Northern rock loan over £25,000

NorthernRockVictim

lizards wrote: »

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?

From my research as a non legal person, misrepresentation would make the contract null and void, therefore ALL loans would be written off with all interest repaid. That's the risk they have taken by escalting to the Supreme Court I think!

carlyberyl

What do you think this would mean for customers who have now repaid the loan?

Bignosher13

carlyberyl wrote: »

What do you think this would mean for customers who have now repaid the loan?

You would assume full redress plus interest :beer:

How nice would that be, like a lottery win! We can dream Carlyberyl.

I wish the appeal result would hurry up, it's dragging on so much. The Facebook page Together Mortgage Action Group or Roy Forsdick on Twitter are good for updates and developments.

It would be nice to know either way so we can all get on with our lives! :rotfl:

NorthernRockVictim

Guys, it is frustrating but I guess it's a complicated case for three judges, so my thoughts are treat it as a bonus if they deny the appeal. Then we can all celebrate with a few beers and post the party on here!

e.scrooge

I have had a good look at the transcript and the NRAM lawyer is clearly good at his/her job! I have no legal expertise but they appear to have put together a good (and rather inventive) response to the original judgement. That said, in my view at least (for what its worth!), it wont be enough to persuade the judges to overturn the decision. That NRAM confess to misrepresentation worries me a little (no, a lot) ie why would they do that unless it gave them a way out? The legal arguments presented are, as others have said, complex and difficult to follow and we will have to put our faith in the judges. That said they questioned each side with the kind of voracity one would expect. At the end of the day I trust they will do the right thing and bear in mind that we, as borrowers acted in good faith and believed what our bank/building society told us. NRAM on the other hand knew (or should have known) that what they were selling us was not what they said it was.

Good luck everyone and thanks very much for posting over the years - I, for one, am extremely grateful for the support I feel we have mutually provided to each other. I am disappointed though with the support we have received from journalists and the like- they could, and should have done, much more. Anyway, fingers crossed!

skinnybowler

I have read the transcripts. IANAL, but my interpretation of NRAMs case is that they are admitting to misrepresentation and saying that CCA doesn't apply and that the CCA cannot be imported to our agreements as contractual terms. Hence, there is no redress as per the sub-£25 customers.

The reason they seem to be so keen on the misrepresentation outcome is that they appear to think (and the other sides lawers seem to agree) that a claim by a customer for misrepresentation would be statute barred after 6 years from the misrepresentation taking place (i.e. the date the agreement was made) and therefore, there are no customers who would be eligible to claim as it is more than 6 years since the misrepresentation occurred.

javelin_sam

In cases of negligent misrepresentation the clock only starts when it is realised that an error has been made!

downhiller

skinnybowler wrote: »

I have read the transcripts. IANAL, but my interpretation of NRAMs case is that they are admitting to misrepresentation and saying that CCA doesn't apply and that the CCA cannot be imported to our agreements as contractual terms. Hence, there is no redress as per the sub-£25 customers.

The reason they seem to be so keen on the misrepresentation outcome is that they appear to think (and the other sides lawers seem to agree) that a claim by a customer for misrepresentation would be statute barred after 6 years from the misrepresentation taking place (i.e. the date the agreement was made) and therefore, there are no customers who would be eligible to claim as it is more than 6 years since the misrepresentation occurred.

the 6 year thing didn't stand in the way of PPI claims.

NorthernRockVictim

javelin_sam wrote: »

In cases of negligent misrepresentation the clock only starts when it is realised that an error has been made!

OH DEAR - This is their escape route!

downhiller

NorthernRockVictim wrote: »

OH DEAR - This is their escape route!

But its less than 6 years since they noticed the mistake