Northern rock loan over £25,000

Lippyx

I wasn't going to respond to HP's pointless post but this is for you HP:


I’ll tell you how its cost me financial HP… NR dragged me through the courts and banged an attachment of earnings on me… that cost me solicitor’s fees, court fees, barrister fees and now a hefty monthly payment each month all because they decided I wasn’t paying them enough each month! I then spent more money on solicitors to get this reversed but to no avail. Then they continued to send me threatening letters saying I STILL wasn’t paying them enough, which also resulted in my credit rating plummeting. They eventually realised their system was wrong and I was paying them £100 TOO MUCH each month, but because of the AOE I have to keep paying them too much each month.


In the meantime my ex-partner, who kindly left me with this debt gets off scott free due to being self-employed and NRAM cannot force him to pay anything.


So in answer to your question, I think I am entitled to sit on the “compo wagon” due to the monies I have lost over the years, including the interest they wacked up when my ex re-mortgaged and conveniently forgot to pay this loan off, and the stress and upset they have caused me due to their utter incompetence!!

e.scrooge

Lippyx - I agree completely. You have every right!

liam12779

Very well put. Logical and simple explanation
Id be happy with number 2 (3 would be better but cant see it getting to that) and believe you are right, they need to sort themsevles out before they admit their mistakes, fingers crosses will be sometime in the next 3 months

NorthernRockVictim

I'm amazed that this hasn't made National TV news yet, that I belive is their biggest worry. Exposure of incompetence and failure of the NRAM Directors to comply with straightforward contractual legislation.

claret_mike

I think anyone hoping for 2 or 3 is really highly unlikely.

They are only testing to see whether the agreements should afford the same rights as those under with £25k or less. The best I think anyone can hope for is a refund of interest whilst agreements were not in line with the CCA.

There is no case which is asking whether they should have to go above and beyond treating us as they have the sub £25k customers

IainHL

Very well put fraaaaanka, what you are saying seems very straightforward and logical.


However, it seems to be the case that where legislation, law and the courts are concerned logic is not always particularly evident!

NorthernRockVictim

Law is exactly that, this entire affair will not be influenced by logic, purely by the interpretation of English Law which applies to this case.

fraaaaanka

claret_mike wrote: »

I think anyone hoping for 2 or 3 is really highly unlikely.

They are only testing to see whether the agreements should afford the same rights as those under with £25k or less. The best I think anyone can hope for is a refund of interest whilst agreements were not in line with the CCA.

There is no case which is asking whether they should have to go above and beyond treating us as they have the sub £25k customers

I beg to differ Claret Mike, I suggest the LEAST anyone can hope for is a refund of interest whilst agreements were not in line with the CCA because if they do not give the redress it opens up a whole new can of worms involving a major mis-selling scandal whereby consumers were lied to and advised they were taking a CCA regulated loan when in fact CCA regulation did not and will not apply.

NRAM need to decide:

• Are they going to accept whether they accept whether CCA Regulation applies on loans >£25k (as the court has already done)
• If yes they must give the redress
• If no they must appeal
• If the appeal is upheld and the court agrees that the CCA regulation does not apply we then have the mis-selling scandal to address.

NorthernRockVictim

fraaaaanka wrote: »

• If the appeal is upheld and the court agrees that the CCA regulation does not apply we then have the mis-selling scandal to address.

I couldn't agree with you more, however how would that be enforced? They have thus far funded their own and the defendant's costs, and it took us two years to achieve that. They would have already taken into consideration that whilst we are group of mis-sold victims, it is not realistic for us to collectively fund proceedings, not due to affordability but the mere fact that momentum for mass funding would be very complex logistically.

fraaaaanka

NorthernRockVictim wrote: »

I couldn't agree with you more, however how would that be enforced? They have thus far funded their own and the defendant's costs, and it took us two years to achieve that. They would have already taken into consideration that whilst we are group of mis-sold victims, it is not realistic for us to collectively fund proceedings, not due to affordability but the mere fact that momentum for mass funding would be very complex logistically.

If it is ultimately ruled the CCA does not apply I imagine it means the financial ombudsman would be forced to step in at that point as they are there to protect consumers against lenders mis-selling and mis-representing non CCA regulated loans as CCA regulated.