Northern rock loan over £25,000

piratematt

Back again now.

Transcript here.

http://www.n-ram.co.uk/~/media/Files/N/NRAM-PLC/documents/transcript-of-hearing-27-28-april-2015.pdf

NorthernRockVictim

piratematt wrote: »

NRAM Website isn't working for me

Servers go down for all sorts of reasons, so don't look too deep into this. It'll be back soon, hopefully with the court transcript on it as demanded by the judges!

lizards

Thanks for telling us it's there! Wow, what a lot of text (200+ pages)

I had a brief look but I have no legal experience and for me personally it was hard to tell which way it looked like things were going. It was good to see arguments being put forward in a proper legal arena that we've all been saying for years on this thread, and NRAM have at least admitted misrepresentation in at least one place (i.e. having CCA plastered all over our contracts) but then they couldn't exactly deny it!!

Looking forward to hearing interpretations from people with more knowledge than me!

fermi

218 pages....

NorthernRockVictim

Long, very heavy read. Nothing much to take from it as far as I can see!

goldendoodlenut

Just spent the last hour reading the hearing and am none the wiser
other than contractual estoppel crept in an awful lot, and the Judge seemed to agree with nram about it. Hope they havent found a way
out of this with this term. I took it that it means that borrowers who
have no protection under the consumer credit act can have these
words added on to their contracts which means that the contracts
will be given the same legal rights even though they have been
misworded because of contractual estoppel. Anyone else come to
this conclusion?

NorthernRockVictim

'estoppel' Sorry for my lack of understanding but this was the word that muddied the waters during my one hour read. What does it mean?

goldendoodlenut

Well all I know is that when Nrams barrister brought the words contractual estoppel into the proceedings and the Judge agreed with
this term he was obviously pleased - so just wondering if they have found a loophole with which to climb through.

Babamunky

My gut feeling has always been that they'd find a way out of it. Mine and I assume many others way of looking at it as been quite simplistic, the contract states we are protected, we all signed it so therefore we must all have the legal right to claim we are protected under the CCA. Sounds too easy.
My opinion is that the court ordered NRAM to produce these Court minutes, so that when the ruling is overturned, 41000 people can't claim something dodgy went on behind the scenes.

I hope I'm wrong.

rosstar1

Just searched contractual estoppel this was closest I could get from Wikipedia ....

Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts (e.g. words said or actions performed) which is different from an earlier set of facts.

Estoppel could arise in a situation where a creditor informs a debtor that a debt is forgiven, but then later insists upon repayment. In a case such as this, the creditor may be estopped from relying on their legal right to repayment, as the creditor has represented that he no longer treats the debt as extant. A landlord may tell his tenant that he is not required to pay rent for a period of time ("you don't need to pay rent until the war is over"). After the war is over, the landlord would be "estopped" from claiming rents during the war period. Estoppel is often important in insurance law, where some actions by the insurer or the agent estop the insurer from denying a claim.

Still not much the wiser of the true definition