Northern rock loan over £25,000

NorthernRockVictim

All, are there any other forums that we should post on to help make our message go viral?

tracy7

Mthomas1986 wrote: »

Just had my reply from the UK Treasury.

I have replied and explained this is a different matter all together, loans over £25,000 were sold as being protected by CCA 1974, When actually they couldn't be due to the CCA credit limit of £25,000.

Are loans not covered by the CCA covered by the FSA instead due to being over £25,000 - I'm sure I read that somewhere - so therefore are consumers still afforded the protection they are now allegedly clamouring for???

So are you actually fighting for something which has no real impact, financial or otherwise, because you are still technically protected albeit just by a different means?

Mthomas1986

Tracy, I'm simply seeking "clarity"with regards to a loan agreement that's says one thing in black an white, but may not actually be protected by what it says.

What I am really fighting is that due to NRAM no longer offering remortgages, and with the stinking terms of the together mortgage product this now leaves me in a very vulnerable place on their SVR, as I cannot move to another lender to fix my interest rate...

So it's more about fighting to protect me house should interest rates rise, therefore any loop hole possible in the contract to at least be able to negotiate a mutual beneficial way forward from this dilemma between customers in the same situation and NRAM is a positive move forward for everyone...

I understand that there are people trying to get debt wiped off, for issue with CCA contracts, I personally don't agree with this..

I hope this provides Tracy with the clarity she needs!!

kaybo69

My main issue is not with the CCA regulation, although it would have been nice to have had some redress and it is an issue that we were effectively misled when agreeing to our over £25k loans, my main issue is the hike in interest rate I will incurr when I delink, which is what I am in the process of doing right now by moving house. This will increase my outgoings by £80 per month, and for what !??
Before the break up of Northern Rock I could understand trying to retain customer loyalty by imposing such terms and conditions, but this was when NR could offer new products, however, now we have no option but to leave NRAM when we move house, where is the fairness or reasoning in hitting us with such heavy increases in interest rates?

Apart from the increase in risk, what with the loans being unsecured, by squeezing people even harder with bigger interest payments, they are increasing the inherent risk of default themselves by reducing the affordability the payments !!

tracy7

Mthomas1986 wrote: »

Tracy, I'm simply seeking "clarity"with regards to a loan agreement that's says one thing in black an white, but may not actually be protected by what it says.

What I am really fighting is that due to NRAM no longer offering remortgages, and with the stinking terms of the together mortgage product this now leaves me in a very vulnerable place on their SVR, as I cannot move to another lender to fix my interest rate...

So it's more about fighting to protect me house should interest rates rise, therefore any loop hole possible in the contract to at least be able to negotiate a mutual beneficial way forward from this dilemma between customers in the same situation and NRAM is a positive move forward for everyone...

I understand that there are people trying to get debt wiped off, for issue with CCA contracts, I personally don't agree with this..

I hope this provides Tracy with the clarity she needs!!

I think this is perhaps the most honest, commendable, forward thinking and reasoned response I have heard so far, as opposed to the usual: I deserve this money back plus interest rubbish others seem to think they actually deserve with their lets rubbish anyone else's arguments because it makes us look bad and we still have to justify it to ourselves and everyone else attitude.

I agree that this issue with being unable to switch to other mortgage providers or to get a reasonable mortgage rate should interest rates go through the roof is one that should be tackled since the goal posts have been changed beyond the expectations of both ours and those of the company itself due to its bailout.

Although this money is being repaid to the taxpayer I find it difficult to see how they can justify an interest rate so much higher than most other providers, yet i can see they cannot be seen to be making a loss at the expense of the taxpayer, particularly with so many cuts being made and the unprecedented number of people out of work.

tracy7

kaybo69 wrote: »

My main issue is not with the CCA regulation, although it would have been nice to have had some redress and it is an issue that we were effectively misled when agreeing to our over £25k loans, my main issue is the hike in interest rate I will incurr when I delink, which is what I am in the process of doing right now by moving house. This will increase my outgoings by £80 per month, and for what !??
Before the break up of Northern Rock I could understand trying to retain customer loyalty by imposing such terms and conditions, but this was when NR could offer new products, however, now we have no option but to leave NRAM when we move house, where is the fairness or reasoning in hitting us with such heavy increases in interest rates?

Apart from the increase in risk, what with the loans being unsecured, by squeezing people even harder with bigger interest payments, they are increasing the inherent risk of default themselves by reducing the affordability the payments !!

Very true too, this is the issue which needs to be addressed for the very reason that people no longer have the choices which were originally available.

dodge1979

tracy7 wrote: »

Mthomas1986 wrote: »

Just had my reply from the UK Treasury.

I have replied and explained this is a different matter all together, loans over £25,000 were sold as being protected by CCA 1974, When actually they couldn't be due to the CCA credit limit of £25,000.

Are loans not covered by the CCA covered by the FSA instead due to being over £25,000 - I'm sure I read that somewhere - so therefore are consumers still afforded the protection they are now allegedly clamouring for???

So are you actually fighting for something which has no real impact, financial or otherwise, because you are still technically protected albeit just by a different means?

No on the statements the unsecured loan part (25k+) is not regulated by FSA as it it says on every statement "fsa regulated not applicable"

Jt1979

Has anyone got any more news on the over 25k loans?

saveupthesmiles

But, lennonc1, is this not for people under £25000?

It doesn't mention the issue of customers having been told their loan is covered by CCA 1974 but now finding out that it's not?

lennonc1

saveupthesmiles wrote: »

But, lennonc1, is this not for people under £25000?

It doesn't mention the issue of customers having been told their loan is covered by CCA 1974 but now finding out that it's not?

Hi there, the website is not finshed yet, only went live the other day, we still have plenty of content to add. It is still in its infancy. It has not officially been launched. Although we have had a great deal of interest already, ITV are in touch and few other sources to take this public....watch this space.

This is an action group for ALL disgruntled nram customers. This is for everything, from current cca breaches, cca loans over 25k, change in interest rate if you de-link from your mortgage, repossessions, being part of the toxic debt, not having rights that we originally had (ie additional borrowing), loyalty rate and simply mis selling these sub-prime mortgages in the first place.

All we need to do is grow our numbers and they will have to deal with us.