Northern rock loan over £25,000

downhiller

Several posts mentioning responses from FOS.

Complaints are being grouped together and they're currently working on them.

Fizzy_Fish

Just catching up on events as I'm now overseas with only occasional internet access.

I had a response from the FOS in March about my case, which was I think one of the first to be submitted. Frustratingly they said that they could not get involved as they only cover regulated agreements.

However it seems that the number of cases submitted since has caused the FOS to pick up the issue and take a more considered view. So good work to everyone who took the trouble to write in! I have now written to check that my claim will be included in the bigger review.

Also, in reply to some of the more recent posts, I'd agree that this matter should in fact be viewed as separate to the under £25k loan issue, and that we should be questioning the payment of all interest to date. It may not be the final outcome, but given the tough stance taken on the under £25k loans, it seems in proportion given the seriousness. Surely the govt isn't going to allow anyone to claim financial transactions are regulated without any recourse? Failure to do so would make a mockery of the financial structures/laws in place in the UK.

Anyway thanks to those who have been providing updates, we'll wait with fingers crossed!

DrAl_2

Just got my reply......

I am writing to set out my assessment of your complaint. In reaching my assessment, I have considered everything that you and NRAM have sent us.
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]complaint[/FONT][/FONT]
You complain that NRAM has not compensated you in line with other customers for breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the Act), even though your loan documentations says that the loan is regulated by the Act. You say NRAM should compensate you for the interest paid on the unsecured loan. In addition you feel your loan should be covered by the Act going forward.
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]circumstances[/FONT][/FONT]
You took out a loan in 2007 using NRAM’s Together product. Part of the loan was secured and £30,000 was unsecured. The paperwork for the unsecured element stated that the
loan was regulated by the Act.
In 2012, NRAM announced that some of the documents relating to its unsecured loans were not compliant with the Act. It agreed to remove the interest charged during the period in question and to adjust the balance of affected customers’ accounts.
NRAM says that you do not qualify for redress as your loan was not regulated by the Act because the amount of borrowing was more than £25,000.
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]findings[/FONT][/FONT]
We consider cases on the basis of the written evidence provided and take into account the law, current regulation good practice and what we consider to be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

At the time the loan was taken out only loans of up to £25,000 were covered by the Act. As the unsecured part of your loan was for more than this amount it is not regulated by the
Act. I don’t consider the fact that the loan agreement states the loan is regulated means that it actually is – whether or not a loan is regulated depends on whether the loan meets
the requirements set out in the Act.
The loan was not regulated. NRAM was not therefore obliged to make sure that the paperwork it issued complied with the Act. In view of this I don’t think it would be fair for me
to say that it should remove the interest it charged because the documentation did not comply with the requirement of the Act, as it has done with some customers.
It is not clear which safeguards the Act provided that were important to you or influenced your decision to take the loan. I note that NRAM has said many of the Act’s provisions
apply to the loan in any case, even though it is not regulated.
Looking at what happened, I think it is unlikely that it would have made any difference to your decision to take the loan if NRAM had set out the correct position – that is the loan
was unregulated but shared some of the features of a regulated loan.
You have had the benefit of the funds from the loan and the loan has continued to operate in line with the terms of the loan agreement that you agreed to. In all the circumstances I
don’t think it would be fair or reasonable for me to say that any interest should be refunded to you in this matter.
[FONT=Arial,Bold][FONT=Arial,Bold]conclusions[/FONT][/FONT]
Because of this, I have to tell you that I am unable to recommend that your complaint should be upheld. I appreciate that this is likely to come as a disappointment to you. I know that this is not the outcome you were hoping for. But I hope that my explanation has been helpful in setting out clearly why I have taken this view.
However, if you disagree with how I have reached my conclusions, please contact me by 17 May 2013 – telling me your reasons and including any evidence that you have not
already provided and that you think is important to your case. Please let me know now if you plan to reply fully but do not think you will be able to meet that deadline.
As we explain in our leaflet, your complaint and the ombudsman, consumers have the right to ask the ombudsman to review their case – as the final stage in our process. But if we do not hear from you by 17 May 2013, we will take it that you have decided not to pursue the complaint further

.....I will be replying !!! NB I never even mentioned wanting interest paid back !!!

claret_mike

what was your original complaint out of curiosity - i.e. what did you put across to the FOS?

DrAl_2

My original complaint was in line with everyone else on this forum, in fact I used some of the example letters sent ie advised my loan was covered by coca but turns out is was not, I asked for redress, not interest back.
When I was sold the loan I specifically asked about the cca cover to ensure I had some protection.

Frustrated with the answer but will formulate my answer over the weekend.

Chrisb80

I have just had the exact same response from the FOS so it looks like we are all going to get the exact same generic response!

Not happy and unsure now of how to progress....

lookingoverIT

Just had my response from NRAM.

"The reference to the Act in your contractual documentation were incorrect. We apologise for any uncertainty this may have caused but you are not entitled to any refund nor was your loan mis-sold"

I'm intrigued by how they conclude it wasn't mis-sold despite the issue around the Act.

Guess ill turn to the FOS but given the last few posts, looks like I'm out of luck

ajm173

I am absolutely flabbergasted with this!

The FOS are basically saying that a contract, which is a legal document and can be referred to / used in a court of law can contain several mistakes and that that is acceptable! This is absolutely ludicrous.

In my own response letter from NRAM(previous post) they admitted to a second error that I had noted. How many mistakes are allowed to be made within our paperwork?!

I am, as yet to receive my letter, but I am sure it is on its way to me.

To be honest, the fact that the loan is not covered by the CCA 1974 wouldn't have stopped me taking out the loan in the first instance. I just truly feel, that NRAM should now be made to take responsibility for their huge errors and ultimately fraudulent statements on their paperwork! Mistakes on this scale, from a company such as NRAM should not be occurring in the first place!

We must not give up - this needs to make its way to the media.

lennonc1

I have also had my response but I have a loan under 25k and have redress applied to loan! I want this in bank and they have said no further action will be taken regarding this matter. No explanation or anything! We have formed nram action group org uk so look online for our website and join as we will need to look at legal advice in taking this further, class action in court or Which backing a super complaint. We have contacts in the media and currently working on press release but will take another week or two, we just need the support.....we are also looking at the legality of these mortgages so watch this space!!!

Chrisb80

I too was a little shocked with the response I got. The thing that frustrates me is not that I'm not getting any redress (although I can't help but feel a little gutted), but that the response does not even address the other points raised in my complaint. No mention of TCF, no mention of contractual breach, misleading documentation or how the contract still remains on the wrong basis, absolutely nothing!!! The response is poor to say the least.

I will sleep on this for a night or two and formulate my response. I still feel that my position is unclear and I'm still left with a unregulated loan and the very legislation/acts that are there to protect me as a consumer have been totally ignored!