We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Northern rock loan over £25,000
Comments
-
Seriously HP, if you haven't got one of these loans, then why do you insist on getting involved and posting?
So what if we all feel we have been lead astray, and think we are due something in return. You're telling me if you entered a contract under false pretences, you wouldn't speak up when you found out?
I don't think anyone actually accused you of being a troll either.0 -
Hanky_Panky wrote: »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.
The point I'm making is that I have absolutely no idea what the protection would have offered me had it been enforcable. I took a loan out and expect, as any reasonable citizen would, to pay that loan back with interest. It's an unsecured loan so my house is not at risk... what protection should I need? It's not as if it's savings etc where I am trusting a company with my money.
I'd be interested in hearing peoples views on what protection they're eluding to and how they're financially out of pocket by not having this protection.
As Hanky Panky said, this smacks of people jumping on the bandwagon and being upset because they didn't get something for nothing like others did.0 -
Hanky_Panky wrote: »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.
Looking at your posts just backs up the Troll opinion. Nothing but !!!!!y attacks on people. Have you anything nice to say? Post count means nothing, behaviour everything.
That aside I don't need to prove anything to you. I want my compensation because i signed a contract that told me it was covered when it wasn't. What other things could i have signed that said something was covered when it wasn't? As a consumer, I'm amazed that other people are not more concerned, this is potentially a major problem - contracts can be issued and then we can be told that suddenly what's stated actually isn't right? Imagine you had savings and thought you were covered by the guarantee, then found it you weren't. You had signed the docs issued by a then reliable bank and had it checked out by a lawyer yet no-one thought to tell you that it wasn't quite right? If you don't think this is a concern then hat's off to you, you must have nothing to lose. I have completely lost faith in our whole system and as someone with a mortgage and debt, who is completely happy to pay off what i've borrowed in full, I feel that all our financial systems are out to swindle us. It's quite a sad and disappointing state of affairs.Began comping 1st Feb 2013, no prizes yet! :wave:0 -
I find it incredible that people who don't agree with the post do come trolling over here; it's trolling when you're over to incite the same arguments that we've been over and over and over. Unless you have some inspirational advice that will completely change our opinions i don't know why you don't keep it to yourselves?
Unless of course you're bored.....Began comping 1st Feb 2013, no prizes yet! :wave:0 -
Seriously HP, if you haven't got one of these loans, then why do you insist on getting involved and posting?
So what if we all feel we have been lead astray, and think we are due something in return. You're telling me if you entered a contract under false pretences, you wouldn't speak up when you found out?
I don't think anyone actually accused you of being a troll either.
I'm involved because:
a) It's a public forum - if you don't want replies that don't agree with you go somewhere else.
b) I'm a tax payer that anyone trying to jump on this compo bandwagon will have to fund.
As to you being led astray - how ? What difference financially did this make to you? What are these false pretences that you think would have helped you somehow?0 -
Hanky Panky,
So, I'll tell you the loss we've suffered...this is fact.
1. When we were sold our Together Product we specifically enquired that the unsecured loan element was covered by the CCA - simply because we had a limited knowledge of loans although knew the CCA afforded consumers with certain protections when it came to Finance agreements and that every other loan we had ever had was covered by the CCA.
2. Had we been informed at the time of signing that the paperwork was misleading (as the FOS have agreed it was) we would never of signed it and gone else where (like anyone else in their right mind).
3. Had we gone elsewhere we would have enjoyed much, much better SVR interest over the past years because NRAM failed to pass on much of the interest rate cuts. Indeed I have calculated that had we instead gone with Halifax then the savings would have been well in excess of £20,000 over the past six years! £20,000 Hanky Panky...think about it, that is a substantial amount of money for the ast majority of the UK workforce.
Quite simply we have been lied to, continously mislead over a sustained period of time whilst NRAM were quite aware of the issue. Indeed I have actuall proof that NRAM knew about this issue as early as February 2010 (well over 2 years before George Osbourne announced the issue in the House of Commons). There are people on this forum claiming to have worked for NRAM in past years stating that NRAM knew of these issues too. If this is true then the whole thing starts to get very close to passing the legal tests for fraud.
