Northern rock loan over £25,000

mrsvanderkamp_2

lizards wrote: »

mrsvanderkamp - that's very interesting indeed that it was ruled Northern Rock won your CCJ case. I'm not a legal expert at all, but I presume this took place in a court and therefore a judge ruled that it WAS covered by the CCA? In which case perhaps we do have a legal precedent.

What do others more knowledgeable than me think?

Well although we filed a defence it wasn't on the basis of whether the agreement was legitimate or not. In hindsight I think we should have argued this point. So in essence the Judge wasn't asked to rule on whether the agreement was covered by the CCA or not, so I don't think my case would have set any kind of precedent. But there are lot of people over on the DFW board who have DMP's and have had the same issue with NR getting CCJ's and CO's. I don't know if any of them challenged their agreements but I am surprised that more of them haven't joined this thread. If these agreements are ruled invalid, then the CCJ might be able to be set aside which then invalidates the CO and we might get some interest back to repay the debt to boot!

I also noted after i posted last that the default notice we received was served as required by the terms of the CCA 1974. But if the agreement was not supposed to be regulated by the CCA then that would have been served incorrectly too and if a Default notice is not correctly served then its grounds for getting the CCJ set aside (I think). Its all very confusing which I think is the conclusion I came to at the time, and as we couldn't afford legal representation and I wasn't really up for the fight at the time, I just let them get on with it in the end

e.scrooge

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

Well although we filed a defence it wasn't on the basis of whether the agreement was legitimate or not. In hindsight I think we should have argued this point. So in essence the Judge wasn't asked to rule on whether the agreement was covered by the CCA or not, so I don't think my case would have set any kind of precedent. But there are lot of people over on the DFW board who have DMP's and have had the same issue with NR getting CCJ's and CO's. I don't know if any of them challenged their agreements but I am surprised that more of them haven't joined this thread. If these agreements are ruled invalid, then the CCJ might be able to be set aside which then invalidates the CO and we might get some interest back to repay the debt to boot!

I also noted after i posted last that the default notice we received was served as required by the terms of the CCA 1974. But if the agreement was not supposed to be regulated by the CCA then that would have been served incorrectly too and if a Default notice is not correctly served then its grounds for getting the CCJ set aside (I think). Its all very confusing which I think is the conclusion I came to at the time, and as we couldn't afford legal representation and I wasn't really up for the fight at the time, I just let them get on with it in the end

Because the default notice you received from Northern Rock was served "as required by the terms of the CCA 1974" does this not support our case that the paperwork we have all received wasn't issued in error and NR intended loans over 25k to be regulated by the CCA. They cant expect to enforce these loans using the CCA regulations and then refuse to stand by them themselves. Can they? Those who are taking legal advice might ask if this line of questioning is reasonable.

mrsvanderkamp_2

e.scrooge wrote: »

Because the default notice you received from Northern Rock was served "as required by the terms of the CCA 1974" does this not support our case that the paperwork we have all received wasn't issued in error and NR intended loans over 25k to be regulated by the CCA. They cant expect to enforce these loans using the CCA regulations and then refuse to stand by them themselves. Can they? Those who are taking legal advice might ask if this line of questioning is reasonable.

Quite! I have just posted on the other thread also.

I checked my statements from post 2008 and they all refer to being sent in "accordance with the new CCA 2006" The letter I had referred to the fact that the Act now required them to send a statement to each borrower but other than that the "new" statements look exactly the same as the old ones - they have an opening and closing balance on them, but not an original loan amount.

But that aside, why would they be sending me letters about what they were required to do to accord with the new CCA 2006 if my agreement was not regulated by it in the first place!

My statement also says on it "FSA Regulated" N/a?

So if the loan is not regulated by the FSA and not regulated by the CCA who the hell is it regulated by??

This is an important issue, and not just because people are seeing pound signs. If these loans over 25K are completely unregulated then it gives NR the same "rights" as the common loan shark, and perhaps more importantly gives the consumer no protection whatsoever. On the other hand, this then surely makes them unenforceable?

