Northern rock loan over £25,000

claret_mike

Well, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree Fraaaaanka; but that is what makes the world go around.

Ultimately, the fact that the complaints have been that people took these loans out on the basis that we thought they were regulated loans. This is all this court case is about - whether or not we should be afforded the same protection.

To claim mis-sale is a tricky one as some of these would have been taken with no advice whatsoever. Some were taken with advice given and if they were mis-sold, that is not NRAMs issue. It is an issue for the adviser who sold it. There may be a small % of people who received advice from NR but these will be the minority I am guessing.

Regardless of which, all that would happen if mis-selling could be proved would be that you should be put back in the position you would have been had the mis-selling not have occurred. Therefore, you are afforded the same rights as a protected CCA loan. No more, no less.

I do get the impression some people are looking for all their problems to be solved by this but I just cannot see there being any further recourse happening over and above that which has been given to the sub £25k customers.

If NRAM do successfully appeal then good luck in proving mis-selling because the whole court case will have just back up NRAMs case which they wll just quote to you if you try and claim. Unless you have the means to launch a legal challenge or the ability to test another point of law then I think the fight will definitely be over at that point.

NorthernRockVictim

claret_mike - I was one of the non financial adviser loan takers, and the way in which this product was aggressively marketed would suggest to me that I'm far from being an isolated case.

It would be impossible for NRAM to put us back in the position that we would have been because that time has passed, and they therefore can't put us back in the position of CCA protection retrospectively.

fraaaaanka

WOW Mike, just WOW.... you either work for NRAM or do not understand the situation?

claret_mike wrote: »

To claim mis-sale is a tricky one as some of these would have been taken with no advice whatsoever. Some were taken with advice given and if they were mis-sold, that is not NRAMs issue. It is an issue for the adviser who sold it. There may be a small % of people who received advice from NR but these will be the minority I am guessing.

The advisor who sold it was given documents stating CCA Regulated Loan by Northern Rock, therefore the advisor would have assumed the agreement was being afforded the rights under CCA and sold it as such. Northern Rock should not have provided advisers with paperwork stating the loan is CCA Regulated when it wasn't

claret_mike wrote: »

Regardless of which, all that would happen if mis-selling could be proved would be that you should be put back in the position you would have been had the mis-selling not have occurred. Therefore, you are afforded the same rights as a protected CCA loan. No more, no less.

If a mis-selling case is proven it would be on the basis that NRAM appealed and were successful at proving the loans are not CCA Regulated.
If the loans are not CCA regulated there is a mis-selling case to be answered
If a mis-selling case is put forward and won by victims of Northern Rock then NRAM cannot then turn around and say "actually we have now decided to afford CCA Regulation to >£25k loans and give the 2008 -2012 redress" they must at minimum refund all interest on the 'unsecured' part of the lend with all future 'unsecured' payments used to pay down the balance

claret_mike wrote: »

If NRAM do successfully appeal then good luck in proving mis-selling because the whole court case will have just back up NRAMs case which they wll just quote to you if you try and claim. Unless you have the means to launch a legal challenge or the ability to test another point of law then I think the fight will definitely be over at that point.

If NRAM appeal and win they (and we) will have a judgement that says the >£25k loans are not afforded CCA Regulation, nothing more, nothing less
We took the loan because we thought it was CCA Regulated
The loan was mis-sold

claret_mike

NorthernRockVictim wrote: »

claret_mike - I was one of the non financial adviser loan takers, and the way in which this product was aggressively marketed would suggest to me that I'm far from being an isolated case.

It would be impossible for NRAM to put us back in the position that we would have been because that time has passed, and they therefore can't put us back in the position of CCA protection retrospectively.

Why is it impossible for them to put us back in the position retrospectively. They have admitted failure to comply with the CCA on their paperwork so have refunded at a cost to the taxpayer to put things right. They have set aside a pot of money to potentially do this for us all if they appeal and lose or decide to not appeal.

