Northern rock loan over £25,000

yumphla

Took out a Together Mortgage in 2005, with unsecured element. Got a letter yesterday from NRAM saying I may be entitled to redress. Checked statement from Oct 11, and unsecured element was still over 26k, so obviously (maybe not???) original loan was for over 25k. Can't find original paperwork. Thought I wouldn't get a letter if amount of loan was over 25k; or does the fact I got this letter stating that they are looking into it, and that only loans under 25k are covered mean that I am automatically ruled out, if original loan was for over 25k??? Confused

ILW

So if NR just say we will give equal levels of protection to CCA standard on loans over £25k, would that not be the end of it?

claret_mike

I think the overall concerns on this topic is understanding what protection we all have. Is the loan CCA or is it not.

I can't speak for everyone on here but I have just found my last statement and it did not have the prescribed information on it so if they were to to deal with me as I was a CCA customer, I would be satisfied because that is what I thought I had.

If they decide that my loan is not regulated and therefore I am not afforded the same protection then I will want to take it further to understand how this affects me and see where that takes me.

I would be more than happy if they were to say that it was regulated and we are therefore applying the same rules etc. I at no time have had any complaints or issues with NR or the together mortgage overall but if I find out that they have mis-led me and I am not afforded the same protection then I will have issue.

Is it not understandable for people to want clarity on what protection they have or not...

ILW

claret_mike wrote: »

I think the overall concerns on this topic is understanding what protection we all have. Is the loan CCA or is it not.

I can't speak for everyone on here but I have just found my last statement and it did not have the prescribed information on it so if they were to to deal with me as I was a CCA customer, I would be satisfied because that is what I thought I had.

If they decide that my loan is not regulated and therefore I am not afforded the same protection then I will want to take it further to understand how this affects me and see where that takes me.

I would be more than happy if they were to say that it was regulated and we are therefore applying the same rules etc. I at no time have had any complaints or issues with NR or the together mortgage overall but if I find out that they have mis-led me and I am not afforded the same protection then I will have issue.

Is it not understandable for people to want clarity on what protection they have or not...

i gt the impression that quite a few are hoping to get the loans written off.

GhIFA

ILW wrote: »

i gt the impression that quite a few are hoping to get the loans written off.

On what basis??

claret_mike

That's not the case for me. As I said, I can't speak for all.

I just want fairness to apply and to know where I stand. I am either afforded the same protection because the paperwork I have lead me to believe that I was protected or I am not.

If I am -treat me the exact same way as everyone else with the protected rights of the CCA.

If I am not then I will put in a formal complaint and I will go to the FOS if need be. If the FOS will not look at it then I will have to see what my other options are.. Simple as but as I am currently in front with payments etc and can maintain payments no problem, I am more than happy to challenge and know that they cannot threaten my home etc.

ILW

GhIFA wrote: »

On what basis??

No idea, but is is quite fashionable at the moment.
Just look at post 2 on this thread.

claret_mike

Post 2 is pretty much what I am saying.

If they are not going to apply a fairness rule in that they led people to believe that they were protected when they were not then action needs to be taken as the product was not as described - i.e. mis-sold.

Up to now it could have been argued that no financial loss or detriment had occurred on the basis that we have been afforded the same administration of the loans as CCA regulated loans (regular statements and even letters explaining that they have to send separate copies to joint borrowers etc) so in that sense there could be a valid argument that no loss has been suffered previously.

I am hopeful that now this has come to light and the topic is more in the public light, someone will have the common sense to say we have to make a decision on this and that my viewpoint will be concurred by the powers that be.

PPI mis-selling, Endowment mis-selling have all been about putting the customer back in the position before the error/issue occurred. I see this as no different.

jimbo5661

People surely aren't being serious in suggesting they want loans written off...

People just want to be treated fairly. If their loan was sold to them as CCA regulated / protected then it should be treated as such and any redress afforded to those loans under 25k should apply to those over (as long as the error applies) if not they have a reasonable shout to know why the loan/s they were sold to them as protected were not! (Human nature is to request financial remuneration) especially when they feel aggrieved by being trapped to high SVR (this didn't always fall when the BOE rate fell and they received a special rate reduction which is less than the loyalty rate discount!)

For some reason this seems to annoy certain forum Members on here who no doubt complained that PPI shouldn't have been an issue (read the small print it's all there they shouted!) and I'd imagine were against the endowment repayments too...

jimbo5661

Further to above, if the IFA's explained the products they sell including the fees / charges / potential pitfalls rather than just get their customers to sign here, here and here then (with quick proc fees in mind) then I'm sure many of the people here would have thought twice about entering into and buying many of their financial products!