Northern rock loan over £25,000

rmart

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/northern-rock-disgruntled-customers-demand-1494974

ger_ryan22

bigbadwolf500 wrote: »

Is your loan over £25K?

Sorry no, it was for around 18k in late 2007.

NorthernRockNewbie

Great that we've been able to drum up some media support! The BBC report was very interesting.

I'm going to ping Martin Lewis an email now and draw his attention to this thread.

Hopefully, now that we have some coverage, it will be easier to make more of a noise!

I also wrote an email to our local MP (Conservative) who called me back...regardless of their political persuasion it can't hurt to get them involved.

rmart

well done.

Surley they simply cannot walk away from this by saying "sorry you were given the wrong loan agreement".

Surely they have to address the problem. According to the documents they gave us CCA protection, we accepted the loan on that basis the same as everyone else.

If they say we were unknowingly duped then they have to compensate us.
I actually remember my daughters saying their loan initially was for £8,000 but the IFA advised them to take another £10k each to settle car loans and bank overdrafts etc so they did !.

How bad was that advice ? ! They ended up with a £28k loan and they are now paying 13% on the balance of it as house prices had dropped when they sold.

kaybo69

downhiller wrote: »

£30k unsecured loan here as part of a together mortgage. All the papers also say it's covered by the CCA 1974. Almost £8k (gulp) in interest on this loan in the last 5 years!

Wow this is music to my ears. I have sleepless nights about my Together Loan and absolutely detest NRAM and constantly send them letters telling them how I feel I was mis sold the loan as I was told I would not get the mortgage unless I structured it the way I did.

Something drew me in to the NRAM website today and I was confronted with the prompt regarding the CCA act. I couldn't believe it ! Although slightly disheartened when I learnt it only affects loans of £25000 or less, this thread which I stumbled across after coming away from the NRAM site has given me some hope.

Downhiller, I also borrowed £30k and also estimate the interest at £8k.
However, the problem is that the CCA anomaly only covers loans up to £25k, but as some people have mentioned, if the loan offer documents quote the 1974 act, which I think mine does, this creates a serious loophole.

I will also use the email laid out above to contact NRAM. I think the floodgates have been opened here ha ha.

And to think this has come to my attention on the day I cashed the cheques for my PPI claim against them (which they actually dealt with surprisingly quickly, I only put the claim in a few months ago and had the cheque less than 2 weeks after accepting their offer - i.e Friday last week

kaybo69

GhIFA wrote: »

For what it's worth, NR may well have made an error in the way they have printed the documents, and we'll see how things pan out on that, and it may end up that they have to extend the payout.

However, there are comments being made about the fact that people would never have signed up for loans had they have known it wasn't regulated - which is quite plainly rubbish as they plainly had no idea of what the CCA was until it was mentioned in the last few days.

Nobody was forced into taking out loans well in excess of the value of the property they were buying. And I don't understand people borrowing such sums of money without fully reading and understanding the terms and conditions attached. But, as is often the way, they seem to divulge responsibility for this from anyone but themselves when problems start to occur.

If it was a non-state owned institution then I might agree with you to a certain degree, but it isn't. This farcical situation is already going to add £270million to the deficit when no-one has been financially disadvantaged, without any additional funds from people suddenly making spurious "mis-selling" claims off the back of it. This doesn't cost NR, it costs the public purse, which we all have to pay for.

The irony is that if more people had taken as much interest in the T&C's, wordings, and documentation headings at the time they signed up, and considered the viability of borrowing more than the value of the property in a market bubble that everyone could see was going to burst at some point, or how they might afford the repayments when it did, maybe NR wouldn't have needed bailing out.

At least you've now had the good grace to come out and admit the real reason you're doing this rather than dressing it up as others have.

The fact that many of us are being forced to delink and therefore pay the higher interest rate is totally unfair as it is not us who created the situation that led to the formation of NRAM and that they do not offer new products. Do I want to be with NRAM? No! Can I get a new product with them? No ! Can I remortgage elsewhere? Not unless I want to pay 13% on my unsecured loan! Can I let my house out? Not unless I pay £200 and then the newly introduced annual fee! Basically I am between a rock and a hard place !
Therefore, to soften the blow a nice refund of 6.5 years worth of interest would be a nice little sweetener!
NRAM may be government owned but it is still paying fat salaries to the fat cats who work there. Do those management care what they drain from the company? Thought not!
As an IFA, Ghifa, I'm sure you have had your fair share of commission from advising on these toxic products and now appear to be just laughing and speaking down to those of us who have come on this site with some hope of easing the pain !

