Northern rock loan over £25,000

keg1keg

http://www.stockmarketwire.com/article/5083983/NRAM-to-release-provision-after-Appeal-Court-ruling.html

On 23 July, the Court of Appeal declared that it agreed with NRAM's contention that this treatment of customers who took out unsecured loans for over £25,000 which were written on CCA documentation was not appropriate and the Board of NRAM has now decided to release the provision and recognise accruing interest. The release of the provision will be reflected in the accounts for the 2015-16 financial year.

Release the provision and recognise accruing interest !!! Is it me ???

CSC1

NRV - partially agree with you but it could also be argued that the CCA issue is in fact a distraction from the wider NRAM/ UKAR conduct. But given thread purpose, I stand down on this issue unless people want to debate further.

The whole case is strange given that McAdam is an employee (NRAM debt management) and regularly sends me letters - oh the irony. NRAM/ UKAR paid all of the fees for this. McAdam seems to have been represented out of Simmons and Simmons LLP (Chambers). Smells to me........

NorthernRockVictim

keg1keg wrote: »

http://www.stockmarketwire.com/article/5083983/NRAM-to-release-provision-after-Appeal-Court-ruling.html

Just found this ?

So they are not allowing the Plaintiff to take this to the Supreme Court. All things considered that could make some interesting journalism for someone.

carlyberyl

Mmm is it me or has half of the conversation gone missing...?

lizards

It is relevant if some of us were pushed over the £25K at Northern Rock's request rather than our own without informing us of the loss of CCA protection. Not only that, they provided documentation i.e. the CCA wording which a lay person could not be expected to realise was misrepresentation for the convenience of administration.

I suspect there are a lot of people who asked for a 5% deposit and were loaned a 10% one which pushed them over the 25K. And none of them would have been told and even if they had suspected, the paperwork would have falsely reassured them.

tinystar2001

I've posted this on here before, so sorry for repeating myself, but for those who haven't read my previous posts...
We borrowed just over £23k, but for some reason (not sure if it was our financial advisor who requested it, or Northern Rock just deciding that was what they would do), our contract is for up to a £30k loan. Again, we signed to be bound by the CCA, and we stumped NR with our situation, as they actually had no idea whether we fell into the under or over £25k category. They have of course, since decided that we fam into over £25k borrowers, so are not entitled to be Cl ered by the CCA, and sadly, this decision was upheld by the corrupt financial ombudsman. So I don't know what you had to do to be eligible for a contract which covered you only for the amount you borrowed! Also, I can't understand why the oppositions legal team did not delve into any of our stories to help their defence!

NorthernRockVictim

lizards wrote: »

It is relevant if some of us were pushed over the £25K at Northern Rock's request rather than our own without informing us of the loss of CCA protection. Not only that, they provided documentation i.e. the CCA wording which a lay person could not be expected to realise was misrepresentation for the convenience of administration.

I suspect there are a lot of people who asked for a 5% deposit and were loaned a 10% one which pushed them over the 25K. And none of them would have been told and even if they had suspected, the paperwork would have falsely reassured them.

Agreed, but that's a whole new can of worms which would require a fresh set of complaints, court proceedings etc.. All I am seeking to do at the moment is find potential flaws in their wrongdoings and the Appeal decision, hence the specific points I have raised. Sorry to repeat myself, but if they chose both side's lawyers then the entire legal process could be declared null and void.

NorthernRockVictim

tinystar2001 wrote: »

I've posted this on here before, so sorry for repeating myself, but for those who haven't read my previous posts...
We borrowed just over £23k, but for some reason (not sure if it was our financial advisor who requested it, or Northern Rock just deciding that was what they would do), our contract is for up to a £30k loan. Again, we signed to be bound by the CCA, and we stumped NR with our situation, as they actually had no idea whether we fell into the under or over £25k category. They have of course, since decided that we fam into over £25k borrowers, so are not entitled to be Cl ered by the CCA, and sadly, this decision was upheld by the corrupt financial ombudsman. So I don't know what you had to do to be eligible for a contract which covered you only for the amount you borrowed! Also, I can't understand why the oppositions legal team did not delve into any of our stories to help their defence!

They were very weak, a team of equal sharpness would have beaten NRAM into the ground!

tinystar2001

NorthernRockVictim wrote: »

Agreed, but that's a whole new can of worms which would require a fresh set of complaints, court proceedings etc.. All I am seeking to do at the moment is find potential flaws in their wrongdoings and the Appeal decision, hence the specific points I have raised. Sorry to repeat myself, but if they chose both side's lawyers then the entire legal process could be declared null and void.

Is that right, it could be declared null and void? A freedom of information request would surely reveal who chose them then? Although I bet there would be some get out clause to revealing that information too!

NorthernRockVictim

tinystar2001 wrote: »

Is that right, it could be declared null and void? A freedom of information request would surely reveal who chose them then? Although I bet there would be some get out clause to revealing that information too!

I think so yes because it would surely be deemed to be unfair, if this is true then I wouldn't mind a punt that never has it happened before in any court room. New territory, but surely a breach of basic human rights and an indication of NRAM's determination to control the outcome of the case.