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

jonesMUFCforever

geoffky wrote: »

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?

Stolen ???? or borrowed???????/
Get some facts to go with your stories.

geoffky

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

Stolen ???? or borrowed???????/
Get some facts to go with your stories.

I really hope you are not stupid enought to not understand that it will never be paid back..Or do you think they just print it and that is it....Oh dear...:T

jonesMUFCforever

Of course it will be paid back or RBS and LLoyds will have to go bust. They owe a substantial part of the business - it might take a long time but the Government is free to do what it wishes with the shares it has with these two banks.
LTSB is up 100% this year and a similar 2/3 years would put the Government into profit on the deal (74p break even to be precise).

opinions4u

geoffky wrote: »

I really hope you are not stupid enought to not understand that it will never be paid back..Or do you think they just print it and that is it....Oh dear...:T

Well a decent chunk has been repaid.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9244389/RBS-set-to-pay-back-last-of-163bn-loan-from-taxpayer.html

geoffky

Banks are having money thrown at them at the lowest ever rate ever and yet they still have not been recapitalised and if they priced the assets at market prices they would be bust.
The public are being conned about the extent of it all..
have a read of this and tell me we are in a good position

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/9321796/UK-and-Europe-languish-in-a-zombie-bank-malaise.html

Full disclosure and bank transparency has yet to happen..

neas

Must admit for 99.99% of people 'complaining' this will simply be a case of jumping on the bandwagon of the <25k compo.

I saw someones letter saying "I only took out your loan as it was protected by CCA".

I know its for a claim but what codswallop most people only took out a loan because they wanted to get on the housing ladder with no deposit and overborrow to do a place up the "I want it now" crowd.

Its funny when claims r us starts. Not saying I wouldn't do it but some of the peeps on this site must honestly believe what they saying or something :P

claret_mike

I think what people have said is that they would have asked further questions if they had been told it was unregulated etc. People may have borrowed 25k or less if that had been the case and increased the secured amount for example.

They may have still proceeded also but thats fair enough if they clearly knew what they were taking on.

When will people start to realise that these companies need regulation for a reason. When people want to exercise their rights which this regulation affords them then people will take this right.

You admit that you would possibly make a claim in our position so I am a lite unsure what point you are looking to make?

downhiller

claret_mike wrote: »

You admit that you would possibly make a claim in our position so I am a lite unsure what point you are looking to make?

neas

claret_mike wrote: »

I think what people have said is that they would have asked further questions if they had been told it was unregulated etc. People may have borrowed 25k or less if that had been the case and increased the secured amount for example.

They may have still proceeded also but thats fair enough if they clearly knew what they were taking on.

When will people start to realise that these companies need regulation for a reason. When people want to exercise their rights which this regulation affords them then people will take this right.

You admit that you would possibly make a claim in our position so I am a lite unsure what point you are looking to make?

I admit i'd do the same as i'm not going to bs like the original poster :P. Just saying its BS. Even if it was unregulated people were desperate to get on ladder so would#ve took it anyways.

Naf

The only relevant fact is this: regulated or not, has there been any financial loss on the customer's part compared to them taking the same loan at the same rate elsewhere. In the vast majority of cases this answer must be no: the customer got what they signed for, a substantial loan at an agreed interest rate. It's utter codswallop to suggest they took it because they believed it was regulated; they took it because they could, and would still have taken it if they hadn't believed it was regulated. It's not like the same loan with another bank would have been regulated either.