So many people who got into difficulties either generally or just with these loans specifically, found themselves on the receiving end of an incredibly unhelpful NR (refusing to accept DMP's etc) and then ultimately CCJ's and Charging Orders - sorry I know I'm repeating myself, but this just cannot be right on the basis of the apparent total lack of regulation of these loans (although NR being quite happy to rely on the CCA in order to obtain CCJ'S!)

I am sure the lawyers are working overtime on this one!

From my perspective, I'm not expecting a windfall, the best outcome from my point of view would be for the loan to be written off and the CCJ/Charging order removed - I don't think this is unreasonable given that I have already paid them somewhere in the region of £30,000 and still "owe" them £28,000!!:mad:

shellyk6666

shellyk6666 wrote: »

I sent a complaint by email on the 19th but haven't received any response yet. I'm putting it down to the Christmas break.

Finally received a holding letter by post today rather than by email so they now have 8 weeks. There are a few others on here that put their complaint in before me so I'll be watching this thread like a hawk to see what response they get. As soon as anyone get's anything with a bit more substance be sure to post on here!

Chrisb80

Still no reply from NRAM to my email/query and its been nearly 2 weeks! Anyone else had any further communication from them?

I have just chased up a response and called it a formal complaint....

downhiller

I put my formal complaint in by email on the 19th and got a letter from them acknowledging it just before new year

Chrisb80

downhiller wrote: »

I put my formal complaint in by email on the 19th and got a letter from them acknowledging it just before new year

Just another holding email or something worthwhile?

mammajen

Firstly, I am dreadfully sorry if I am covering old ground, but I am terribly confused with all this relating to NRAM and CCA issues and would like some help if I may.

I am one of the many lucky people who has a NRAM together mortgage. Taken out in 2007 we currently have a house worth around £165k and owe just under £200k. Part of that if of course the 'unsecured' element. We are currently paying interest only as we have 3 young children in Nursery so a £700 month bill in just that respect, but our plan is very much once our fees drop in September (2 of them start school then) we will start to pay additional off the mortgage to eventually get this into a place when we can fix in somewhere. Our deal has 30 years to go - I just extended this to buy us more time.

My query is around the CCA issue. The loan we have on this house - taken out October 2007 had an unsecured element but I have checked and this was slightly over £25k but I believe in the paperwork it confirms covered by the CCA. Is it worth persuing as it does worry me if this indeed isnt covered and we dont have the protection to rely on?. Secondly, prior to moving into this house I had a property with NRAM - again a together mortgage! and this had an unsecured loan of less than £25k but this has been finalised now following the sale to move to this property - would it be worth asking the question re that too?

I know there are quite a few comments on the site that people who went into the NRAM together motgages did it foolishly and now must pay the consequenes - these comments I do feel unfair as we were young, niave and now paying the price as we are at the mercy of the unknown with regards to increase to monthly payments. I do also believe NRAM customers are at detriment . I for one (and I am sure like others) so wish we could turn the clocks back, but we can't and nnow simply want to do all I can to gain more control over my mortgage and move from NRAM, but right now that seems impossible!
Thanks in advance

downhiller

My query is around the CCA issue. The loan we have on this house - taken out October 2007 had an unsecured element but I have checked and this was slightly over £25k but I believe in the paperwork it confirms covered by the CCA. Is it worth persuing as it does worry me if this indeed isnt covered and we dont have the protection to rely on?. Secondly, prior to moving into this house I had a property with NRAM - again a together mortgage! and this had an unsecured loan of less than £25k but this has been finalised now following the sale to move to this property - would it be worth asking the question re that too?

If your original loan papers stated it was regulated by the CCA even though your loan amount was over £25k, then you're in the same boat as a lot of us and I would definitely recommend speaking to NRAM

For the older loan, if you cleared it before 2008 then it won't be impacted

kaybo69

Hi my loan was over £25k and written in 2006. Papers state it is regulated under 1974 act.
According to NRAM loans over £25k are not regulated.
What are the implications of this?