Northern rock loan over £25,000

IainHL

That's an interesting twist you've unearthed there linniep2000.

It also brings to my mind that when I increased my borrowing following an approach from their Mortgage Review Team the new agreement was conveyanced by their (internal?) recommended solicitors.

Alfie04

IainHL wrote: »

That's an interesting twist you've unearthed there linniep2000.

It also brings to my mind that when I increased my borrowing following an approach from their Mortgage Review Team the new agreement was conveyanced by their (internal?) recommended solicitors.

IainHL I used to work in that Mortgage Review Team and if you check your paperwork you will either have gone through an advised call (where the advisor recommended a product and sent out a letter explaining why they recommended it) or a non advised product (Where the person on the phone told you the products and you choose which one you wanted). Check what your paperwork says. Very few advised calls were ever done as the whole scripting of a call was to give you no advise unless you asked for it. Less comeback on them.

As for conveyancing internal, there wasn't any. Searches etc have already been done when you either bought the property and took the mortgage out with NR or moved the mortgage product to NR from another provider. When you were changing from one NR product to another its just the T&C of the mortgage product you were changing and no need for solicitors to be involved. The only search that would be carried out is if you were increasing the secured element of the mortgage then a search with the land registry was done to make sure there weren't any other loans secured against the property.

As I've said before in these threads that allot of the Unsecured loans paperwork was destroyed and scanned onto microfiche, which are now unreadable. Maybe requesting a S.A.R. to all your information and see how clear the unsecured element's paperwork actually is. A S.A.R. would also let you know if you were given an advised mortgage deal or not. It would also allow you to see what exactly NRAM have on your file and if there is any comeback regarding the £25k limit and redress etc

linniep2000

I'm just looking again at the letter from the solicitors and it clearly states on the first page:

The Together Variable Agreement (and which is referred to as the "Agreement" in the following paragraphs) secures the loan as a Regulated Loan inder the Credit Consumer Act 1974. It is an unsecured loan for the period and at the interest rate "variable" shown.

The solicitors clearly advised me it was covered and the letter clearly states it was for £30,000.

My husband works for an estate agents and is going to ask there legal team to have a look over.

IainHL

Alfie04, many thanks for your helpful comments.

Alfie04 wrote: »

IainHL I used to work in that Mortgage Review Team and if you check your paperwork you will either have gone through an advised call (where the advisor recommended a product and sent out a letter explaining why they recommended it) or a non advised product (Where the person on the phone told you the products and you choose which one you wanted). Check what your paperwork says. Very few advised calls were ever done as the whole scripting of a call was to give you no advise unless you asked for it. Less comeback on them.

Indeed it does indicate a non-advised product. I had to search thoroughly through the loan offer to find it!

As for conveyancing internal, there wasn't any. Searches etc have already been done when you either bought the property and took the mortgage out with NR or moved the mortgage product to NR from another provider. When you were changing from one NR product to another its just the T&C of the mortgage product you were changing and no need for solicitors to be involved. The only search that would be carried out is if you were increasing the secured element of the mortgage then a search with the land registry was done to make sure there weren't any other loans secured against the property.

I take your point, bu it does actually say Solicitor/Licensed Conveyancer details: Mortgage Review, Northern Rock, etc. However, I was increasing the secured element of the mortgage as well as the unsecured.

As I've said before in these threads that a lot of the Unsecured loans paperwork was destroyed and scanned onto microfiche, which are now unreadable. Maybe requesting a S.A.R. to all your information and see how clear the unsecured element's paperwork actually is. A S.A.R. would also let you know if you were given an advised mortgage deal or not. It would also allow you to see what exactly NRAM have on your file and if there is any comeback regarding the £25k limit and redress etc

I feel a SAR coming up!

Finally, I have seen it stated (by a well respected former member of another forum) "the Northern Rock Together scheme is flawed, the agreement is not bolted together properly and as a result it is defective and irredeemably unenforceable". Are you (or anyone else) able to offer any further thoughts on that statement?

Alfie04

Like I have said here and elsewhere the product transfers team for every mortgage offer they use a certain template (pre set T&C to match up with customers details). I have seen so many mistakes it is unreal.

