Northern rock loan over £25,000

IainHL

keg1keg wrote: »

If successful, redress is likely to be interest over a 4-6 yr period returned plus 8%. Misselling would be alot less but, my understanding is there is also a teeny possibility that we could be put back to the situation before we took out the loan.
Anyone else ?

My understanding is that it would be the interest charged on the loan from the period one year after the regulations introduced by the Consumer Credit Act 2006 came into force, which means from October 2009, up to the point at which they issued statements compliant with those regulations, which I believe is somewhere between September and December 2012.

So that is just over 3 years, which comes to about £5k-£6k, depending on how much between £25k and £30k was advanced, and whereabouts in the term you were (an older loan would be paying a little less in interest and a little more in capital than one initiated nearer the start date).

There is also the possibility, since the matter has been to the courts, that they would have to pay 8% simple interest on the amount of the loan interest paid.

Compensation for misspelling would indeed be less.

Being put back in the situation before we took out the loan would come about if it was ruled that all the contracts should be declared null and void. My problem with this route is that I would owe NRAM considerably more than they would owe me!

CPR25

Time to move on now....don't waste anymore time on this

carlyberyl

I'm confused, can anybody break it down?

CPR25

For all the above reasons, in our judgment the judge was wrong to conclude that, if no relevant contractual term was incorporated in the loan agreement, nonetheless NRAM was estopped on the basis of some sort of contractual estoppel, estoppel by convention or estoppel by representation from denying that the respondents had the benefit of some, but not all, of the protections contained in the 1974 Act and in particular those contained in section 77A.
Issue (5): whether there was a representation or warranty that the loan agreement was a regulated agreement when it was not

As we have already said in earlier passages in this judgment, in our view the relevant statements on any basis amounted to a representation by NRAM that the loan agreement was an agreement regulated by the 1974 Act and that the borrowers were entitled to the protections afforded by the Act to borrowers under such regulated agreements. That representation, as Mr Waters accepted, indeed had legal effect in the sense that, if, as was the case, it was false, the borrower would be entitled to sue for misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Given the context and prominence of the relevant statements, we take the view that they are to be construed not merely as representations but also as contractual warranties and that the borrowers would have been entitled to sue for breach of contractual warranty.
No argument was addressed to us that there would be any difference in remedy depending on whether the claim was simply a claim in misrepresentation or for breach of contractual warranty. Both Mr Taylor and Mr Waters accepted that, on either basis, a breach would have occurred at the time the relevant loan agreement was entered into and it may therefore be that, in such circumstances, limitation defences might be available to bar any claims for misrepresentation or breach of contractual warranty. That issue does not, however, arise for decision in the present case.
Disposition

For the above reasons, the appeal will be allowed. Counsel should endeavour to agree the precise terms of any declarations and consequential orders which the court will be invited to make. If agreement cannot be reached, the court will resolve any dispute on the basis of written submissions.

tinystar2001

It looks as though we've lost, but NRAM are being advised to pay out something to us, to prevent us sueing for breach of contract. That's how I'm reading it. Can't really believe it, they are jammy gits, and should never have been allowed to get away with it considering they knew that what they were doing was wrong.

carlyberyl

Right well what's plan b then? I can't believe our justice system I really can't. They've clearly admitted they mis-sold but weren't bothered, and have got away with it! Wonderful. Makes a mockery of any form of contract if you ask me, may as well put anything in there because it doesn't really matter at the end of the day, they do what they want anyway!

CPR25

Unlikely...the breach occurred when the loan agreement was entered into and therefore limitation defences available to bar claims

TimTheBear

I have around until December to pay off this together loan (30K) balance is around 8k now and it seems a decade due to me being on a DMP. However with the other people affected I feel for you and I really do hope there would be 'some' compensation for their huge !!!! up. Chin up everyone. Life goes on.... I know its something you would not like to hear but to me since having a 160k debt now just the NRAM balance to clear - alot of people tell me its 'just money, easy come easy go...'

carlyberyl

I'm sure there is also a time limit from when you are first made aware of the breach, isn't it 3/4 years? This only came to light in 2012 and many of us wrote saying we had been mis-sold...

tommyboy541

Did we really expect anything more? The justice system is a joke.
Who can enforce NRAM to pay anything now? They are not gonna do it off their own backs.

I never expected a positive result. I planned for the worst but things would have been so much more rosey he we won! ��