Northern rock loan over £25,000

bigbadwolf500

I sent Martin Lewis a Tweet with a link to this thread. I had an immediate response suggesting I email news@moneysavingexpert.com as he is on annual leave from tomorrow so won't be able to follow it up.
Will email them now

rmart

They can say what they like on a web site. The facts are they offered the loans with CCA protection. There could be an argument that some thought the first £25k of the loan was CCA protected and this may hold up.

If not then my stance will be mis selling. Deliberate or not it is a fact that they issued incorrect paperwork not us.

If we stop paying and they take us to court what would a court say ? We could argue that the loan in unenforceable.

I think we could find a no win no fee lawyer for this who would be happy to take a percentage of any refunds. It could be a very big pay day for a lawyer.

I think we should all stick together and find a lawyer. We should all ask around and put forward on here any that say they will take the case. Let them do all the complains to ombudsman etc. It will be worded correctly that way.

claret_mike

I dont think its as simple as saying it's been mis sold or its a CCA 1974 loan and therefore its unenforceable.

You need to argue why and how and if you are going to instruct a no win no fee solicitor, that would require % of your loan being their success fee. If NRAM were to concede (unlikely) or a Judge to state its unenforceable, your loan would be wiped - do you have 25% of your loan to pay a solicitor?

I will repeat that if you claim mis-sold then you must have been advised on the sale - if you went direct, then you weren't. If you were advised then your easier target would be the Adviser as you may have expected that they should have picked up on this. The reality is that Advisers probably just looked at the product code and then made sure things like interest rates were correct and as described in the advice process. I doubt any Adviser would have queried the CCA paperwork - if they had/did then NR have a lot more to answer for as they should have corrected and reviewed.

I would imagine misrepresentation is the legal argument here. The paperwork was misleading and what you have been led to have is not what you have.

I wish you luck on your course of seeking legal advice and will watch with interest on what happens.

rmart

by the way.... carefully worded there on their web site. They only refer to statements.. No mention of the original loan document stating the CCA act all over it and the signature box note:

What if the statements I've been sent show that my loan is regulated by the CCA?

We are aware that some customers with loans of more than £25,000 have been sent documentation in the past that contained references to the CCA.

If this applies to you, we apologise for any uncertainty this may have caused.

We will be writing to all customers with loans of more than £25,000 to explain the situation and to provide updated documentation.

rmart

claret_mike,

if the loan was unenforceable would they not have to pay back everything pid to them in repayments ? That is what I thought.

claret_mike

Possibly, not really sure how that would work with a No Win No Fee - if you have had £30k loan and paid £6-7k in payments, whether they will say that have succeeded with 6-7k or 36-7k.

Looking on CAG and other forums, it would be possibly difficult to find a solicitor on this basis. They would probably want to take an After the Event policy out to insure their costs against losing.

Whether they would get cover. Do you have legal expenses cover on your car/home insurance? May be worth calling them and asking if they can advise...?

Or you can complain to them and go down FOS basis but they are not a judge and in reality they would seek to put you back in the position you would have been had the loan be CCA regulated - which is all I want to be honest.

Refund_me

The link I posted before mentioned a case where the borrower applied to the court for time to pay - which the lender is required to give in a CCA regulated loan but not in an unregulated loan.

The borrower had paperwork stating that the loan was regulated, but due to the amount it was not regulated. The court refused the application for time to pay as they stated that the paperwork in effect did not matter as the amount of the loan was above the CCA regulated threshold.

With all these things you have to make a claim based on what you have lost out on - from what I can see in most cases people have not lost out on anything so therefore not sure what you are actually claiming for?

Just a different line of thought.

Chrisb80

Claret_mike. I agree. A few of us have complained to NRAM so let's see what their formal response is as we will need this evidence in order to pursue with the FOS.

I am also tempted to write a letter of complaint to both the mortgage advisor/estate agent that we used to complete the purchase as I could argue that they should have spotted the error on the documentation in the first instance. Their PI insurer would look to investigate and would add further pressure on NRAM. Its crazy really when you look at the potential cost of defending their position versus the cost in just treating us fairly?! That's all we're after right?

Anyhow the fact of the matter is that we have ended up with a product that is not what we were sold or led to believe we were getting. Also, how can they put the position right (apart from by standing by the contractual agreement and giving us the CCA protection we were promised) moving forward? We end up with a loan that is unprotected, what does this mean really? I'm no financial expert but an unregulated/protected loan sounds like something you would get from the local loanshark on the street corner!!

Rant over. Lets sit tight...

downhiller

claret_mike wrote: »

I will repeat that if you claim mis-sold then you must have been advised on the sale - if you went direct, then you weren't. If you were advised then your easier target would be the Adviser as you may have expected that they should have picked up on this. The reality is that Advisers probably just looked at the product code and then made sure things like interest rates were correct and as described in the advice process. I doubt any Adviser would have queried the CCA paperwork - if they had/did then NR have a lot more to answer for as they should have corrected and reviewed.

I would imagine misrepresentation is the legal argument here. The paperwork was misleading and what you have been led to have is not what you have.

I wish you luck on your course of seeking legal advice and will watch with interest on what happens.

My together mortgage was brokered. We bought a new build property and we were pushed to the developer's chosen broker. The broker offered us no other option but Northern Rock

mancpickup

Before I raise this as a complaint I would like to make sure I am not barking up the wrong tree.

When I read my original agreement it states clearly that the agreement should be complied with the credit consumer act 1974 and if not they can only enforce the loan through a court order.

So but putting the agreement together as sum greater than what the credit consumer act 1974 can be applied to, have they not broken the agreement straight away? and therefore should have raised a court order from day 1 to enforce the loan.

So rather than Joe Public having to put a legal case together NRAM need to do so to enforce their loans?

I am not condoning stopping payments and have no intention of but a slightly different angle.

thanks