I'm not sure how you can say they cannot put us back in a position based on this? I think proving that they forced you into this agreement will be tough to prove.

fraaaaanka wrote: »

WOW Mike, just WOW.... you either work for NRAM or do not understand the situation?

I can confirm that I do not work for NRAM and I think I have a clear understanding of the position - just because it seems distorted to your own perception, it doesn't mean it is wrong.

The advisor who sold it was given documents stating CCA Regulated Loan by Northern Rock, therefore the advisor would have assumed the agreement was being afforded the rights under CCA and sold it as such. Northern Rock should not have provided advisers with paperwork stating the loan is CCA Regulated when it wasn't

If an Adviser sold it then it is them that you would complain to for being mis-sold. It would be down to the Adviser to then take it up with NRAM. I don't think Advisers would have necessarily picked up on this aspect, so I think it would be unfair to blame an adviser for this too as they would have expected a national lender to have their paperwork in order - however if you make a complaint of mis-selling then NRAM have every right to say they did not sell this to you and therefore have no requirement to deal with your complaint.

If a mis-selling case is proven it would be on the basis that NRAM appealed and were successful at proving the loans are not CCA Regulated.
If the loans are not CCA regulated there is a mis-selling case to be answered
If a mis-selling case is put forward and won by victims of Northern Rock then NRAM cannot then turn around and say "actually we have now decided to afford CCA Regulation to >£25k loans and give the 2008 -2012 redress" they must at minimum refund all interest on the 'unsecured' part of the lend with all future 'unsecured' payments used to pay down the balance

If NRAM appeal and win they (and we) will have a judgement that says the >£25k loans are not afforded CCA Regulation, nothing more, nothing less
We took the loan because we thought it was CCA Regulated
The loan was mis-sold

Lots of IF statements there, which is quite key. If this or that happened - why not just deal in the facts?.

The facts are that the case being made is not to say that the loans have been mis-sold. The case is to determine how NRAM deal with us as clients to avoid someone else taking them to court.

In simple terms, the Judge has concluded that NRAM should class us as borrowers who should be afforded the same rights as those who borrowed within the regulated amounts at that time. NRAM are now in a position of considering whether to appeal against that decision.

There is absolutely nothing I have read in the judgement that would indicate that there is any intention of doing any more than simply affording us the refund of around £6k for interest payments that should not have been made whilst NRAM were not in compliance with the CCA.

To look for anything more, it would require someone else to take them to court for this to be decided and if you are reading any differently, then I look forward to something more tangible than opinion. I can happily link to a number of articles which explain the potential fall out of this decision and not one talks about writing off more than is absolutely necessary than to be compliant with the CCA.

I understand that NR/NRAM have put a lot of pressure and stress on peoples lives with the way they have acted with people who have struggled with payments etc but this case has nothing to do with what has happened or why it happened - it is purely about gaining something to tell them how to deal with these clients.

I suspect (now moving away from fact) that with all the media coverage, hard work of people on these forums etc that they have been advised to seek clarification for the tax payer and that is why this has happened and they have in essence taken themselves to court.

NorthernRockVictim

claret_mike wrote: »

Why is it impossible for them to put us back in the position retrospectively. They have admitted failure to comply with the CCA on their paperwork so have refunded at a cost to the taxpayer to put things right. They have set aside a pot of money to potentially do this for us all if they appeal and lose or decide to not appeal.

I'm not sure how you can say they cannot put us back in a position based on this? I think proving that they forced you into this agreement will be tough to prove.

The point that I was making is that unlike the 2008 -2012 redress, mis-selling a loan with CCA protection simply can't be undone, most of us have lived with a loan for many years which we thought was protected. So, if the appeal is permitted and subsequently successful then as fraaaaanka has said before, that in itself is an admission of mis-selling, therefore the only logical outcome would be a refund of ALL interest paid from date of loan inception.

Quite how that could be enforced logistically I have no idea, but that is the law how I view it.

