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

grinch76

I received a letter from NRAM just before Christmas highlighting the issues with the protection or lack of it on my loan. Since then, I have heard nothing further. I can see that it says that they have already paid out, does that mean I've lost it or am not entitled to it??? Sorry for sounding so dim, totally new to all this. Do I need to send a complaint? Reading the article on 11th December 2012 I was of the understanding it would be an automatic action by NRAM:(

mrsvanderkamp_2

I am not sure why there is such an aversion to individuals seeking redress on this matter.

Those who took loans under £25K are receiving refunds of interest due to "incorrect paperwork". These customers have not faced any financial loss as a result of this issue, but the consensus seems to be that they are entitled to their interest.

On the other hand, many people who had these loans (both over and under £25k) HAVE suffered a financial loss irrespective of correct/incorrect paperwork. The reason I say this, is because many people (like myself) have been taken to court by Northern Rock who have subsequently obtained Judgments and Charging Orders, based upon the argument that an agreement under the CCA1974 existed. Clearly in the case of loans over £25k this is not the case.

The point made that this issue has already been tested in the courts, is not I am sure completely correct (or if it is it needs to be challenged) Judges cannot overrule Statute - it is up to them to decides if such statute can be enforced. I daresay that a Judge may have found that a debtor was liable to pay under an agreement regulated or not, on the basis that an offer of a loan was made and accepted and therefore a contract existed BUT a Judge cannot re-write the rules on the CCA 1974 and state that it DOES cover loans written over £25K when the law quite clearly states that it does not.

The other important point to note, is that whether financial loss has been suffered or not, these loans were mis-sold on the basis that protection under the Act was offered but in law it could not exist. The financial services industry is very tightly regulated for a reason and breaches of these regulations are taken very seriously. If people are arguing that customers who took these loans are not entitled to any redress, then what is the point of having regulations in the first place? The answer is that they are there to protect the consumer and the creditor alike, but in this instance, the protection afforded to the consumer is zero, and yet the creditor is happy to rely on it in order to secure judgments and charging orders.

How is having a CCJ (you are now unable to even get a mobile phone contract for 6 years) and a Charging order on your property (this may have pushed you into negative equity and thus even without the CCJ you are therefore not in a position to move house) not evidence of suffering a financial loss? Not forgetting that the reason a lot of people got into trouble with these loans was because of the high rates of interest charged, particularly when the loans were de-linked. These hikes in interest rates were permitted under the terms of an "agreement" which was not correctly regulated or it appears, regulated at all (my paperwork quite clearly states that it is not regulated by the FSA either).

It is for these reasons that this issue needs to be taken seriously and dealt with. From my point of view, I'm happy to continue to pay the loan as I borrowed the money and fully accept that, but I would like to see my Judgment set aside and my Charging Order removed.

eyelash68

we had a nr mortgage but there was a credit card tied in with the actual mortgage to make it up to the 100%. Received a phone call last week saying we might be able to reclaim against the card and the mortgage,,,,,just wondered if this is true and is it worth persuing ,,,,company that is willing to do all the work will take 25% just wondered if there is anyone else that would do it for nothing as we dont have any paperwork or that kinda thing

Racchu

I have a loan over £25,000 taken out before 2008 with NRAM and I understand the issues being raised here (I have phoned NRAM and they are looking into my case) but one question I also have is that whilst NRAM put the paperwork together and we as consumers signed it, did we not also pay for the services of a solicitor to undertake the legal and financial aspects of the transaction? Does this not also mean that we should not only be speaking to NRAM but also asking how this got passed our solicitors (those paid to be the experts) and seeking compensation from them?

asummers

mrsvanderkamp wrote: »

I am not sure why there is such an aversion to individuals seeking redress on this matter.

Those who took loans under £25K are receiving refunds of interest due to "incorrect paperwork". These customers have not faced any financial loss as a result of this issue, but the consensus seems to be that they are entitled to their interest.

On the other hand, many people who had these loans (both over and under £25k) HAVE suffered a financial loss irrespective of correct/incorrect paperwork. The reason I say this, is because many people (like myself) have been taken to court by Northern Rock who have subsequently obtained Judgments and Charging Orders, based upon the argument that an agreement under the CCA1974 existed. Clearly in the case of loans over £25k this is not the case.