The T&C on your mortgage offer may be different to what is on their system. This is because on their internal computer systems the T&C of the product you are on all come under one product code, which is all linked to a particular set of T&C. However your actual document you signed was most probably put together by a temp (this is because the bank grew too quickly and didn't have the staff to cope with the amount of work) who has no idea what they were doing or even seconded from another dept and told to do it that way and could have matched the wrong template up to the wrong mortgage offer (I've seen it done lots of times, once I had to deal with a complaint where a customer had been offered a 2 year fixed at 1.89% and their mortgage offer they signed said no extended tie in to NR's Standard Variable Rate, which at the time was around 5-6%, the actual product as the system saw it and how it should of been had a further 5 year tie in to the SVR and when their fixed rate finished, the customer quite rightly said "Hang on I'm no longer tied in and I want a new deal." The people looking at their account on the system and looking at the product code said "no you're tied in for a further 5 years and would have an early repayment charge to pay." Customer then quite rightly says "thats not what I signed up for and here is the proof" and when we digged our version of their signed agreement out of course the customer was right. So in other words NR worked to a loss on that mortgage for 2 years because they had in fact borrowed the money on the money markets for a much higher rate).

Its the same fact with the together mortgages and how this whole issue of the £25k limit and the wording, its all one template that was used!! Its also a major issue with the unlinked unsecured loan (where you paid off the secured loan but not the unsecured loan) the loan rate is meant to be loaded by either 3,5 or even 8% above the SVR. There is so many mistakes on those too. Wrong rates being one.

There are so many issues that would make the unsecured loans unenforceable (which is the part that would affected by enforceability, not the secured side), each one would have to be judged on its own merits.

Generally the older the together product the more chance its unenforceable. To give you an idea have a look at the account number that was assigned to the mortgage (the unsecured side has a slightly different account number than the actual mortgage account number.) it will be 5 numbers and the first 3 will either be 188, 498, 505, 513 and 514 (there maybe some others) the 4th and 5th number will be always be 50 (which stands for a secured loan, because thats what the mortgage side of it is) then it will be a letter followed by a hypen and then a further 5 numbers.

If your's is 188 then it will be an annual interest and one of the first together mortgages that were brought out. A very very good chance it will be unenforceable, 498 were the first daily interest ones, 505 were newer ones and the 513 accounts were what was called the together connections, were there was a current account attached to the mortgage that could be offset against the mortgage to reduce interest.

There maybe also a few newer numbers as I believe although cannot say its 100% certain that some customers were duped into signing new paperwork because NR were aware their original paperwork was unenforceable. Some were offered slightly lower interest rates or incentives to make it look like loyalty. How many of people this affects I have no idea.

If your loan is unenforceable I am not advocating to not repay the loan and suggest you get a hold of the paperwork NR have and get some proper legal advice before doing anything. Someone who is legally trained.

All views here are my own knowledge and experience and I'm not advising anybody or recommending anybody to do anything. I'm just explaining my own circumstances and knowledge of what I have experienced!! I cannot stress that enough.

djc77

Wow its amazing how some great input from those in the know can help build momentum. I too remember vividly having to make sure the paperwork was signed prior to our exchange and completion which took place on the same day. The reason was that we needed some ofthe unsecured loan to complete the purchase and the CCA OF 1974 required the 7 day colling period. We held the chain up as NR had not got the papers through until the last minute. It just seems like more and more evidence but until someone in authority coughs up with an admission and anything associated such as compensation.

bigbadwolf500

Has anyone have any links to where this is being discussed on other forums etc. Thanks

IainHL

Alfie04 wrote: »

There maybe also a few newer numbers as I believe although cannot say its 100% certain that some customers were duped into signing new paperwork because NR were aware their original paperwork was unenforceable. Some were offered slightly lower interest rates or incentives to make it look like loyalty. How many of people this affects I have no idea.

If your loan is unenforceable I am not advocating to not repay the loan and suggest you get a hold of the paperwork NR have and get some proper legal advice before doing anything. Someone who is legally trained.

Again, many thanks for your valuable insights Alfie04.

My first 3 digits are 582, signed in the latter half of 2006. However I believe both the original and the newer agreements have the same paperwork. I will have to go through them line by line playing "spot the difference"!

Be assured I do not intend to not repay the (unsecured) loan, whatever I may find from the SAR to NRAM. I am really trying to build up as much information as possible to argue my case for being given redress as per the sub £25k loans.

IainHL

bigbadwolf500 wrote: »

Has anyone have any links to where this is being discussed on other forums etc. Thanks

I have not particularly seen the current NRAM redress issue being discussed on other forums. The comment I referred to was made a few years ago in a discussion where someone was being taken to court by NR.

NorthernRockNewbie

Alfie04 wrote: »

NR were aware their original paperwork was unenforceable.

Hi Alfie,

If anyone could ever prove that NRAM new about this and did nothing then it becomes fraud. Please don't get me wrong...I'm not making any accusation towards you personally, not at all. In instances such as this it will be those much higher up that will get slammed, not the people like you the company took advantage of.

Perhaps you'd like to think about going on the record about this? I'm sure once one person is brave enough to stand up many other will.

Think about it. If what you say is true, decent, honest and hard working people were being defrauded by rich bankers.