Northern rock loan over £25,000

Lippyx

HP - If you read my other post you'll see I did loose money... NR had wrongly put a CCJ on me and took me to court as they said I wasn't paying enough each month. Turned out their system was wrong and I was actually paying over £100 more than I needed.


So not only did they wrongly take me to court for THEIR mistake, they also should've never been able to take me to court due to breach of contract anyway.

NorthernRockNewbie

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

It is, as set out in the Defendants’ skeleton argument to which I made reference in paragraph 9 above, common ground that the agreement was not a regulated agreement, and I shall return further to address
this below. But at the outset of the hearing, after having been given, and taken, the opportunity to read the papers in the case, I pointed out to the parties that what is set out above appeared to me to constitute the clearest possible warranty that the agreement was regulated, such that, given that it was not regulated, the Claimant was in breach of that warranty. The loss suffered would thus be the sums which the Defendants would have received had it been a regulated agreement, namely the same payments as were made to those who actually had regulated agreements, referred to in paragraph 6 above. This case did not appear in the pleadings or in the skeleton arguments for either party. While reserving his client’s position as to this analysis, which seems to me to be difficult if not impossible to resist, Mr Waters pointed out that any claims for breach of warranty would, given that the warranties would have been breached, in every case, prior to 6 April 2008, and in many or most cases considerably earlier, all be statute barred (save in the case of a claimant under a relevant disability at a material time) and he had no instructions to waive such limitation defence. The consequence is, on the Claimant’s case, that the statements or assurances given in the documents set out above are of no legal effect.

In laymans terms, before both parties started putting their arguements across the Judge said "surely the fact that these agreements are so wrong wouldn't another arguement be that they all these loans are completley unenforcable?" but, since NRAM were taking themselves to court they didnt want to argue that! I wonder why!

The statement Rich Banks made that no-one had suffered financial loss is serious spin. Also, I must ask, if the Judge had ruled for NRAM would you be happy living in a world where banks can get away with lying repeatedly, over a period of many years and get away scot free? You probably would.

NorthernRockNewbie

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Thanks so much for flagging up the news story link fermi, great stuff

NorthernRocknewbie, I've passed your post onto the News team. If they think it's needed someone will get in touch with you

Well if they want copies of the documents which will put some meat on the bones of this story (and raise some really, really serious questions of NRAM) then they will have to call me...I'm one of the only people in the country to have copies!!!

carlyberyl

If you're not affected by this then I and I'm sure plenty of others may feel your comment is invalid. Nram knew they were in the wrong and the judge has confirmed. End of.

TriathNanEilean

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

If anyone gets compo it will be scandalous.

I repeat - you have suffered no monetary loss at all. Any legal action was presumably because you weren't paying. Nothing to do with the documentation being incorrect for the loan you took out.

That's the point here - you all took out the loans, they were all over £25k, they weren't and couldn't be regulated. It made absolutely no difference to you at all.

Disgusting.

Not a bad effort but I think you've forgotten the time of year. You should have ended with "Humbug!" and kicked a crippled orphan on the way out.

Lippyx

I bet if HP got a nice cheque in the post it won't be sent back with a letter saying how its all wrong, and NR can keep the money.... XX at the end!!

Lippyx

People who had loans under 25k all got a pay-out due to NR not playing by the rules... did they jump on the bandwagon too then? The only reason why we were excluded was because of this CCA flaw... which is why we are where we are.

carlyberyl

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I think you're all ignoring the point here.

Yes - they have made a mistake on the paperwork.....
.... but that's it. Not one of you has lost out financially as a result of this.

I am affected by this as indirectly I will be funding any pay out along with other tax payers too. I sincerely hope that an appeal sees more sense.

Really this is the worst case of compo bandwagon jumping I have seen for a while.

Be ashamed, all of you. Truly disgraceful.

We have lost out financially as nram have paid out to those under £25k, we should have been treated equally.
And for the record, the majority of us are taxpayers so I believe we're refunding ourselves!

dc1777

I love the way there are so many experts on other peoples affairs. For those who quote the "small print" argument. To clarify, I sat with one or the largest lenders who clearly stated verbally and on all paperwork that I as a consumer was protected buy a statute piece of legislation in the consumer credit act. When they are then found to be contravening the act they look for a "loophole" and tell me, "you should have read the small print" Now the boot is on the other foot. This is not a bandwagon but just reward for having the misfortune of having to deal with an irrational nationalised organisation.

Hanky_Panky

It's only a flaw because you weren't given the correct documentation in the first place - you can't, despite everyone's drivelling, suddenly become a loan less than £25k and therefore qualify for any rebate. You didn't qualify in the first place - you can't be 'put back into a position' you couldn't be in anyway.