: »

Reverse judgement - does this mean a previous decision made by a court was wrong !!!

Reserved judgement

keg1keg

Ha ha ! Excuse my stupidity :rotfl:

lizards

So it sounds like we'll hear whenever the judge makes up his/her mind. Which could be about as long as piece of string I am guessing! A piece of string that runs until at least after 10pm on May 7th..

keg1keg

Hmm, probably. Does anyone know, who are McAdam & Hartley ?

Bignosher13

keg1keg wrote: »

Hmm, probably. Does anyone know, who are McAdam & Hartley ?

I believe they are both employees of Nram, in fact McAdam is head of unsecured debt recovery!

The fact that they have taken themselves to court and have two employees representing them is suspect.

As for the decision on the appeal I don't think it will be long, surely the announcement comes from the court, so Nram have no control of it (the first hearing took about 2 weeks before the stories emerged).

I still feel the court will rule in our favour as whatever way you look at it a contract is legally binding and if the wording is misleading and incorrect then that contract is not valid. Here's hoping!