Northern rock loan over £25,000

Lippyx

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I'll be interested to see how you prove that the loan was mis sold.

What was the purpose of the original loan consolidate existing debt?

The loan went towards the buying of the house. They sold it as regulated and it wasn't regulated. Not only did they not advise me of this, but the solicitor didn't pick up on it either when checking the agreement.

NRAM have already confirmed its not regulated, yet they were able to take me to court.... Technically, if it's not regulated, a loan company cannot enforce the agreement.

badobsession81

Joined the party late - where can I get up to speed quickly on what this is about? Does it affect me? Should I be worried/doing something?

We took out a 125% together mortgage (30k unsecured loan)...

Thanks

Lippyx

badobsession81 wrote: »

Joined the party late - where can I get up to speed quickly on what this is about? Does it affect me? Should I be worried/doing something?

We took out a 125% together mortgage (30k unsecured loan)...

Thanks

Hi!!!


So, if you took out an unsecured loan with the Together Mortgage for over £25k, then although the agreement will state it is regulated by the CCA 1974 it actually isn't! Therefore, in my books, that's a mis-sold loan! When did you take out this loan? Any loan taken out before April 2008 will not be regulated if it is over £25k.


Call NRAM and ask them "is my loan regulated?" A simple yes or no is what you'd expect, but they will probably waffle on. Raise a complaint, and make sure you are given a complaint ref number. Then keep asking them how your loan is regulated, and how you think it was mis-sold to you.


There is no point going to FOS, as they will tell you that even if you had known it wasn't regulated, you would have still taken the money... I'd like to know how they know that for sure!!


Next, contact the solicitor who would have helped you with the legal stuff when you took out the mortgage. Technically, they should have noticed it wasn't a regulated loan, and either informed you of this, or told you to not even go there. They should be held responsible too. If the solicitor isn't being helpful or they refuse to look into it, then contact the SRA (Solicitor Regulator Authority) and raise a complaint with them. They can't help you with the loan issue, but they will look into misconduct on the solicitors part.


Then it's a case of keep hassling them. It's going to be a long journey, as NRAM know the moment they admit they were wrong, they will have to pay back ten's of thousands of pounds, so they are dragging their heels. I now have them telling me its the solicitors fault and not theirs as it was the solicitor that offered the mortgage and not NRAM directly!! Think they are starting to worry now!


I have heard that March 2015, they are meant to be releasing a report, but not sure how true this is, as no one at NRAM seem to know.


I actually have a contact at NRAM now who is dealing with me direct. His last letter said that because I showed no evidence of a mis-selling he wasn't prepared to look into it further... So I sent him a copy of my agreement and a letter from them stating the loan isn't regulated. Awaiting response.


What annoys me the most is they took me to court for arrears (another story involving an ex) and had I'd known about this then, then technically they wouldn't have been able to enforce the agreement's T&C's.


Good luck!!!!

NorthernRockVictim

All,

That is what we are attempting to battle with. Accused = NRAM, Judge = Government body, Jury = Another government body.

Most frustratingly is that there is nowhere else to seek justice, fundamentally it's a kangaroo court that we are involved in. A small voice with limited budgets versus the mighty UK PLC, which although we all pay into have no real voice within.

Could it be a European route for justice? Could it be a political lever that one party could use to win votes next May? Or could it be constant harassment outside Downing Street? Truly don't know the right answer but our only hope of justice prevailing is to eradicate the kangaroo court.

Lippyx

NorthernRockVictim wrote: »

All,

That is what we are attempting to battle with. Accused = NRAM, Judge = Government body, Jury = Another government body.

Most frustratingly is that there is nowhere else to seek justice, fundamentally it's a kangaroo court that we are involved in. A small voice with limited budgets versus the mighty UK PLC, which although we all pay into have no real voice within.

Could it be a European route for justice? Could it be a political lever that one party could use to win votes next May? Or could it be constant harassment outside Downing Street? Truly don't know the right answer but our only hope of justice prevailing is to eradicate the kangaroo court.

This is just it! We are told to go to the likes of FOS for help and support, but who funds them? MP's won't help because they will be dropping their government right in it. They are all trying to keep a lid on this thing, hoping it won't blow! All I can think is we have to keep on hassling, and calling and eventually, at some point, that lid will blow and they will have to break.


I have recently had a letter from NRAM, who asked for evidence of mis-selling. I sent them my agreement which has CCA regulated on the top, and a letter from them (dated this year) stated its not regulated. I told them they offered and sold a product as regulated, and its not, to me that's a form of mis-selling. According to NRAM, this is not evidence.


I am now going to look online for what is classed as mis-selling.
On another note, if the loan is NOT regulated, can they take me to court and enforce an attachment of earnings on me, making me pay X amount? I think not, as if the loan is not regulated, its not enforceable?


We will get there, we just need to pull together and not give up. Remember, the bigger they are the harder they fall!!

Lippyx

So, after a quick look on internet, I found this:


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284442/oft1008.pdf


Have a read, its worth it. I particulary found this paragraph interesting:


Test 2: Material distortion

10.8 Material distortion is defined (in Regulation 2) as:

‘appreciably to impair the average consumer’s ability to
make an informed decision thereby causing him to take
a transactional decision that he would not have taken
otherwise’. It applies either when a practice distorts or
is likely to distort the average consumer’s behaviour.


10.9 ‘Material distortion’ means that a practice impairs the
average consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.
The impairment must be significant enough to change the
decisions the average consumer makes. This means that
practices that do not affect, or are unlikely to affect, the
economic behaviour of average consumers are unlikely
to be unfair under the general prohibition in the CPRs.


Not sure if it's of any use to us, but could we have a material distortion on our hands? They can't say we would have taken the mortgage even if we did know about the regulation, as surely that is "assuming" and they would have to provide evidence that we would have, right?

Lippyx

Or surely this one would be for us:


Claiming that a trader (including his commercial
practices) or a product has been approved, endorsed
or authorised by a public or private body when the trader,
the commercial practices or the product have not or
making such a claim without complying with the terms
of the approval, endorsement or authorisation.


NRAM stating the loan is regulated by CCA 1974 when its not??

si2winit

I am in the same boat. 30k loan on a together mortgage. I don't have the original agreement but it was taken out in November 2007. Would this definitely be on fsa paper? I do have the first statement though but on the back it states regulated by fsa then n/a???

Lippyx

Hi! I believe as long as it was taken out before April 2008 then you could be affected. Not sure what you mean by regulated by FSA? They would be who regulate the actual lending company, not the loan. The agreement you signed would say at the top Consumer Credit Act 1974, if it does, and your loan was more than £25k, then its not regulated, and it could be a form of misrepresentation?


Contact NRAM, and ask for a copy of the original agreement.

si2winit

Lippyx wrote: »

Hi! I believe as long as it was taken out before April 2008 then you could be affected. Not sure what you mean by regulated by FSA? They would be who regulate the actual lending company, not the loan. The agreement you signed would say at the top Consumer Credit Act 1974, if it does, and your loan was more than £25k, then its not regulated, and it could be a form of misrepresentation?


Contact NRAM, and ask for a copy of the original agreement.

Thank you.

I will get on the case, really hoping for a balance reduction come March next year when it goes to the high court.

After all, I took out £30,000 7 years ago and my remaining balance today is £28,562. Front loaded interest We all need a result here!