The point made that this issue has already been tested in the courts, is not I am sure completely correct (or if it is it needs to be challenged) Judges cannot overrule Statute - it is up to them to decides if such statute can be enforced. I daresay that a Judge may have found that a debtor was liable to pay under an agreement regulated or not, on the basis that an offer of a loan was made and accepted and therefore a contract existed BUT a Judge cannot re-write the rules on the CCA 1974 and state that it DOES cover loans written over £25K when the law quite clearly states that it does not.

The other important point to note, is that whether financial loss has been suffered or not, these loans were mis-sold on the basis that protection under the Act was offered but in law it could not exist. The financial services industry is very tightly regulated for a reason and breaches of these regulations are taken very seriously. If people are arguing that customers who took these loans are not entitled to any redress, then what is the point of having regulations in the first place? The answer is that they are there to protect the consumer and the creditor alike, but in this instance, the protection afforded to the consumer is zero, and yet the creditor is happy to rely on it in order to secure judgments and charging orders.

How is having a CCJ (you are now unable to even get a mobile phone contract for 6 years) and a Charging order on your property (this may have pushed you into negative equity and thus even without the CCJ you are therefore not in a position to move house) not evidence of suffering a financial loss? Not forgetting that the reason a lot of people got into trouble with these loans was because of the high rates of interest charged, particularly when the loans were de-linked. These hikes in interest rates were permitted under the terms of an "agreement" which was not correctly regulated or it appears, regulated at all (my paperwork quite clearly states that it is not regulated by the FSA either).

It is for these reasons that this issue needs to be taken seriously and dealt with. From my point of view, I'm happy to continue to pay the loan as I borrowed the money and fully accept that, but I would like to see my Judgment set aside and my Charging Order removed.

I fully understand your frustration. This happened to myself and my partner. We apparently are not entitled to any compensation because they took us to court for the same reasons as yourself.

tracy7

lennonc1 wrote: »

Similar to Ppi refunds, online loans had tick boxes for Ppi pre filled, a 'technicality' but all the same had to refund payments plus statutory interest. As NRAM have accrued interest on all our payments taken whilst in breach, it is only fair that is included. My letter before action to them will highlight this and that I would be willing to leave that additional interest if they settle by repaying all payments directly and to leave term as agreed.

This situation is totally incomparable. PPI's were in many instances mis-sold, with the sole aim of extracting additional money from people taking out loans, and which were inappropriate and/or of no benefit to the person paying for them. The resultant payout included interest because having forced these people into paying this additional amount and incurring additional costs actually resulted in a real financial loss to that person.

In my personal experience of this situation I was forced into taking out a PPI as the loan would not be agreed without it in place, this was in spite of my stating that working in the NHS I would be covered by sickness pay for a number of months should I become ill or have an accident and that my employment was unlikely to be at risk of redundancy. I successfully made a claim on this many years ago before PPI became all the rage.

I think that many people have jumped onto the bandwagon of PPI in spite of taking out this insurance to protect themselves and these are the compensation culture vultures who have created an increase in the number of opportunistic, unscrupulous claims handlers bombarding people with unsolicited text and phone calls to reclaim this cash. Well thanks to all those people we will all be subjected to an increase in costs passed on from those financial institutions whether that be fees for bank accounts, loans, credit cards or reduced interest rates or some other method. When will people understand that these financial institutions all exist to make money, otherwise what reason is there for their existence, and any losses will be recouped by other means.

In spite of various people stating that they have incurred financial loss from this technical (not deliberate or forced) error by Northern Rock this is simply untrue. This was money that you knowingly entered into an agreement to pay. Any CCJ's or fees incurred by not making payments on your mortgage were a result of your not keeping up your agreement. This could have been the result of taking out a greater financial commitment that you could not fully afford,and/or you continued to spend beyond your means taking on further debt until you could no longer afford to pay for it - YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS - STOP LOOKING FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO BLAME FOR YOUR MISTAKES.

I realise that there are many genuine people who may have lost their jobs and have despite their best efforts have been unable to get another job or others who may have become so ill that they cannot work and have become a victim of circumstances beyond their control and these are the people who should have their personal circumstances taken into consideration.

lennonc1

Tracy7 can I ask why you are posting things from another thread, that is 3 seperate threads you have posted the same thing!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4491521

tracy7

lennonc1 wrote: »

Tracy7 can I ask why you are posting things from another thread, that is 3 seperate threads you have posted the same thing!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4491521

Because the same arguments are being used across those 3 threads.

lennonc1

But I am not actively posting on this thread.
You really don't need to keep defending your argument by posting on all relevant threads. You have made your point loud and clear, but this does not stop people taking action unfortunately.

downhiller

Methinks Tracy7 works at NRAM...