Hanky Panky...perhaps you can be a little more productive with your comments and come up with some counter arguements against the above?
On another matter, I am exceedingly disillusioned that this site which portrays itself as a consumer champion has failed to pick up on this. If anyone will be jumping on the band wagon it will probably be MSE when in the event that justive is done and they can get some free PR by claiming to be all wise and knowing about how this has effected people and how horrendous it is etc, etc.0 -
NorthernRockNewbie wrote: »Hanky Panky,
So, I'll tell you the loss we've suffered...this is fact.
1. When we were sold our Together Product we specifically enquired that the unsecured loan element was covered by the CCA - simply because we had a limited knowledge of loans although knew the CCA afforded consumers with certain protections when it came to Finance agreements and that every other loan we had ever had was covered by the CCA.
I'm not sure I believe you specifically asked about CCA protection but hey ho, I'll let it slide.
2. Had we been informed at the time of signing that the paperwork was misleading (as the FOS have agreed it was) we would never of signed it and gone else where (like anyone else in their right mind).
I think you're missing the point - you wouldn't have got a regulated loan for above £25k anywhere
3. Had we gone elsewhere we would have enjoyed much, much better SVR interest over the past years because NRAM failed to pass on much of the interest rate cuts. Indeed I have calculated that had we instead gone with Halifax then the savings would have been well in excess of £20,000 over the past six years! £20,000 Hanky Panky...think about it, that is a substantial amount of money for the ast majority of the UK workforce.
I very much doubt it. NR were well known for lending multiples way higher than anyone else. And to add to that we are talking about a Together Mortgage here so you're also talking about an LTV way above 100% - no one else would have touched you with a bargepole. In any event you argument fails here because regardless of anything else you were quite free to go elsewhere anyway - what stopped you ? You had no idea what any lender was going to do with their interest rates so to say you could have saved interest by going elsewhere is misleading - you could have anyway (but you certainly wouldn't have qualified).
Quite simply we have been lied to, continously mislead over a sustained period of time whilst NRAM were quite aware of the issue. Indeed I have actuall proof that NRAM knew about this issue as early as February 2010 (well over 2 years before George Osbourne announced the issue in the House of Commons). There are people on this forum claiming to have worked for NRAM in past years stating that NRAM knew of these issues too. If this is true then the whole thing starts to get very close to passing the legal tests for fraud.
Hanky Panky...perhaps you can be a little more productive with your comments and come up with some counter arguements against the above?
On another matter, I am exceedingly disillusioned that this site which portrays itself as a consumer champion has failed to pick up on this. If anyone will be jumping on the band wagon it will probably be MSE when in the event that justive is done and they can get some free PR by claiming to be all wise and knowing about how this has effected people and how horrendous it is etc, etc.
I accept that you were mislead however the real effect of this meant nothing to you at all.0 -
NorthernRockNewbie wrote: »3. Had we gone elsewhere we would have enjoyed much, much better SVR interest over the past years because NRAM failed to pass on much of the interest rate cuts. Indeed I have calculated that had we instead gone with Halifax then the savings would have been well in excess of £20,000 over the past six years! £20,000 Hanky Panky...think about it, that is a substantial amount of money for the ast majority of the UK workforce.
A highly unlikely assumption on your part. I won't ask why you needed to borrow such a large sum on an unsecured basis in the first place.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »A highly unlikely assumption on your part. I won't ask why you needed to borrow such a large sum on an unsecured basis in the first place.
I think most borrowed this amount as an unsecured loan as it was offered to them as a way to pay the deposit for the house, or to make up the difference in the mortgage short fall. That's how it was sold to us, we couldn't get the full asking price on a mortgage, and had no deposit. We were told if we took the unsecured loan, we could make up the balance of the house price and use the money as the deposit too.0 -
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.
Hello
Where did you get this information? Just so that I can review and read the entire thing? I heard the court date was due for the end of March 2015? Has it been brought forward?
Thanks
Simon0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards