Northern rock loan over £25,000

Bignosher13

Babamunky wrote: »

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.

Hi Babamunky, it's interesting regarding this on p111, we've obviously got a lot to thank Mr Forsdick for.

Babamunky

Bignosher13 wrote: »

Hi Babamunky, it's interesting regarding this on p111, we've obviously got a lot to thank Mr Forsdick for.

Agreed, Mr Forsdick must have been like a dog with bone in order to be even noticed by the Courts. The transcripts do make interesting reading but unfortunately most of it may as well be in Chinese, as this "typical consumer" doesn't understand it.

NorthernRockVictim

Babamunky wrote: »

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.

I think your glass is half empty my friend, I think it was purely for transparency. Stay positive but realistic, the three Supreme Court Judges are going to make a fair decision based on legal facts, they would never stitch up a Defendant or Claimant, that's why they are at the very top of their profession.

lizards

Okay, so I found this (from https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/1500322/the-doctrine-of-contractual-estoppel-in-the-financial-services-arena.pdf )

"The Springwell case has confirmed the importance of the principle of 'contractual estoppel' as it applies to an agreement between parties as to the factual background for their contract, even if they agree on a factual background which is not in fact true."

Which I assume means in relation to NRAM, that their argument is that both sides knew it was really covered by the CCA, therefore it is.

Which means either:

a) Surely if both sides agree we were covered by the CCA, please pay out like we have under £25K please as you can't pick and choose which bits of the CCA to apply

or

b) If contractual estoppel and therefore the CCA doesn't apply then they're being done on misrepresentation - which they admit near the start. I have no idea if there are any penalties for this, I would hope so.

Both of which we've all been saying all along. I'm not sure how they can worm out of paying out something, but as I've said previously I am most definitely not a legal expert and I could be barking up entirely the wrong tree with this.

From my read through I couldn't see anything else they were trying to say to get out of it that was new, but I could be wrong.

Makes me wonder why they bothered appealing unless they fancy the misrepresentation option? Or maybe that's the worse one in terms of payout for them, and they're hoping for merely having to apply the CCA.

They convinced us to increase our requested £25K to nearly £30K to pay off more of my debts, I would never have agreed if I'd known we wouldn't then be protected by the CCA as my existing debts were. Plus all the rest of the underhand yet legal dealings which sadly we can't do anything about, but perhaps a good outcome on this would make up for those.

Hopefully we can trust in the judges' decision on this - as has been said they didn't get where they were by being crap.

jimmyay

Lizards i agree with you. I think it looks as if there will be a positive outcome for the over 25ks. i expect it to be on the same basis as the others but just maybe, the contracts may have been voided by NR's actions altogether. it is certainly a fascinating transcript and worth wading through to get an insight into thought processes. amazing to think this has got so far when you consider where the thread started.

keg1keg

Thanks so much to you all for your views- they have given me some understanding. I haven't been able to download the transcripts and to be honest I think it would just be a load of gobbledygook.
Thanks again, fingers crossed for us all :-)

NorthernRockVictim

I think key to this case is what precisely differs from the previous hearing, personally I can't see anything obvious, but that evidently should be the sole consideration to the outcome. This ought to be objective not subjective, so three opinions should not differ from one. Has anybody spotted any significant difference?

goaten2000

I haven't read the transcripts and have no intention to - whatever I take from it is not going to change or influence any outcome.

However, I suspect NRAM will be trying to go for the cheaper option to sort this out, which in this case would be to admit they made a mistake with the paperwork and take a fine (which I guess would be single digit millions) rather than pay out the £270m to customers (or whatever the figure would be)

NorthernRockVictim

goaten2000 wrote: »

I haven't read the transcripts and have no intention to - whatever I take from it is not going to change or influence any outcome.

However, I suspect NRAM will be trying to go for the cheaper option to sort this out, which in this case would be to admit they made a mistake with the paperwork and take a fine (which I guess would be single digit millions) rather than pay out the £270m to customers (or whatever the figure would be)

Admission would not absolve them from redress for their 41,000 clients, that's for certain. In the simplest from 'ignorance is not innocence' As far as I understand this is black or white, guilty or not guilty = redress or no redress.

lizards

I can't believe there would be no redress to their customers due if they admitted using the wrong paperwork.

After all, the sub 25K customers got redress for basically a missing figure on their statements. That strikes me as a lot less of a "crime" (for want of a better word) than misleading customers into thinking they had the protection of the CCA.

Then again, the law can be strange and perhaps whilst morally it's a bigger crime, for all I know legally it might be less of one. For example perhaps not showing the balance every statement (or whatever it was) is explicitly stated to require the lender to repay interest as an integral part of the CCA. However just handing out misleading forms has nothing to do with the CCA even if they're being impersonated, and is presumably handled differently.

Does anyone with more knowledge know what the likely outcome would be if they were found guilty of misleading over the paperwork but were not required to cover us by the CCA?