Northern rock loan over £25,000

jrangutang

FCA maybe another option and worth investigating, seems like the WatchDog piece is another smoke and mirrors campaign?

We need large volume numbers now, we need to find out exactly how many of us are affected by this NRAM issue.

lennonc1

Have a look at nramactiongroup.org.uk
Don't think I can post links.
We are fighting nram at present and have some interesting information gathering, pm for more details
Cx

jrangutang

@lennonc1 thanks so much for all your good work, you are a legend!

I sent you 2 PM's, could you put information and a petition on your site for us OVER 25K'ers please?

submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/new

To: Her Majesty's Treasury

e.scrooge

Chrisb80 wrote: »

I have just signed the petition too, great work!

Does anyone have any legal friends/colleagues that can perhaps take a look at the FOS responses?

It's just, I can't see why I/we are having to prove that we had savings covering the excess amount over £25k for the FOS to believe that our choices in taking an unregulated loan would have been different.

I was very specific in asking the FOS if they felt that NRAM had breached the contract, as the document we all signed forms the contractual agreement for credit and NRAM not affording the CCA protections means they are not compling with the contract/terms. I wonder if the reason the FOS have not used any terminology like "breach of contract" is because perhaps there is a weakness in the entire argument. Would a court consider this to be a valid point? Would be good to see what a legal person thinks of the whole thing.

This post makes a very important point and is in line with the legal advice provided in the BBC website article before Christmas. We haveuntil now been focusing our complaint largely on the CCA and arguing that our loans should be covered by the act. They (NRAM and FOS) have said our loans are technically not because of the 25k limit, despite the agreements we and NR signed (which said they were). But we still have contractual agreements for credit and adhering to the CCA was written into those contracts. If they did not adhere to the CCA, and NRAM have accepted that they didn’t then, as the BBC article highlights, there is a potential "Breach of Contract". I wonder if this, together with "misrepresentation" (which NRAM have also admitted) should now become our focus. In any case I agree that we should probably now take legal advice on how to best proceed.

Extract from BBC article 18thDecember 2012
However, the bank's use of these misleading loandocuments may mean that the protections and benefits of the CCA have, afterall, been incorporated into the loan contracts of this second set of borrowers.

And if any of these individuals find that the bank's subsequent paperwork had also failed to comply with the detailed requirementsof the act, for instance by not stating the original sum borrowed, then they too might be due a refund of the interest they had paid since 2008, not as abreach of the act but as a breach of contract.

Consumer credit specialist Robert Cooper, of advisoryfirm Scott Robert, in Stafford, said: "If the loans were above the old £25,000 limit and were struck before April 2008, then the loan document is incorrect as they are exempt agreements and most provisions of the act don'tapply, but it is still a contractual agreement for credit.
"That means the contract is based on what is written in the documents and potentially on what was stated in discussions between the two sides prior to forming the contract. The terms agreed between the lender and borrower become the contract. If those terms are not adhered to then there will be a potential breach of contract.

"There may also be a case for misrepresentation if the borrower was induced into the contract by the statement that it was regulated agreement when it was not. If misrepresentation exists then a claim could be made for damages and rescission of the contract depending upon the category of misrepresentation," he added.

lennonc1

Hi there, got your pm, we will be changing the website to include all of this as well. We were waiting on news of a hearing one of our members was getting took to court for repossession by nram - GOOD NEWS below.

NRAM denied eviction warrant over contempt of court failure to prove entitlements.

In Lancashire today NRAM PLC (the UK Treasury owned toxic mortgage debt collector) were denied a warrant to evict a tax-paying mortgagor who, after falling into significant arrears became unable to pay their high interest rates and unable to move to a new mortgage deal due to his self employment status losing status after vast rivers of credit from the economic run up to 2007 dried up. This is a landmark victory and offers new hope for mortgagors up and down the country who have fallen into arrears or unable to meet payments of unprovable mortgage debt.
Initially NRAM issued the defendant a notice of eviction without a prior repossession hearing but the defendant was advised of his right that his case could be heard in court. After a second hearing, NRAM were denied the warrant to evict for failing to provide evidence of their entitlements including their rights to repossess.
The court tool a dim view of NRAM's failure to comply to the judges order. The warrant for eviction was suspended indefinitely and NRAM has been issued with a further court order to provide full evidence of their entitlements within 60 days. The suspension of eviction was indefinite and unconditional. The defendant mortgagor was also ordered to continue making "Contractual Monthly Subscription" payments for a set number of months though the nature of NRAM's claim of entitlement to CMS payments remains unclear.

This is a landmark case and the first case where a major UK lender has been stopped by a magistrate for contempt of court and failing to provide evidence of their legal entitlements. The law was changed decades ago but until now no defending case has been clear enough to prevent unscrupulous lenders from crushing mortgagors already deeply in debt and unaware of their own rights and entitlements. Today's verdict indicates a seismic shift in awareness by both courts and mortgagors and the message to the banks is clear.
NRAM have 60 days to prove their entitlement or they will have to relinquish any future claims or rights to the mortgagors property (his home for the last 10 years where he dwells with his wife and two children).

The think-tank responsible for creating the defendants case is compiling a detailed account of the two hearings and the events that led up to the indefinite suspension of eviction by the UK's largest debt collectors - NRAM PLC.

I think this is great news, now we have different angles as the fos clearly are taking their side. But the courts won't. Class action for us all I think.

cot1198

This is good news.

It shows what a shambles NRAM has become. It also shows how arrogant they are thinking no one will or should challenge them and how other Government departments are doing their best to shield NRAM from media attention.

Mj72

Just phones nram we had been told that if we moved our mortgage part to someone else and kept the loan part with them that the rate would stay the same as there svr 4.78 %
Today oh no it will be 8% above this rate ! We are gutted !
Anyone else had this happen ?

Please help us

Chrisb80

Mj72 wrote: »

Just phones nram we had been told that if we moved our mortgage part to someone else and kept the loan part with them that the rate would stay the same as there svr 4.78 %
Today oh no it will be 8% above this rate ! We are gutted !
Anyone else had this happen ?

Please help us

From what I know this is a standard response and written into your contract. I was told that it would increase by 5%.

Although if you have specifically been told it wouldn't increase either in writing or over the phone I would push back.

I fear however this is just another shocking NRAM policy!!!

Mj72

Thanks Chrisb80

Just rang back and said yes they did hear that on the tape and would offer us £50 for the confusion !

Really gone for it now with a three part complaint .

Chrisb80

Mj72 wrote: »

Thanks Chrisb80

Just rang back and said yes they did hear that on the tape and would offer us £50 for the confusion !

Really gone for it now with a three part complaint .

Wow £50, that excellent!! I'm sure you're really pleased with that?! That will certainly go some way toward the massive hike in interest you are now going to have to pay!!

The more I hear and read about NRAM the more I know they are just an absolute shambles of an organisation!!

I work in the financial sector too, regulated by same people who appear to be turning a blind eye on this whole situation. I'm sure that if my company conducted business in the same way, the same regulators would come down on us like a tonne of bricks!

The sooner I move from NRAM the better.