Northern rock loan over £25,000

keg1keg

Yes, this site will be monitored by NRAM.

NorthernRockVictim

keg1keg wrote: »

Yes, this site will be monitored by NRAM.

Don't think that matters mate, at the moment they're all gloating!

keg1keg

I realise. Anyway, on Twitter, there are legal professionals who have shown some interest and others who may be useful. If you have free time at the weekend sign up. Mr.F seems to only really use Twitter. So probably the best place for info and progress.

keg1keg

NorthernRockVictim wrote: »

Keg - Are you all????

I meant are all the other posters on Twitter too :-)

Newbeginnings

The decision is shocking. Lets hope its taken to the supreme court that's all I'm saying.

Dave-80

Im just going through my Financial Ombudsmen complaint and still cant see how it was an administrative error when NRAM were still sending out statements in 2013 which were saying

"this is a statement for your fixed sum credit agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974" and also says;

"This statement does not contain all the information which you are entitled to receive, we have not included the amount of credit, the duration and the date of first movement in relation to your fixed sum credit agreement."

So they acknowledged they are missing information in black and white and this statement from 2013 cant therefore be an administrative error still??

Then in 2014 the statement has all this missing information showing so they must have known and believe themselves they should be including the missing information in accordance with the CCA 1974 otherwise why would they have stated its missing then correct it a year later?

NorthernRockVictim

Newbeginnings wrote: »

The decision is shocking. Lets hope its taken to the supreme court that's all I'm saying.

We obviously all still stand united, which is utterly amazing after this outrageously dubious knock back, BUT realistically this could only find it's way into the Supreme Court if NRAM fund the next appeal following a hearing that went their way. I think that their ETHICS about in the interest of customer and tax payer's fairness will now disappear and fade away in favour of their self greed for enormous salaries and contentment having fraudulently deceived their innocent clients.

I do believe that the firm of lawyers representing the Plaintiff were completely out of their depth against the very sharp NRAM lawyers. Would be immensely intersting to ascertain if said firm of lawyers were instructed by NRAM as the funders of both side's legal fees, could we somehow formally ask that question as I think the answer could open up a nasty can of biased worms for NRAM?

Furthermore, the Judge's decision made in December was treated with utter contempt by NRAM, their lawyers and of course the three Appeal Judges. Was this respectful man entirely incorrect and oblivious to the facts and law? Did he just pluck his decision out of thin air? I don't think so, therefore there must somewhere be recourse through like minded legal professionals.

This really needs huge media exposure, has anyone here got the skilks/contacts to do this?

carlyberyl

What I don't understand is say for instance someone is taken to court for burglary...they admit they're guilty and more than likely they will go to prison/have to do community service/pay fines etc...nram admit in a court of law to being guilty...and get off scot free. How?they admitted they were at fault so how did they get off? I wonder how the previous judge feels being made a mockery of? He saw them for what they are, so what has swayed these other three after nram admitted to being at fault? Something just doesn't add up! And may I also point out...who funded nram taking themselves to court? Was our redress used instead to buy them some big shot lawyers to guarantee their win? Mmm, wonder how much that cost? I dare say quite a chunk of what should have been ours if they had just backed down after the last ruling!

NorthernRockVictim

carlyberyl wrote: »

What I don't understand is say for instance someone is taken to court for burglary...they admit they're guilty and more than likely they will go to prison/have to do community service/pay fines etc...nram admit in a court of law to being guilty...and get off scot free. How?they admitted they were at fault so how did they get off? I wonder how the previous judge feels being made a mockery of? He saw them for what they are, so what has swayed these other three after nram admitted to being at fault? Something just doesn't add up! And may I also point out...who funded nram taking themselves to court? Was our redress used instead to buy them some big shot lawyers to guarantee their win? Mmm, wonder how much that cost? I dare say quite a chunk of what should have been ours if they had just backed down after the last ruling!

You're probably right about the economics/ethics, I truly believe that the unscrupulous Directors will have achieved some Downing Street brownie points. Possibly drinking expensive vintage champers and eating (hopefully chocking) on fresh strawberries and little triangle sandwiches with the Appeal Judges, Cameron and Osborne as we speak. Shame on all of them, and if any of you guys don't believe that this goes on behind the scenes within the secretivity of the hierarchy then trust me you're wrong. Wrongdoings amongst leading politicians and other influential highly paid civil servants regularly remains hidden from the media for some reason, this is a Company in which the right Honourable George Osborne is a Director of within his family's long established business, never made the media though, how bizzare: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389620/Osborne-family-wallpaper-firm-faces-price-fix-probe-Blow-Chancellor-store-bosses-claim-They-tried-bully-us.html

Lippyx

I was going to write a letter to Mr Cameron but now I am going to write to a local MP. Apparently he is well known for taking on and looking into things like this, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
I might still write to David Cameron just to tell him how disappointed I am withthe system that's meant to protect borrows. Maybe we all should do the same!