Northern rock loan over £25,000

jimmyay

Lmalexa wrote: »

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'

..

rights under the CCA include all sorts of things , such as additional rights in event of default,notices, etc. Anyone who's been taken through the courts by NR in a way that may not have been allowed had they had the benefit of the CCA protection which NR misrepresented to them that they had may be looking at compensation too . Could get very messy.

carlyberyl

I thought Martin Lewis would have been on this...

mancpickup

carlyberyl wrote: »

I thought Martin Lewis would have been on this...

He would be if NRAM were not owned by government money. Too political and would upset his popularity with some people.

I expect the real story to start once NRAM respond.

For people interested my stance on my complaint was the was the text in the contact as below (among other texts referring to CCA). but I felt best this shows the potential breach and financial loss.

"The consumer credit act 1974 lays down certain requirements for your protection, which should have been complied with when this agreement was made. If they were not, we cannot enforce the agreement against you without a court order. The act also gives you a number of rights. You can settle the agreement at anytime by giving notice in writing and paying off the amount you owe under this agreement. Examples giving the amount you might pay appear in this agreement. If you wish to know more about your rights under the act, contact either your local trading standards department or your nearest citizens advice bureau."

With this text in my mind I see 2 points.

1. The loan could not have been enforced from day 1 as the agreement was not within requirements as it was over £25000 and a court order should have been applied and the financial loss is all payments made to date plus interest.

2. If they do regulate it as CCA then the financial loss is from the day they were non compliant they should have taken a court order and by not doing so means they have taken money and applied interest against the contract and therefore a breach.

If there is to be a payout I would also expect this to drag through the courts as long as possible to allow the government to budget for it.

shellyk6666

I have also today received a further holding letter, slightly different to that above but with the same intention. It reads -

'Thank you for your recent contact with NRAM.

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 the progress made and will write to you again as soon as we can.

We are regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and they advise you to complete our internal Complaints Procedure first. I hope therefore, you will give us more time to continue looking into your complaint. However, I must make you aware that you may refer matters to th Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), the complaint handling body set up under the FSA at any time.
Your Sincerely...'

I wonder how long it's going to take before we get the full response. I'm so intrigued to know which way they're going to go!

carlyberyl

mancpickup wrote: »

He would be if NRAM were not owned by government money. Too political and would upset his popularity with some people.

I expect the real story to start once NRAM respond.

For people interested my stance on my complaint was the was the text in the contact as below (among other texts referring to CCA). but I felt best this shows the potential breach and financial loss.

"The consumer credit act 1974 lays down certain requirements for your protection, which should have been complied with when this agreement was made. If they were not, we cannot enforce the agreement against you without a court order. The act also gives you a number of rights. You can settle the agreement at anytime by giving notice in writing and paying off the amount you owe under this agreement. Examples giving the amount you might pay appear in this agreement. If you wish to know more about your rights under the act, contact either your local trading standards department or your nearest citizens advice bureau."

With this text in my mind I see 2 points.

1. The loan could not have been enforced from day 1 as the agreement was not within requirements as it was over £25000 and a court order should have been applied and the financial loss is all payments made to date plus interest.

2. If they do regulate it as CCA then the financial loss is from the day they were non compliant they should have taken a court order and by not doing so means they have taken money and applied interest against the contract and therefore a breach.

If there is to be a payout I would also expect this to drag through the courts as long as possible to allow the government to budget for it.

So the financial loss would be ours not theirs? They would have to repay all payments from day 1 that we have paid plus the interest they applied?
How would that affect the balance of the actual loan though, surely that is still payable so would the contract have to start from scratch?
Just trying to get our heads round it all!

mancpickup

carlyberyl wrote: »

So the financial loss would be ours not theirs? They would have to repay all payments from day 1 that we have paid plus the interest they applied?
How would that affect the balance of the actual loan though, surely that is still payable so would the contract have to start from scratch?
Just trying to get our heads round it all!

Yes it would be our financial loss as we have been paying money to a contract which could have only been validated by a court order if it breached CCA regulation. Which it did.

In theory yes they could have to give all payments back which would include interest applied. However the loan would start from an agreed point in time but it would be more that NRAM redress the loan with the amount identified so the loan would be a smaller balance.

I think what I am looking at here is a more complex way which comes to the same point which is an interest redress, but looking at it through a breech of contract issue rather than whether the loan is\is not regulated and the redress being done through CCA.

I am no expert and this is just how I see my complaint, and is very open to opinion and other people's thoughts.

carlyberyl

carlyberyl wrote: »

So the financial loss would be ours not theirs? They would have to repay all payments from day 1 that we have paid plus the interest they applied?
How would that affect the balance of the actual loan though, surely that is still payable so would the contract have to start from scratch?
Just trying to get our heads round it all!

So from our point of view we borrowed £30000 as part of the together mortgage in dec 05, having worked it out we have already repaid that so would our loan possibly be cleared plus we may be entitled to some redress from interest paid?

mancpickup

carlyberyl wrote: »

So from our point of view we borrowed £30000 as part of the together mortgage in dec 05, having worked it out we have already repaid that so would our loan possibly be cleared plus we may be entitled to some redress from interest paid?

We should not jump to conclusions at the moment. Let's wait for NRAM's response. I would not want to give financial advise, I am no where near qualified.

carlyberyl

mancpickup wrote: »

We should not jump to conclusions at the moment. Let's wait for NRAM's response. I would not want to give financial advise, I am no where near qualified.

Yes totally agree, just trying to get our heads round it all, our complaint has been with them since dec 14th so hopefully they may have a response and we can post, knowing them though they will try and wiggle out of it!

Bobster78

Hi there I wonder if anyone can help, I heard about NRAM and the unsecured top up through the together mortgage.

I checked my documentation for my mortgage offer in December 2005. It stated that my £30,000 unsecured product was regulated under the Counsumer Credit Act.

I was under the impression that only loans of up to £25,000 (£25,500 in some cases) were regulated, and while some loans were exempt from the CCA this doesnt really explain why this loan has been documented as regulated when surely it is either unregulated or exempt?

I wonder if any other MSE-ers have brought this up with Northern Rock/NRAM and if so what response they have been given?

Thanks in advance of your help :T