Northern rock loan over £25,000

NorthernRockVictim

downhiller wrote: »

But its less than 6 years since they noticed the mistake

Am I getting myself confused between mis-selling and misrepresentation?

si2winit

Hello All

I have had a good read through the transcripts. Mr Walters seems to be a much better lawyer than our Mr Taylor. The Judges seemed harded on Mr Taylor the entire time.

It seems NRAM wish to pay damages instead of the same compensation the uner £25k's received???? No idea how much said damages would be though.

In my eyes, it didnt seem good.

Still, fingers crossed.

Regards

rosstar1

Just wish the final judgement would be delivered !!

This ruling can make such a difference to the situation that a lot of us are finding ourselves in and offers hopefully more opportunities for people to move away from NRAM

javelin_sam

indeed. NRAM would basically be getting rid of 41,000 people from it's books. that would go some way to doing what it was set up to do.

lizards

Did NRAM go down the "misrepresentation" idea last time or is this new? Of course we presumably didn't have transcripts of that so there is no way to know.

I haven't seen anything about six years being a limit (although I haven't looked very hard) but from what I can tell as they can't put us back in the position we were to begin with, it would probably be damages as has been posted. Which could be anything from a tenner to a full refund of all the interest I guess - who knows what they might deem appropriate given most suffered no financial loss directly at least even if we might not have signed it had we known.

dodge1979

Have a read of the misrepresentation act 67 ,this is totally different to the redress paid out in 2012 , we signed something with cca all over it and then found out its not covered that is surely misrepresentation

keg1keg

Possibly Fraudulent Misrepresentation ?

Welsh_spoon

I think it would be fraudulent misrepresentation if they knew about it at the time, more likely to be considered negligent misrep.

Chrisb80

Hi all, the original transcript is here: http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2014/4174.html&query=Nram&method=boolean

Having read through the most recent transcript I think that they are going for misrepresentation and paying damages. So unless you have been finanially impacted (e.g. Taken to court by NRAM, now have a CCJ, or charges to your account for late payment, other costs or enforcements resulting in actual loss) then NRAM would have to pay this back or compensate you - if the CCA did not apply then they should have followed a different legal route. I don't think a refund of interest will count as damages as technically we've not suffered a financial hardship. Don't get me wrong, I hope this is not the case as I've been fighting this since the beginning and welcome the day that NRAM get payback!!

It's a little frustrating that it's taken so long and I'm even more surprised that the decision hasn't been made given the possible impact to the public purse - additional £3m/month from memory!

Fingers crossed!

lizards

I hope Chrisb80 isn't right but I can see the issue being raised there and as devil's advocate it's a fair point.

I suppose we could argue we did suffer "financial hardship" because we missed out on the compensation payment the under £25K lot got. However it could well be a judge would rule that it is tenuous as it's not a loss in the more traditional sense in the ways Chrisb80 describes.

(edit) - having just looked through the link to the original hearing, there is a lot of mention of representation and estoppel - so it's not a new concept unless there's some finer aspect of it they're presenting at this new one.

Also keeping everything crossed. There's just no way to know. But I would love to know so we can move on whichever way it goes. Having this potential of a windfall makes financial planning very difficult as it's hard not to let your mind go there if this turns out successfully for us all.