Northern rock loan over £25,000

CPR25

Unfortunately, I'm pretty confident that the courts will rule in favour of NRAM. I can't see it going any other way having read the transcripts.

Also, dismissing this appeal would have a huge impact on an already bloodied and bruised consumer credit lending sector. Although this shouldn't dictate the outcome, given this, and the impact on the tax payers purse, I can only see one result.

Sorry guys:undecided:undecided:undecided

keg1keg

We hope your wrong CPR :-/

Babamunky

CPR25 wrote: »

Unfortunately, I'm pretty confident that the courts will rule in favour of NRAM. I can't see it going any other way having read the transcripts.

Also, dismissing this appeal would have a huge impact on an already bloodied and bruised consumer credit lending sector. Although this shouldn't dictate the outcome, given this, and the impact on the tax payers purse, I can only see one result.

Sorry guys:undecided:undecided:undecided

Sadly, this is how I think too. Nonetheless I remain hopeful. Good luck everyone.

lizards

I have no clue which way it would go, but to play devil's advocate to the posts above - the courts did find in favour once before. It's not like it's a brand new case. If it was going to get thrown out, I would have expected it to in the case last year, not now.

Disclaimer: I don't pretend to know anything about the legal system in this area!

Staying_Positive

Hi all,

Bit late to the party here but I have been monitoring this thread with interest. I too am stuck in a distressing situation with NRAM - bought my apartment with my ex partner in 2007 (at height of property market and right before the crash) using a together mortgage with a £29k loan added. We split up a few years ago and he has now emigrated to Australia. I met a new partner and am now getting Married next May. I am living his house which is really too small for us (and we really want to start a family) but we are stuck here whilst paying two mortgages (the NRAM one for my apartment + loan at 4.79%) My ex is contributing currently but if things were to turn sour with him I am also really worried about him defaulting on his payments (which I wouldn't really be able to do anything about with him being on the other side of the world) as we are joint and severally liable, I think I would still be liable for full payment.

It wasn't made very clear at all when we took out the loan that a 'de-linking' of the loan would result in interest rocketing to ridiculous levels, so even if we manage to sell, I am likely to be unwittingly tied to my ex partner for life through the loan - unless he agrees to us both taking out separate loans to pay back in full (which he has already said he is not willing to do)

NRAM have been less than helpful in helping me to understand what my options are (basically I don't have any and just need to hope he keeps paying/I will be able to sell eventually)

I am really hoping for that everyone affected that the case delivers a positive outcome for us all and that it will go some way to helping us out of the hardship we are dealing with.

Best of luck everyone - let's hope 'The Universe' is on our side on this one!

Sending positive vibes

CPR25

There are many shocks in a court room so of course anything is possible.

However, reading the transcripts, reading the opinions and commentary on the case and looking at the impact going forward I think you have say that the scales have tilted.

The strength of NRAMs argument this time round far exceeds the previous hearing.

Bignosher13

Keep the faith everyone, I'm confident we will get redress. There is no getting away from the fact they admit liability (flawed paperwork), it's there in black and white and there is no escaping it. The estoppel angle is an after the event ploy to wriggle out of it. It's almost akin to saying yes that's what we put, but it's not what we meant!

keg1keg

I agree Bignosher, the transcripts are purely written records of the conversation.
Up to the judges now. :eek:

lizards

CPR25 wrote: »

There are many shocks in a court room so of course anything is possible.

However, reading the transcripts, reading the opinions and commentary on the case and looking at the impact going forward I think you have say that the scales have tilted.

The strength of NRAMs argument this time round far exceeds the previous hearing.

I didn't read the transcripts of the original hearing. Are you essentially saying that they didn't try very hard first time round, perhaps because they weren't expecting to lose?

I could be wrong but I always thought an appeal had to bring new evidence to the table. Not an "I lost, can I have a second chance please?" effort. Have they brought new evidence or is it just a case of them taking it more seriously now?

Together_as_one

All,

Like many other NRAM together mortgage holders with an unsecured element over £25K, I've been tracking this closely. I have to agree as we finally close in on the appeal judgement that I agree that the argument appears to be weighted against us. NRAM have admitted to what the deem to be a minor administrative oversight regarding the applicability of the CCA to our loan agreements but, with 6 years having passed since they were signed, claims that they were mis-sold have timed out. They also argue that none of us has suffered a financial penalty as a result of the mistake. Given the impact that a ruling that the CCA provisions referred to in our loan agreements had to be complied with (but were not) would have on the Consumer credit sector writ large, I think NRAM will win the day.

The impact of a ruling in our favour could run in to Bns for the financial sector. I think a reasonable outcome may be a much reduced 'redress' of perhaps a fixed amount which recognises NRAM's mistake - a compromise if you will.