Winstonsnoopy

Haven't posted till now but have been following this and the other Forum with interest.

As others, took out a together mortgage in 2007. We were offered £29,500 as the unsecured element but only accepted £24,500. Subsequently we have not requested nor received more than £24,500.

Still have both the mortgage and unsecured loan (although the latter significantly reduced) with NRAM and still in the same house we purchased back in 2007.

Original paperwork states FSA regulated mortgage and CCA regulated loan. Original loan amount not stated on subsequent letters or statements until the last statement received in June 2012. Note that this newer style annual statement continues to refer to our CCA regulated loan and includes additional paragraphs not previously seen.

But, no letter received.

So it seems it does not matter how much you took out the loan for, it is the amount Northern Rock offered that counts??? Confusing or what.

Think I'll wait until the end of January once NRAM has had time to consider all this.

Also, just wanted to add my voice of thanks to those responsible for getting the latest story in the news.

rmart

Just thinking out loud here.

I have emailed NRAM about this loan and have been given the standard reply as others have.

However I wonder if those of us with the loans on incorrect paperwork should be more proactive. If we just sit and wait we will be ignored in my opinion.

We have managed to get this noted on the BBC web site and in the Mirror but if that is all that happens it will be lost and forgotten.

I think we need to demand protection as per our loan agreements. After all, this loan offers protection, it was only signed for on that basis and was offered on that basis. Why should they be allowed to simply put it down as an error in paperwork ?

They say they are going to send out new loan documents to those of us with over £25k. DO NOT ACCEPT THEM, write back saying you do not accept the new documents. There may be clause in there that gives you a certain amount of time to dispute the new terms before they become "accepted" by you.

I think I will email in again demanding the rights offered to me in the agreement. i.e the CCA 1974 protection.

downhiller

The NRAM site has been updated

Is my loan CCA regulated?
At this stage, we cannot confirm if your loan is regulated under the CCA. The CCA is a complex piece of regulation that covers many secured and unsecured loans taken out by customers with the former Northern Rock plc or NRAM.
In the case of loans taken out before 6 April 2008, it only applies where the amount we agreed to lend you (the amount of credit) was £25,000 or less.
We sent a letter on 12 Dec 2012 to all existing NRAM customers who we believe could be affected by this issue. This letter explained the errors that have occurred and highlighted the next steps that we will take, where required, to correct the situation.

GhIFA

kaybo69 wrote: »

The fact that many of us are being forced to delink and therefore pay the higher interest rate is totally unfair as it is not us who created the situation that led to the formation of NRAM and that they do not offer new products. Do I want to be with NRAM? No! Can I get a new product with them? No ! Can I remortgage elsewhere? Not unless I want to pay 13% on my unsecured loan! Can I let my house out? Not unless I pay £200 and then the newly introduced annual fee! Basically I am between a rock and a hard place !
Therefore, to soften the blow a nice refund of 6.5 years worth of interest would be a nice little sweetener!
NRAM may be government owned but it is still paying fat salaries to the fat cats who work there. Do those management care what they drain from the company? Thought not!
As an IFA, Ghifa, I'm sure you have had your fair share of commission from advising on these toxic products and now appear to be just laughing and speaking down to those of us who have come on this site with some hope of easing the pain ![/QUOTE]

As I said the other day, I have voiced my opinions about the circumstances which led to the formation of NRAM, which I'm entitled to, so am not getting into that again. However, in response to your inference, you are wrong - firstly I am fee based (which are clearly disclosed and agreed to before any advice is given) and have been for many years, so I don't receive commission payments. Secondly, no, I have never advised clients to take out these type of products - Borrowing 100% or more of a property value has always been a model I have felt uncomfortable with for the very reasons that many have set out in this thread, and therefore have never advised clients to take, in fact I have actively discouraged.