Northern rock loan over £25,000

Lippyx

Tell me about it! I took the loan out in 2004 for 28k, left my then partner, he told me it was paid off when he remortgaged, but it wasn't, and in 2008 when I got a call from NRAM, I owed them more than the actual loan.


I think the fact the interest rate went up so much after the deal was broken, should really come under unfair T&C's, but we will see.


We just need to all keep hassling, they won't go down without a fight, but they will eventually break, and when they do, then it will be worth it!!

Bigjazzy

The board would be interested to know that I tried to overturn my Decree/ccj. Loan taken out in 2007 and they took me to court in 2009 and obtain judgement.

Explained to the judge about the CCA etc. But the judge sided with NRAM. The lawyer claimed that only thing wrong with the agreement was certains protections werent there. Funny enough the lawyer stated in his defence lots of case studies to do with Rankine etc....but as I explained that did not apply as it related to regulated loans under £25k he did not want to try and understand.

It was a vwery one sided affair, but I was amused that the lawyer was quoting case law to do with CCA regulated loans. So in my case of loan over £25,000 was as per the jusge a CCA loan without some of the protections offered under it.

How do you win when its a double edged sword!

Does anyone have any idea on the case on March 2015, as I would like to forward this judgement as in my case they argued it was a CCA loan with some protections not there as promised!!

The lawyer could not answer straight yes or no if this was a CCA loan, and referred that some protection were not offered....and the judge accepted their side of the story!!

Hanky_Panky

I'm still waiting for someone to come back and tell me what material loss they have suffered rather than just trying to jump on the compo bandwagon.

Lippyx

I am currently writing a letter to NRAM to show how it is a misrepresented contract and how, if I had known it wasn't regulated, my decision would have been different. Who wants a loan with no protection!

I did speak with FCA and asked if a loan company can offer unregulated loans. They said it wasn't unlawful for a loan company to do this. I then asked if they stated it was regulated and it wasn't, was that illegal. They then said they couldn't give me advice on individual cases and that I should contact the FOS or CAB. Strange as I wasn't suggestion a particular case, just if it was right for any company to do this!

Obviously FOS don't want to know and as for CAB I cannot get hold of anyone there!!

Lippyx

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I'm still waiting for someone to come back and tell me what material loss they have suffered rather than just trying to jump on the compo bandwagon.

The obvious one is the fact that all those under £25k got a refund of interest because NRAM didn't follow the CCA rules.... But because my loan was not regulated, NRAM could do want they want, meaning all those with over £25k didn't get the same treatment!

NorthernRockNewbie

On the 17th of November "Declaratory Proceedings" take place in the High Court with regards to this whole debacle.

I am not a lawyer and so this is purely my opion and take on the matter and should not be considered a statement of fact.

NRAM are essentially taking themselves to court to get a ruling on precisely where they stand from a legal point of view.

But here's what I consider to be the dark side of things...The defendents in the case appear to be employees of NRAM! The Prosecters are NRAM whilst one of the defendent (according to their LinkedIn profile) is "Head of Unsecured Debt Recovery".

How on earth are the voices of thousands of mis-sold NRAM customers liekly to be voiced in such a court? This is an absolute sham!

Are there any moderators that can help bring this to greater light and get some heat on this case?

I am having to pay £50 to the high court to get the details of the Judge etc and so will update in the comings days. High Court don't except cards you have to pay cash or cheque...leaving me to call in favours from relatives to physcially go to the High Court in London so I can get this info.

I don't want to sound dramatical but to me this appears to be some really dark, cover-up.

Hanky_Panky

Lippyx wrote: »

The obvious one is the fact that all those under £25k got a refund of interest because NRAM didn't follow the CCA rules.... But because my loan was not regulated, NRAM could do want they want, meaning all those with over £25k didn't get the same treatment!

Except if the correct documentation was completed it wouldn't (and isn't) a regulated loan. You appear to be trying to profit from a mistake that puts you apparently in the wrong position anyway. As I said you're just jumping on the compo bandwagon.

Lippyx

NorthernRockNewbie wrote: »

On the 17th of November "Declaratory Proceedings" take place in the High Court with regards to this whole debacle.

I am not a lawyer and so this is purely my opion and take on the matter and should not be considered a statement of fact.

NRAM are essentially taking themselves to court to get a ruling on precisely where they stand from a legal point of view.

But here's what I consider to be the dark side of things...The defendents in the case appear to be employees of NRAM! The Prosecters are NRAM whilst one of the defendent (according to their LinkedIn profile) is "Head of Unsecured Debt Recovery".

How on earth are the voices of thousands of mis-sold NRAM customers liekly to be voiced in such a court? This is an absolute sham!

Are there any moderators that can help bring this to greater light and get some heat on this case?

I am having to pay £50 to the high court to get the details of the Judge etc and so will update in the comings days. High Court don't except cards you have to pay cash or cheque...leaving me to call in favours from relatives to physcially go to the High Court in London so I can get this info.

I don't want to sound dramatical but to me this appears to be some really dark, cover-up.

This does seem rather bizarre? I'm no legal expert, but how is this a fair case? Surely the employee (defendant) is going to make sure it works in their favour, otherwise they risk loosing their job, no?


There is definitely something going on here

saveupthesmiles

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Except if the correct documentation was completed it wouldn't (and isn't) a regulated loan. You appear to be trying to profit from a mistake that puts you apparently in the wrong position anyway. As I said you're just jumping on the compo bandwagon.

Ahhh but if you read the thread from the start you would see that we signed a contract saying it WAS covered. What else could YOU have signed that isn't actually what it said it was? What if you were told in a contract your savings were protected but actually they weren't?

Don't worry we're not trip trapping over your bridge.

Hanky_Panky

saveupthesmiles wrote: »

Ahhh but if you read the thread from the start you would see that we signed a contract saying it WAS covered. What else could YOU have signed that isn't actually what it said it was? What if you were told in a contract your savings were protected but actually they weren't?

Don't worry we're not trip trapping over your bridge.

I have read the start of this thread and posted and then re-visited periodically over the time it's been running.

I am well aware of 'the claim' you are making - I still want to know what material loss you have suffered as a result of signing a regulated agreement on an unregulated loan.

You can accuse me of being a troll although my post count etc proves I am not - prove to me then that you're not a compo, bandwagon jumper.