MSE News: Northern Rock falsely told borrowers they had legal protection

Former_MSE_Darryl

"Many Northern Rock customers have discovered their loans are not protected by the Consumer Credit Act (CCA), despite having documents which say they're covered...."

Read the full story:

[URL="http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2012/12/further-customers-call-for-northern-rock-compensation'[/URL]

downhiller

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2012/12/further-customers-call-for-northern-rock-compensation

Good to see awareness of the issue being raised. Still no response from NRAM to my complaint

Fizzy_Fish

+1

I sent my complaint in to NRAM today. Totally not on to change the terms of the contract in this way.

Are the law firm who MSE spoke to for the article able to clarify what constitutes a variation in the agreement? As is also the case for other borrowers, I had my loan interest rate significantly increased when I moved the mortgage elsewhere. There was a clause in the initial agreement that allowed this, but could it still be considered a variation?

aarjay777

Fizzy Fish makes an excellent point.

Northern Rock impose significant rate increases for those borrowers who decide to move their main mortgage account elsewhere.

Fair play, no grievances here, that's what we all signed up to.

You read the contract, accept the terms and conditions and you take the increase in payments based on the terms and conditions of your original agreement.

When the consumer gets it wrong we are told, the devils in the detail.

"The principle of caveat emptor - let the buyer beware".

The terms and conditions of the contract were drawn up by Northern Rock and signed by both parties at the outset.

If Northern Rock are able to insist their terms and conditions are legally enforceable, then surely we are afforded the same rights as per the contract drawn up by the Northern Rock.

We have contracts confirming we have protection under the CCA.

Northern Rock are in direct breach of the CCA by providing misleading and inaccurate information to their borrowers.

They wrote these contracts which would have involved their legal departments double checking the validity of the terms and conditions being imposed upon their borrowers.

They are legally responsible for the terms and accuracy of the contracts they are offering their borrowers.

If I wrote a legal agreement with a friend which I later found to be enforceable, I think most would tell me I should have sought proper legal advice.

If I wrote a DIY Will and made a mistake with the wording, my estate and beneficiaries would be challenged in a court of law and no doubt my Will would be invalid because it was drafted incorrectly.

Again, I should have sought proper legal advice.

If the contract is invalid, then this responsibility lies solely with the Northern Rock and their legal advisers.

I think it is now time to seek proper legal advice.

Speak to your household insurers Legal Expenses department folks.

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

Kerching! So another big government economic stimulus payout thanks to Northern Rock.

grey_gym_sock

IANAL, but i would think that, if NR try to deny you a right in relation to 1 of these loans, which you would have had for a loan regulated by the CCA, then you would have a good legal case that they are estopped from denying you that right.

RICESNEEZING

Im not a legal expert but is the issue not that we all have a void contract. Doing a quick google search I found out that if there is a mutual mistake in the contract then it is either void or voidable depending on the gravity of the mistake. There was also something about it being void if it is legaly impossible to perform, ie be covered under CCA when over £25k which is impossible. I think the onus would have been on them to have more of a duty of care to get the contract right as they are deemed to be experts in that area. If this is the case I think they may be entitled to the loan back and we are entitled to all of the payments we have made under it and maybe plus some compensation for their neglgence, just pondering. In my case, for a loan of £27k which has been on 13% for 2.5 years my outstanding loan would almost halved if the payments to date were deemed to be repaying the principal.

aarjay777

Northern Rock have already been to court on this issue of whether the loans are regulated or unregulated.

The judge found the agreements to be regulated as they were signed on regulated paperwork.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?178390-Credit-Agreements-over-25k-Pre-April-2008

There is a lot of useful info at this site which may well open up an even bigger can of worms.

fundingthefools

Such a none issue will be stirred up by the lawyers and the likes of Mr Lewis all at the expense of tax payers. No one has suffered any harm but energy & money will be wasted until people get their compo. Meanwhile services will be cut and people will loose jobs. This site is a valuable source of information to many but ultimately we will be no better off. All this compensation for people who spent, borrowed and blew it, is a stealth transfer of wealth from savers to the fools. If the Tory government feel this is good use of my taxes then it is time I joined Starbucks and the frivolous and stopped paying it. If you genuinely suffered as a result then it is maybe is right that you are compensated but for the vast majority who received the money they asked to borrow and paid the interest they agreed to and were oblivious to a clerical error on a letter they probably never read and to those who borrowed more than £25k and wouldn't know or care what the CCA is or was, then feel free to pick my pocket you are little better than the rest.....

downhiller

Bitter much?

geoffky

fundingthefools wrote: »

Such a none issue will be stirred up by the lawyers and the likes of Mr Lewis all at the expense of tax payers. No one has suffered any harm but energy & money will be wasted until people get their compo. Meanwhile services will be cut and people will loose jobs. This site is a valuable source of information to many but ultimately we will be no better off. All this compensation for people who spent, borrowed and blew it, is a stealth transfer of wealth from savers to the fools. If the Tory government feel this is good use of my taxes then it is time I joined Starbucks and the frivolous and stopped paying it. If you genuinely suffered as a result then it is maybe is right that you are compensated but for the vast majority who received the money they asked to borrow and paid the interest they agreed to and were oblivious to a clerical error on a letter they probably never read and to those who borrowed more than £25k and wouldn't know or care what the CCA is or was, then feel free to pick my pocket you are little better than the rest.....

I have one thing to say "The bankers have stolen £1 trillion pounds to date from the people for their bailouts" Who are the crooks?