Northern rock loan over £25,000

fermi

IainHL wrote: »

I believe so Fermi, yes.

VERY clear wording on that, saying it is a regulated agreement, and specifically that you are afforded the protections of a regulated agreement under the Act.

Anyone signing that who gave even a cursory or passing attention/care to what they were signing would have been significantly misled as to the nature and protections afforded by the agreement.

Lippyx

fermi wrote: »

VERY clear wording on that, saying it is a regulated agreement, and specifically that you are afforded the protections of a regulated agreement under the Act.

Anyone signing that who gave even a cursory or passing attention/care to what they were signing would have been significantly misled as to the nature and protections afforded by the agreement.

Not to mention the so called Mortgage Advisors who we would have all paid to read and explain this contract before we signed it!!

tajasti1

Pardon my ignorance but does somebody have some context into this issue as I find from what I have read and what the judgement has decided to be very confusing.

Being government owned NRAM was never going to lose, despite what people think the legal/"justice" system only really works in your favour is you are rich. If this was a bunch of millionaires wanting their money back you can bet it would've been much easier.

badobsession81

NorthernRockVictim wrote: »

I think it would need a minimum £30 per person becsuse there is only the Supreme Court option that remains, and realistically we could never get majority support. Just look how few of us actually lodged official companies, just a few hundred!

I suspect many have not filed a complaint because of the guidance NRAM posted on their website - it told us that this court case was in progress and to await this judgement.

Lippyx

This bit in the contract that states, is laughable:


"This is a Credit Agreement by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Sign it only if you want to be legally bound by its terms..."

carlyberyl

I'm sorry but to allow one person to sign it I believe would be an administrative mistake, to allow two is ridiculous, to allow 40,000 people is beyond a joke. Somebody will have known about this but chose to ignore!

Lippyx

carlyberyl wrote: »

I'm sorry but to allow one person to sign it I believe would be an administrative mistake, to allow two is ridiculous, to allow 40,000 people is beyond a joke. Somebody will have known about this but chose to ignore!

Of course, but because its government owned, no one would've said anything!! I swear there is more to this. A company that has already screwed up, and cost the tax payers 1000's, then realise they have made yet another c**k up... I just can't get my head around how this can just be shrugged off as an admin error?!

IainHL

fermi wrote: »

VERY clear wording on that, saying it is a regulated agreement, and specifically that you are afforded the protections of a regulated agreement under the Act.

Anyone signing that who gave even a cursory or passing attention/care to what they were signing would have been significantly misled as to the nature and protections afforded by the agreement.

Indeed Fermi, however, because the amount advanced was greater than that which was the upper limit for a regulated agreement at that time, it has been ruled that we do not benefit from the protections of a regulated agreement.

The judges did say:

Issue (5): whether there was a representation or warranty that the loan agreement was a regulated agreement when it was not

1. 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.

However, the view would seem to be that such representations and warranties would be deemed to have taken place at the point at which the contract was signed (for which there are other legal precedents), and therefore a defence based on the Statute of Limitations would be available to NRAM.

Lippyx

IainHL wrote: »

The judges did say:
However, the view would seem to be that such representations and warranties would be deemed to have taken place at the point at which the contract was signed (for which there are other legal precedents), and therefore a defence based on the Statute of Limitations would be available to NRAM.

So once again, NRAM are saved by the bell!! At the end of the day, its misrepresentation, no matter how long ago it was!

CPR25

Although, as I've said previously, I don't think this case can be taken any further, however,...if....that's if...the misrepresentation argument was taken court, its not as clear cut with regards to the limitations of statute.

It would boil down to when it would be expected that someone (a reasonable person) would have known or should have known that a misrepresentation existed, Given that only now has it finally been decided in a court of law that the CCA rights aren't applicable, there's a potential argument that misrepresentation can still be used.

Saying that, what damage has occurred? .....I don't think there would be any benefit in arguing this case personally