Northern rock loan over £25,000

Never_ending_NRAM

keg1keg and cheekynick

* I've just spoken with NRAM and the FOS this morning regarding this one.

* NRAM have asked me to send in a copy of this letter so that they can review it.

* FOS stated that as they reached 'final decision' on my previous complaint they would not be looking into further.

* Personally, I've never sought legal advice on this matter, instead I've pursued complaints in person with NRAM and the FOS. If anyone wants to get a copy of this letter, then I am more than happy to share if people want to get in touch.

* I can't say that I am very hopeful on this... but would say that it is one thing to be putting in references to the CCA in the "pre-contractual paperwork" and another to be putting it into the "servicing paperwork"

Thanks
Ben

cheekynick

Thanks Ben

Be interested to hear NRAM's response

Without going through all the transcripts of the Court of Appeal's findings it's hard to say whether this may be significant or not. If though they have ruled in favour of NRAM as they believe the incorrect wording did not affect anybody then I think there could be something in this.

As far as the FOS is concerned my understanding is that you could get them to look at it again if you complaining about something different (which potentially you are if this letter has only just come to light) but you'll have to get NRAM's response first...

nickyc1

Has anyone complained to NRAM or the Financial Ombudsman that their loan was mis-sold?

keg1keg

They have no interest. If they admit that - which is the truth, the flood gates will open. It could possibly be proven in court but it's financing it.

Lippyx

I have tried the mis-sold approach and NRAM ask me to PROVE it was mis-sold!!
I recently claimed it was mis-represented instead, and just had a letter saying they haven't be able to find a solution to my complaint and then giving me FOS details.... we all know what will happen when I go to FOS!! Like Keg says, as soon as they admit it, the flood gates will open. FOS will not admit that NRAM have done anything wrong.... CONSPIRACY I tell you!!

nickyc1

Surely the onus is now on them to prove that protection from the CCA was not something we wanted? I imagine there would have been plenty of people who would have simply reduced their loan below £25K if they knew it was not regulated.

Not sure how they expect people to prove it was mis-sold anyway? May not be the best comparison but if say your home insurance policy incorrectly said you were covered by fire then you would expect a refund of premiums paid or some compensation when it came to light you were not covered. You would not have to prove it was something you wanted! You could pretty much apply that logic to any financial arrangement.

As far as the Ombudsman goes I would still suggest that people raise the matter of mis-selling with them but do not focus on the court case as they do not have any powers to overturn the ruling. As I understand it the court case did not look at whether anyone was mis-sold the policy. I've got a completely separate issue with another financial organisation that the senior people at the Ombudsman have been investigating for well over a year and are due to make a generic ruling on due to the number of people complaining about the same thing. If enough of us complain about mis-selling then maybe a similar investigation will happen....

Lippyx

I have already gone to FOS about mis-selling and they told me I didn't have a case. Can't remember exactly how they came to that result, think it was because I can't prove how it was mis-sold.


People should look more at mis-representation, because then surely NRAM have to prove how they didn't mis-represent it?

Welsh_spoon

Well, for what it's worth the following is the main body of the letter of complaint sent by us to NRAM a couple of months ago which has just been resoundingly rejected by them!! :

We are writing in relation to the above loan agreement.

It has recently been brought to our attention, as a result of the recent Court of Appeal hearing and Judgment (NRAM PLC V MCADAM& HARTLEY), that our loan agreement with you is not and was not, as expressly stated to us, regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

We are shocked to discover that this loan is and was at all material times an unregulated loan.

We would never have entered into such a loan with Northern Rock (NR), or any other such provider, nor would be have expected NR to have offered such a product.

We can only reiterate that we would never have entered into such an agreement if we had known that it did not have the protection o fthe CCA.

We would also comment that this unsecured loan has always been treated by NRAM as though it was a secured loan and referred to as part of the mortgage, which of course it is not.

It was not the best product for us in our particular situation and did not take full account of our needs; it was not an appropriate product for us and was, we allege, missold to us.

It was also not made clear to us that should the loan become delinked from the mortgage that the interest rate would increase considerably. Why would we take out such a risky product when we could have obtained a much more appropriate loan with fewer penalties and with CCA protection from other providers?

We were not provided with full and clear information inrelation to the loan – and as is now abundantly clear we were actually fundamentally misled in relation to the nature of the product being sold to us.

The attached loan agreement clearly states that it isregulated by the CCA. We are reasonably well-educated professionals but we had no reason to believe that this was incorrect or that NR were misleading us for whatever purpose. As has now been clearly admitted these loans for a sum inexcess of £25,000 were not regulated by the CCA, despite the clear wording on the face of the agreement.

In the Court of Appeal hearing on 27.4.15 (transcript page17) NR/NRAMs barrister formally admitted misrepresentation on the part of NRAM in relation to these loan agreements.

On the face of it there is at the very least negligent misrepresentation on the part of NRAM (which of course could be subject to limitation issues in relation to any claim arising out of the same).

However in the Court of Appeal Judgment, handed down 23.7.15, their Lordships/Ladyship stated in obiter at para 40 that “For these purposes we are prepared to assume .... that NRAM was well aware that agreements where the sum borrowed was in excess of £25,000 were not agreements regulated by the 1974 Act and adopted the arrangements which it did merely for administrative convenience.”

It strikes us that their Lordships and Ladyship did not,and would not, have made such an assumption lightly, particularly given the high profile and far reaching implications of this case.

On this basis we would argue that the strong indicationsare that NRAM were not merely negligent in their misrepresentations but fraudulent. On the basis of their Lordand Ladyship’s assumption (which of course resulted in a decision in NRAM’s favour) this statement was not just made without belief in its truth orreckless as to whether it was true – it was made knowingly, if their assumption is correct. Of course if the assumption is not correct it could be said to undermine the basis of all or part of their decision in the Appeal.

We are therefore making a claim for appropriate damages against NRAM not only for negligent misrepresentation but fraudulent misrepresentation. As you are aware a claim under thelatter heading would not be time barred and we would therefore not expect such argumentsto be raised by NRAM in respect of this claim.

We also claim appropriate damages in respect of the breach of contractual warranty.


- not really sure where to go from here - Ombudsman?

cheekynick

I submitted something similar which was also rejected. Have recently taken it to the Ombudsman although some on here have suggested they won't be of much use. I do believe though that there is a chance that they may look in to NRAM's conduct on a wider scale if enough people raise the same concerns with them.

I assume NRAM have told you that you need to prove that CCA protection was something you required? I have asked the Ombudsman how I could reasonably be expected to prove this and why the onus is on me rather than NRAM who made the error in the first place to prove the opposite.

I focused on mis-selling/misrepresentation rather than anything too legal that has come out of the Court cases as my understanding is that the Ombudsman does not have any powers over the Courts. Have also asked why NRAM has never written to its customers to clarify exactly what sort of agreement people had and allowed them to make choices based on the new information.

Think you may struggle to get anywhere with the point about the delinked mortgage and the interest rate rising as I believe this is somewhere in the small print.

Welsh_spoon

Thank you very much for taking the time to assist with this - very helpful. I shall definitely be taking matters to the Ombudsman .

On to the next stage !