Northern rock loan over £25,000

jimmyay

I am fairly sure that Northern Rock are going to be in a bucket load of trouble over these £25k+ unregulated loans which they claimed were regulated. Unwittingly or not, they drew attention to the person taking out of the loan that they should sign only if they wanted to be bound by the terms of the CCA. Unregulated loans are a whole different ball game. Many people have received compensation for inaccurate paperwork and refunded interest for under £25k loans. The error in the over £25k loans is more serious. The loans could be unenforceable and all payments could be returned, with interest.

Northern Rock was a rapacious, reckless and untrustworthy business. it has badly affected many lives, and its time for full redress of these dreadful loans, which should all be written off.

We are being crucified by high rates of interest just because of the bank mess-ups and their failures. Failures brought on NR by itself. i had equity in my property but they would not renew my together mortgage as a matter of their own policy, even though i would have probably stayed with them if i could . So, like others, I was forced to go elsewhere with the mortgage but they jacked up the interest on the delinked amount, a huge amount which i pay every month and which never seems to reduce. however they'd have no hesitation in obtaining a charging order on my property and making me pay the sum and the new higher interest if i refused / couldnt' pay it, so how unsecured is it really?

All that on top of them saying it was CCA regulated.

jimmyay

rmart wrote: »

Just thinking out loud here.

I have emailed NRAM about this loan and have been given the standard reply as others have.

However I wonder if those of us with the loans on incorrect paperwork should be more proactive. If we just sit and wait we will be ignored in my opinion.

We have managed to get this noted on the BBC web site and in the Mirror but if that is all that happens it will be lost and forgotten.

I think we need to demand protection as per our loan agreements. After all, this loan offers protection, it was only signed for on that basis and was offered on that basis. Why should they be allowed to simply put it down as an error in paperwork ?

They say they are going to send out new loan documents to those of us with over £25k. DO NOT ACCEPT THEM, write back saying you do not accept the new documents. There may be clause in there that gives you a certain amount of time to dispute the new terms before they become "accepted" by you.

I think I will email in again demanding the rights offered to me in the agreement. i.e the CCA 1974 protection.

i agree with this. i also think it is interesting because by doing this NR are admitting the misrepresentation.

Chrisb80

So I have finally had a response (in writing) to my complaint.

“Unfortunately we do not have a resolution for your complaint at present. However once we have completed our investigations we will respond in full. Meanwhile we will keep you informed of any progress as soon as we can. We are regulated by the FSA who advise to complete our internal complaints procedure first. I hope therefore that you we give us more time to look into your complaint. However I must make you aware that that you can refer matters to the FOS.....”

So at least I’ve had a response, albeit non committal. I guess they now have to sort this out within the 8 week timeframe and if nothing else I have logged my dissatisfaction with them and my loan is being looked into. Will sit tight.....

knighty76

This bit from their web page is annoying..

"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."

They seem to be attempting to focus our attention on the "whoopsy daisy we made a bit of a doo-doo" misinformation on the statements. That doesn't bother me, these are just statements (well it DOES bother me, but you know what I mean). The bit they appear to be side stepping is that this misinformation is also on the signed contract that details the agreement we entered into. That, to my mind, is a bit more serious than the statement bit. This information formed the agreement that we thought we were legally entering into.

PS, I can't find my documentation so am not sure if I am <> £25k, I think it was just under. I have had a letter. I need a good rummage around in the loft. But the above I just find annoying.

Lmalexa

In regards to the unregulated loans (25k+) and the possibility that they are now unenforceable - previous decisions have been made in the courts around similar agreements which will most likely be used / applied to future cases. I got this off another forum;

'The Court of Appeal (Gage LJ) in Rankine v MBNA said that the error in an agreement such as saying it is regulated when it isnt, really doesnt matter only to the extent that the contract looks to give rights which would only be available if the contract were regulated'

Therefore in affect we are covered by the CCA 1974 terms but through a contractual agreement rather than regulation per se. A letter was sent, which I am assuming we all received, by NRAM in 2008 which indicated that following the updated CCA 2006 statements would have to be sent individually to each named party. This letter indicates to me that NRAM extended the 'contractual agreement' to include the new regulations and therefore we would be entitled to a repayments of the interest.

This certainly will be my argument if it deemed we are not due a refund...

claret_mike

I have just received a letter today following my complaint...


States that they are unable to offer me a resolution at this moment in time but are still looking into it. They have given me the right to go to FOS though.

Seems strange that they have given me this option 4 weeks into my complaint.

I thought it cost them for a complaint to go to FOS and I thought they would exercise their full rights to 8 weeks?

shellyk6666

claret_mike wrote: »

I have just received a letter today following my complaint...


States that they are unable to offer me a resolution at this moment in time but are still looking into it. They have given me the right to go to FOS though.

Seems strange that they have given me this option 4 weeks into my complaint.

I thought it cost them for a complaint to go to FOS and I thought they would exercise their full rights to 8 weeks?

Hmm. Does your letter suggest it is the final response? The fact that it says that they are still looking into it suggests to me you will be receiving another letter. Is this just another holding letter?

ANewBeginning

Hi everyone

My husband and I took out a NR Together mortgage in July 2002. We borrowed £75932 on the mortgage part at SVR. We also took out the loan element (Together Variable) amounting to £23985 for 300 months.

I have hung onto copies of the original agreements and dug them out. i shrieked when i tead through it all as on the document for the £23985 together variable loan it clearly states CREDIT AGREEMENT REGULATED BY THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974.

I have had no correspondence in relation to this from NR. As our loan amount is less than this £25k threshold that is being mentioned, where do we stand? Is it worth me writing to NR to raise it with them? Or do I just bide my time and hope they get in touch?

To be honest, a windfall would help tremendously with paying off our current credit agreements. I'm not being greedy. Anyone in this situation would try to claim back money. I have worked hard for my family all my life, never won anything, or had bank charges refunded, so it's exciting that there is the possibility that some money could be heading our way.

Anyone got any good serious advice about the best way to proceed? All answers and guidance gratefully received. And good luck to everyone in the same situation.

Thank you

Chrisb80

Sounds like you have had the same letter as me, just another holding statement.

claret_mike

its not a final response in that they are stating that they are still investigating but it does say I am free to approach the FOS if I wish.

I would prefer to get a final response from them so I understand their position but I don't know why they would want to push me to the FOS before they have finished looking into it?

Doesnt it cost them? Doesn't it put a potential case in the workload of the FOS?