Fizzy_Fish

IainHL wrote: »

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!

+1

And that also applies to the idea of the Government/Financial Ombudsman being some sort of consumer champion who will put right the wrongs of NRAM (and others)

Sadly the logical/common sense/fair approach seems to often be lacking where such matters are concerned!

claret_mike

Again, I will state there has been no mis-selling here - nor is the court case dealing with that. No matter how hard you want to believe this.

I think you are trying to say that NRAM have misrepresented the contract and therefore should be answerable to this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation

However, these loans have not been mis-sold and to prove mis-representation, you will need to prove that had the loans been made clear that they were not afforded the protection of the CCA then you would not have entered. You could attempt to take NRAM to court for this now if you had the means/inclination to do so. However, this case will not provide a cast iron answer as that is not the point of law that is being argued here.

I am in this with everyone else but please do not try to give out hope that there may be more to this than there actually is at this moment in time, which if you are not careful, this speculation could easily do

NorthernRockVictim

claret_mike wrote: »

Some were taken with advice given and if they were mis-sold, that is not NRAMs issue. It is an issue for the adviser who sold it. There may be a small % of people who received advice from NR but these will be the minority I am guessing.

You seem to have changed your viewpoint, what you are inferring above is that the responsibility of mis-selling lies with the financial adviser, be it an independent or Northern Rock.

claret_mike wrote: »

However, these loans have not been mis-sold and to prove mis-representation, you will need to prove that had the loans been made clear that they were not afforded the protection of the CCA then you would not have entered. You could attempt to take NRAM to court for this now if you had the means/inclination to do so. However, this case will not provide a cast iron answer as that is not the point of law that is being argued here.

Now you are saying that the loans were not mis-sold.

Nobody here is trying to build hopes up, look back to when this thread started, it seemed that redress was impossible, but through grit and determination, especially the relentless efforts of our representative and the Defendant in this case, there is now some light at the end of the tunnel.

IMHO - The leave to appeal will not be granted.

claret_mike

Let me be perfectly clear - My view has not changed.

1. NR have misrepresented the loan and I am not happy with that.
2. NR broke a number of the FCA rules in terms of not communicating in a clear and fair way which was not misleading being one of them. Treating Customers Fairly was another.

My understanding of what has gone on would believe me to the fact that it is mis-representation of contract rather than mis-selling.

Mis-selling to me would mean that for example, giving me a product which was not suitable to my needs, would not give me benefit. An example may be life cover when someone has no debts or dependents. PPI for self employed or with someone with existing medical conditions.

The fact that mortgages were accepted by all of us, would lead me to believe that the products were suitable for each one of us based on the fact that no one is claiming that there was anything wrong with what they had other than we now know its not a regulated loan. Therefore, the product was sutiable, however, some may have only borrowed £25k rather than £30k if this aspect had been made clear.

Therefore I feel quite confident that NR have only mis-represented these loans (which is no small issue in itself) but they have not been mis-sold.

Ultimately, this debate was started because of the belief that this court case would lead to more than return of interest whilst the loans have been in default. If we see anything more from this at the end, then I will quite happily accept that I was wrong but I am still not sure why anyone believes there will be anything further than this from these proceedings is beyond me.

The defendent in this case is an employee of NRAM - they have taken themselves to court. It is not some knight in shining armour here - as far as I have understood it. They are testing this to avoid a number of different court cases and as they are owned by the tax payer, I believe that they will have to ensure that there is no political fallout with prolonged bad publicity. In fact, would not be surprised if they have delayed the decision not to appeal just so it cannot be used in the electioneering up to this years general election.

fraaaaanka

claret_mike wrote: »

Again, I will state there has been no mis-selling here - nor is the court case dealing with that. No matter how hard you want to believe this.

I 100% agree there has been no mis-selling IF NRAM afford the >£25k loans CCA status AND refund interest for the period of non-compliance between 2008 - 2012