Northern rock loan over £25,000

NorthernRockVictim

Watchdog would be a massive leap forward, would at the very least show the world how appallingly they have acted.

One question that should formally be asked of NRAM is this "Did NRAM choose the Solicitors for both sides?' If yes then I think there may be a chance that the hearing would be deemed as unfair and judgement declared void. Then it would have to all start again.

Another possible consideration is asking them whether they intend taking this matter to the Supreme Court in the interest of fairness. At first this may seem outrageous but that is the reason they gave for making the first appeal.

Thoughts everyone please!

Lippyx

What I don't understand is, if they won the hearing why or who would demand it goes to Supreme court? Surely they wouldn't risk taking themselves, considering how close they came to losing this judgement?


I'm going to contact Watchdog, and I think everyone else should as well.

NorthernRockVictim

Lippyx wrote: »

What I don't understand is, if they won the hearing why or who would demand it goes to Supreme court? Surely they wouldn't risk taking themselves, considering how close they came to losing this judgement?


I'm going to contact Watchdog, and I think everyone else should as well.

Lippyx - That is my point exactly, this is from their website '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.' If that statement is true then why should they not fund the next stage so that the Plaintiff can appeal? OR is it more a case of what we think, they were not acting in the interest of fairness to their customers, they were seeking not to pay out. A point for Watchdog may be!

Also my question about did they choose both side's solicitors has enormous consequences if they did, perhaps another one for Watchdog to ask them?

nickyc1

Both are crucial questions that need to be asked


As you say they could have just accepted the first judgement but in the interest of "fairness" chose to appeal. Following that logic the appeal should then be reviewed.

Lippyx

NorthernRockVictim wrote: »

Lippyx - That is my point exactly, this is from their website '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.' If that statement is true then why should they not fund the next stage so that the Plaintiff can appeal? OR is it more a case of what we think, they were not acting in the interest of fairness to their customers, they were seeking not to pay out. A point for Watchdog may be!

Also my question about did they choose both side's solicitors has enormous consequences if they did, perhaps another one for Watchdog to ask them?

There was no "fairness" in any of this! I would definitely be interested who chose the solicitors, and also I'd be asking questions about the judges who though this whole c*ck up was fair...

Lippyx

I've filled in Watch Dogs form online... I suggest everyone does the same!

NorthernRockVictim

Did you raise my two points with them?

Lippyx

Yes I did... who chose (and paid) "our" solicitors, how they think the outcome is "fair" and also when did they themselves realise the mess they had made, and whether they thought they would get away with it!

carlyberyl

Right I'm going to be filling it in later. Can we all just clarify what exactly were putting, I think it has more chance of getting looked at if we're all singing from the same hymn sheet

NorthernRockVictim

carlyberyl wrote: »

Right I'm going to be filling it in later. Can we all just clarify what exactly were putting, I think it has more chance of getting looked at if we're all singing from the same hymn sheet

Yep, that's why I asked.