Northern rock loan over £25,000

Lippyx

daveylad wrote: »

I phoned NRAM to ask what exactly my position was with regards to CCA coverage as my loan is over £25k. The operator told me I was covered but I was not entitled to redress as per the appeal ruling.
I have made a complaint to NRAM as I feel that they (NR) are guilty of negligent misrepresentation in that they led customers to believe they were covered by CCA without taking measures to actually check this was correct. Customers relied on this information to make a decision to take out the loan.
I am seeking recession from NRAM as I would have never signed the agreement if the words 'unregulated' or 'not covered' were mentioned in or leading up to signing the contract. The really annoying thing for me is I was told to take out more than £25k because I would get a better interest rate, if I kept my old debt I would have paid it off 5 years ago.
BTW its important people mention negligent misrepresent ion to NRAM DO NOT let them agree to innocent misrepresent ion as this is time barred to 6 years after the loan is taken out. Negligent misrepresentation is 12 years after discovering misrepresention.

But we're not covered are we? Didn't they also rule that over 25k loans were NOT covered by CCA, and that's why we won't get redress. Again NRAM have no idea whats what!
That's like saying you have car insurance, but if you have an accident, you can't make a claim!?

NorthernRockNewbie

keg1keg wrote: »

Just to put things into perspective, I saw a photograph of McAdam once standing next to his helicopter. It wasn't from a toy shop, i therefore get the impression that he isnt in the same situation as us. My son has a helicopter, but his has a broken propeller and is in his toy box ! McAdams was a similar size to my house !

McAdam is no Millionaire although judging from his Facebook profile he has a car that is likely to have cost over £25k (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201189649208971&set=a.1702421246024.85332.1402767142&type=1) and is an 'avid' Everton fan. The best bit is a post from January 25 2014 post "**** knows how I have just drove home. Great night. Do it again soon"

keg1keg

I didn't realise mcadam and hartley were in a relationship ! Well I never !

e.scrooge

I was reading the appeal judgement again and note the statement "Although the respondents have not been formally appointed as representative defendants under CPR 19.6, as the judge recognised, and as was common ground, the result of these proceedings will almost inevitably predicate the outcome for the other borrowers who stand in the same position as the respondents." If they weren't appointed under the Civil Procedure Rules - CPR (19.6) does this mean that the judgement doesn't automatically apply to anyone else? What does "almost inevitably" mean in this context? And if the intention was for this case to provide answers for NRAM and all its customers (as they say it was) then why weren't they (McAdam, Hartley) appointed as "representative defendants" under CPR (19.6)?

This may or may not be a useful angle, but thought it worth mentioning.

NorthernRockVictim

e.scrooge wrote: »

I was reading the appeal judgement again and note the statement "Although the respondents have not been formally appointed as representative defendants under CPR 19.6, as the judge recognised, and as was common ground, the result of these proceedings will almost inevitably predicate the outcome for the other borrowers who stand in the same position as the respondents." If they weren't appointed under the Civil Procedure Rules - CPR (19.6) does this mean that the judgement doesn't automatically apply to anyone else? What does "almost inevitably" mean in this context? And if the intention was for this case to provide answers for NRAM and all its customers (as they say it was) then why weren't they (McAdam, Hartley) appointed as "representative defendants" under CPR (19.6)?

This may or may not be a useful angle, but thought it worth mentioning.

That's a very valid point AND why didn't NRAM invite some of the other affected borrowers to have their say in court? Again, just like the choice of legal team scenario it stinks of NRAM seeking to control the outcome rather than act in the interest of fairness as they so often claimed they were doing. Any idea how we could formally find out the answer to the choice of lawyers question?

41,000 affected borrowers, yet only one couple were given the privelage of attending court and most likely with a legal team forced upon them.

Lippyx

Maybe I am assuming, but these so called people who work for NRAM (?) but also have the same loan as us... Whats the chances they would have EXACTLY the same loan?
Maybe I am jumping the gun, but I know a few people who have loans with the companies they work for, and they had a MUCH better deal than the average Joe Bloggs.


Also, I think we should just phone NRAM, and make a complaint asking them WHO chose "our" legal team, and why were no other borrowers asked to stand in court?


I was thinking of calling them and questioning how we are covered by CCA but yet cannot make a claim for redress, which is what I believe someone on here were told when they called asking how the hearing result affected them!

NorthernRockVictim

Lippyx wrote: »

Maybe I am assuming, but these so called people who work for NRAM (?) but also have the same loan as us... Whats the chances they would have EXACTLY the same loan?
Maybe I am jumping the gun, but I know a few people who have loans with the companies they work for, and they had a MUCH better deal than the average Joe Bloggs.


Also, I think we should just phone NRAM, and make a complaint asking them WHO chose "our" legal team, and why were no other borrowers asked to stand in court?


I was thinking of calling them and questioning how we are covered by CCA but yet cannot make a claim for redress, which is what I believe someone on here were told when they called asking how the hearing result affected them!

If you do call them, then tell them that call is being recorded, plenty of free mobile APPS out there that will do that, but please cover your back and tell them in advance. If you don't record it then the content of the call would be denied.

I may have made a breakthrough with a National Newspaper, but can't promise yet. The choice of legal team and the selection of certain borrowers who were exclusively invited to attend court is of interest to them. Nothing back from Watchdog yet though.

Lippyx

NorthernRockVictim wrote: »

If you do call them, then tell them that call is being recorded, plenty of free mobile APPS out there that will do that, but please cover your back and tell them in advance. If you don't record it then the content of the call would be denied.

I may have made a breakthrough with a National Newspaper, but can't promise yet. The choice of legal team and the selection of certain borriwers who were exclusively invited to attend court is of interest to them. Nothing back from Watchdog yet though.

Fingers crossed, well done! Same here, nothing from Watchdog either. Thanks for the heads up about recording phone calls!

daveylad

Hi lippyx they told me that when I phoned up, I asked what my position was now with regards to CCA I told them I would have never have signed up to a loan which was not regulated by the act, she then told me we were covered but we're not entitled to redress as per the courts ruling.
I then told her I wished to make a compliant as NR/NRAM where guilty of negligent misrepresentation and i am seeking recission of the loan.

Lippyx

daveylad wrote: »

Hi lippyx they told me that when I phoned up, I asked what my position was now with regards to CCA I told them I would have never have signed up to a loan which was not regulated by the act, she then told me we were covered but we're not entitled to redress as per the courts ruling.
I then told her I wished to make a compliant as NR/NRAM where guilty of negligent misrepresentation and i am seeking recission of the loan.

I just don't understand how they can say we are covered, but can't claim redress?? It makes no sense? All loan companies might as well just say that then, or anything that involves a contract!


Its just total b*****ks and another prime example of NRAM's utter incompetence!


I will definitely be calling them up and making a complaint of negligent misrepresentation, and I will also be asking them how I can be covered by CCA and yet not claim redress as per the act!?