Northern rock loan over £25,000

claret_mike

I just happened to check back last week and have been reading through the thread. I am surprised that I missed this in the press back in December.

Downhiller, I think you may not be quite on point to be fair. All this is saying is that unless NRAM lodge a successful appeal then our loans should be treated as a CCA regulated loan and therefore we receive the same rights as those who have had refunds for the period of non-compliance. I don't think there is anything more to it.

I have just taken the view that it will be another 18 months before anything happens and it still could be appealed successfully. Its all very interesting though!

liam12779

Anyone received any more from NRAM after complaining?
I got another letter this morning saying they were sorry they haven't been able to deal with my complaint and that they would be in touch with me within the next 20 working days.
Maybe waiting for a decision???

jimbo5661

I got the same letter a week or so ago. Just a stall I reckon!

Lippyx

So I got a letter yesterday from the guy dealing with my complaint. Firstly it says about the court hearing and how the judge ruled that NR are to treat my loan as though it was regulated by CCA?? Not really sure what this means, as I thought the judge had ruled they were breach of contract??
He then goes on to say they are still going through the appeal process and for me to continue paying what I am paying each month.


He then says I have no complaint regarding the my loan being unregulated and me being mis-sold the loan as I have not proven that I was "induced" into signing the contract.


Now I cannot show I was forced into signing it, but surely the fact it was sold as regulated when it wasn't shows that I could have made a different decision if I had known.

e.scrooge

Helpful guidance on the Misrepresentation Act 1967 appears on the following Which page:

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967

As for being "induced" into signing the contract I do not believe you have to be "forced". The definition of induced in the Oxford Dictionary is to "Succeed in persuading or leading (someone) to do something". The Which guidance would appear to agree.

It seems to me that either (i) the appeal (if it goes ahead) fails, in which case we will all be given the rights and remedies expected under the CCA - we then can't claim misrepresentation because we will (ultimately) be given everything we were led to believe we would receive or (ii) the appeal succeeds in which case we will not receive what we were promised and thus would seem to have a good case for misrepresentation.

It perhaps wouldn't hurt, whilst NRAM is considering appeal, if we each wrote to them and explained that this is how we see our legal position and if the appeal goes ahead and succeeds we intend to proceed with a case for misrepresentation.

Lippyx

Thanks for the info! I will use some of what you said in my reply to NRAM if you don't mind!

Fizzy_Fish

Agree that we should in theory have grounds for misrepresentation. But I reckon NRAM will happily take their chances by pursuing the appeal - knowing that none of us really have the money to take them to court on a misrepresentation case, and even if we did they probably wouldn't have to pay out the amount that they're looking at right now.

It sucks as they have blatantly lied on documentation, and the FOS seems not in the least bit bothered, and hasn't even made NRAM clarify what they believe the terms of our contracts are in (since they are apparently not CCA regulated in their eyes)

Really can't believe that seems to be acceptable and the Govt is totally on their side about it (and are STILL defending NRAM in their letters to us!) - but then they are hardly impartial in this are they?!

So keeping fingers crossed that the Dec judgement is upheld and the appeal turned down...

NorthernRockVictim

The FOS, OFT and all the other so called 'fair' appeal and reporting bodies are no more than a bunch of lazy parasites, who will always seek the easy option i.e. do nothing wherever possible. I had an experience some years ago where my wife's business was almost closed down because her main supplier closed her account without reason and notice. We managed to prove beyond doubt that they were price fixing as her business was selling their products at very keen prices. They were always paid on time or early and it was a very healthy account for the supplier. Local MP got involved which rattled their cage so much that we had seriously rude letter from the CEO. They are entirely unaccountable which is the main issue with the NRAM affair, the judge proved that the FOS opinion was incorrect but there is no redress for their incompetence and arrogance.

Lippyx

It all gets so exhausting, and the thought of having to write yet another letter to the idiots at NRAM, showing them how they are in the wrong just fills me with dread! All they keep saying is "FOS have said there is no case and that's final"... well what about what the judge said!!!?


Its like giving a piece of coal and telling them its black, and all they do is say "no, its white" and no matter how hard to explain it, they will not listen!! GGRRR!!


Well, better get my pen and pad warmed up and start drafting this letter!!

fraaaaanka

It all appears very simple and straightforward to me:

• If NRAM are successful at appeal in stating that CCA regulation does not apply on loans >£25k we do not receive the redress.
• Which means if CCA regulation does not apply on loans >£25k we were mis-sold a loan product by it being presented as CCA Regulated
• We then take NRAM to court for mis-selling and as the court has already ruled that CCA regulation does not apply there are only 3 possible outcomes:

1. The court states that as a consumer its your bad luck and youi should have been aware that loans >£25k are not CCA Regulated therefore the loan stands and it will continue as a non-regulated loan (NEVER gonna happen in my opinion as that would open the floodgates for future lenders of all types of unregulated loans to portray their facilities as regulated when they are not)
2. The court orders the loan as mis-sold and orders that although the principal balance that was lent stands the interest is not (so we will all get a refund on ALL interest throughout the entire loan term and no interest would be payable on the unsecured part so if the refunded interest does not clear the principal balance any future payments would be 100% utilised to reduce the principal)
3. The court orders the loan as mis-sold so the principal balance is to be annulled and all payments made refunded.

Because of the above I believe that NRAM will simply not follow through with the appeal, they will admit that the loans are CCA regulated and provide the redress from 2008 - 2012 non compliance.
I think that the appeal process is simply a delaying tactic to allow them to get their shizzle together and importantly allow them to announce they have decided to give redress to >£25k customers (rather than straight after the court case conceding they have lost and giving redress).

I would not be aggrieved at all if NRAM appealed and won as I would be pursuing NRAM for 'Option 3'

Its all very interesting isn't it, lol