Northern rock loan over £25,000

Lippyx

CPR25 wrote: »

NRAM PRESS RELEASE

Loans over £25,000
Last updated : 23 July 2015
NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – Court of Appeal decision in favour of NRAM
NRAM notes the judgment made today by the Court of Appeal confirming that customers who took out unsecured loans of more than £25,000 under agreements that incorrectly stated these loans were regulated under the CCA, are not entitled to the same rights and remedies as those customers who took out loans that were regulated under the CCA.
For loans taken out before 6 April 2008, the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) only applies where the amount we agreed to lend you (the amount of credit) was £25,000 or less.
Historically, some NRAM customers took out unsecured loans for over £25k on documents which incorrectly stated these loans were regulated under the CCA. It was legally unclear whether those customers were entitled to the same rights and remedies as customers who took out loans that were regulated under the CCA. As NRAM is fully committed to acting in accordance with the law and treating both customers and the tax payer fairly, NRAM asked the High Court for a declaration of the meaning of those agreements. The High Court considered the documentation and decided that it meant customers were entitled to the rights and remedies applicable to a regulated agreement (in so far as this was possible).
After considering legal advice NRAM decided to pursue an appeal to obtain fully legal clarity and secure a fair outcome for both customers and taxpayers. The Court of Appeal has now provided its judgment and ruled in favour of NRAM.
What should I do now?
Your loan continues to operate in the normal way and you must continue to make your usual monthly payments.

So am I reading this right? If we are to be treated the same as those with loans under 25k, then we should get a pay out like they did, right?

CPR25

Lippyx wrote: »

This is hard as everyone's situation is different.


I have an AOE on me, so if I stop, I would be whisked straight in front of a judge. Plus I have already spoken to NRAM about negotiating a full and final offer and they have said I have to pay the FULL amount owed, as they know they have me over a barrel. They aren't interested in negotiating. Why have less money given to you tomorrow, if you can wait 10 years and get exactly the amount you want... time means nothing to them, remember.


I am all up for fighting, but how many times is a person to be knocked down before that person realises its a no win battle?

It's tough....and sad.

I'm just going to look at that I could use my time more efficiently by bettering my life with other challenges rather than one which seems to have run its course.

CPR25

Lippyx wrote: »

So am I reading this right? If we are to be treated the same as those with loans under 25k, then we should get a pay out like they did, right?

NRAM notes the judgment made today by the Court of Appeal confirming that customers who took out unsecured loans of more than £25,000 under agreements that incorrectly stated these loans were regulated under the CCA, are not entitled to the same rights and remedies as those customers who took out loans that were regulated under the CCA.

Lippyx

CPR25 wrote: »

It's tough....and sad.

I'm just going to look at that I could use my time more efficiently by bettering my life with other challenges rather than one which seems to have run its course.

I think for a lot of people (including me) its gone past the money side of it, and its the principle that a company so big has been allowed to "screw" their customer's over.


If (like me) you've been kindly left with the debt by an ex, then it most certainly becomes more personal.

NorthernRockVictim

Another consideration, I think that NRAM should fund an appeal in the Supreme Court as they did following the previous decision in the High Court. They keep banging on about how they took themselves to court in the interest of fairness, so just because this went their way, does their 'interest of fairness' still exist? If so they will do the proper thing and take this matter to the Supreme Court.

CPR25

Lippyx wrote: »

I think for a lot of people (including me) its gone past the money side of it, and its the principle that a company so big has been allowed to "screw" their customer's over.


If (like me) you've been kindly left with the debt by an ex, then it most certainly becomes more personal.

Completely understand....I just feel like screaming morals at a brick wall is a waste of energy now.....If someone comes up with a legitimate legal argument that is backed both financially and technically then I will listen....but its just not going to happen (IMHO).

I think all that we'll see now is media activity drummed up to try and 'out' NRAM....but that's all that it'll be...a one hour documentary at best that will be forgotten about 2 weeks later.....and what will it achieve anyway? NRAM are not a commercial entity relying on customers and profits....NRAM are the government and we will simply become one of the hundreds of protests held daily against the state

Lippyx

NorthernRockVictim wrote: »

Another consideration, I think that NRAM should fund an appeal in the Supreme Court as they did following the previous decision in the High Court. They keep banging on about how they took themselves to court in the interest of fairness, so just because this went their way, does their 'interest of fairness' still exist? If so they will do the proper thing and take this matter to the Supreme Court.

But do they have to? Who will make them? They got away with it this time, by the skin of their teeth. Why risk it all if they don't have to!?

mancpickup

Has anybody seen what level of misrepresentation has been given in this case?
Is there an oppurtunity here for Recission?

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967


Any thoughts on this?

Lippyx

mancpickup wrote: »

Has anybody seen what level of misrepresentation has been given in this case?
Is there an oppurtunity here for Recission?

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967


Any thoughts on this?

As already stated, I am trying this route and keep getting blocked by NRAM, who tell me I need to PROVE it!
Also:


"Under contract law, a plaintiff can recover against a defendant on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation if (1) a representation was made; (2) that was false; (3) that when made, the representation was known to be false or made recklessly without knowledge of its truth; (4) that it was made with the intention that the plaintiff rely on it; (5) that the plaintiff did rely on it; and (6) that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.

It's 4,5,6 that hold the issue. The appeal court have said it was administrative (which presumably indicates it was not intended the customer relied on it - did the customer rely on it ? If so in what way ? and what damages has the plaintiff suffered because of their reliance on it ? "

CPR25

mancpickup wrote: »

Has anybody seen what level of misrepresentation has been given in this case?
Is there an oppurtunity here for Recission?

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967


Any thoughts on this?

The court has said the misrepresentation was only 'administrative' ...therefore fraudulent misrepresentation isn't applicable I don't think