NRAM Class Action on redress method.

lennonc1

The moral and compliance argument
The right to redress is a key consumer principle which Consumer Focus supports with vigour. One of its key components is the ability to personally challenge a legal wrong. This is a matter of principle. No-one can speak better about harm than those affected. As a matter of legal and moral principle, it is only right that the voices of those who suffer are heard, not through an intermediary (unless so chosen by the victims), but directly, from those who bear and suffer the consequences of the loss.
Merely having consumer protection laws is not enough to effect compliance or indeed empower consumers. Consumers ought to be confident that when laws are broken, infringers are brought to justice and importantly that those directly affected are given an avenue to air their grievance and seek compensation for their loss. To do this, the law generally gives consumers a right of redress and relies on effective compliance tools to enforce laws.

cot1198

Had an email from the FOS yesterday. My complaint has been passed onto a specialist team. Will post this on both threads.

manvdebt

Very interesting article!

Why NRAM sent out the letter they did:

40 per cent took no action because they felt it would be unsuccessful

NRAM mentions that they have already "taken legal advice".

33 per cent took no action because they didn’t know where to go for help

Well, here is a good place to start.

31 per cent took no action because they felt it was too much hassle

After writing the first letter, most people cannot be bothered

21 per cent took no action because they felt the law couldn’t help them

Again, the fact that NRAM state they have taken legal advice will stave people away.

20 per cent took no action because they where unsure of their rights

David vs Goliath scenario. Who are we laymen(women) to take on a Government owned bank?

14 per cent took no action because they where uncertain about the cost of action

True, it could be expensive, but as you point out lennonC1 "Collective Redress" is a good option.

7 per cent took no action because they didn’t want to involve lawyers

Lawyers may not necessarily be required.

So, that rules out I would imagine a majority of people.

@cot1198, you say FOS sent the complaint to a specialist team. That is interesting as I have never heard of that before. Maybe this is generating some good momentum.

Waiting to hear back from NRAM on whether they are willing to enter negotiations or not before getting onto the FOS.

Will keep you's all posted. If the FOS complaint fails, then we will see about a group action. I believe that the FOS are going to baulk at the complaint as they did with the PPI claims.

This is not over yet. So if you want your money back, get onto NRAM NOW to tell them you are not happy and lets drag this through every possible avenue.

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.

tracy7

lennonc1 wrote: »

The moral and compliance argument
The right to redress is a key consumer principle which Consumer Focus supports with vigour. One of its key components is the ability to personally challenge a legal wrong. This is a matter of principle. No-one can speak better about harm than those affected. As a matter of legal and moral principle, it is only right that the voices of those who suffer are heard, not through an intermediary (unless so chosen by the victims), but directly, from those who bear and suffer the consequences of the loss.
Merely having consumer protection laws is not enough to effect compliance or indeed empower consumers. Consumers ought to be confident that when laws are broken, infringers are brought to justice and importantly that those directly affected are given an avenue to air their grievance and seek compensation for their loss. To do this, the law generally gives consumers a right of redress and relies on effective compliance tools to enforce laws.

This is an argument where people have been deliberately misled, forced and coerced into buying something, in cases which are inherently wrong, immoral and quite frankly repulsive. We all know the scams which have occurred and sickened us to the core, tales of old aged pensioners forced into signing up for things they neither need nor want etc

This is really stretching the extrapolation to the point of non-elasticity (it will snap!) that such a principle can be applied to an agreement that has been willingly entered into to make a payment for a loan which you sought. You have not been deliberately misled, forced or coerced into this agreement. You have not suffered an actual loss, the payment was agreed by you.

All this retrospective loss is largely irrelevant and had no impact on you. Saying you could have paid off other debts, gained interest on money in your account is most likely balloney, you know very well you would have continued to live according to your means and beyond regardless as you have already likely demonstrated. Leopards do not change their spots.

lennonc1

I for one have never claimed for anything, this would be a first and I have explained my situation, not for anyone to judge. I have hardly any debt left as I have paid it all off over the past year or so.£ 600 is what is left, and rest has to go to new boiler etc and to pay estate agent fees to sell, I have been using savings to pay mortgage as I am off work with a new baby. We have a very valid argument here. Can I ask why you seem to care so much when you have received redress and are apparently happy with your outcome. This thread was set up for people who are in same situation and want to do something about it, between this and the other thread, why post above on here and not other thread where I commented origanally on Ppi??

lennonc1

Cot and manvdebt I have sent a pm to you along with the others, I will copy everyone in on my correspondence that has provided email addresses. All the helpful information you have emailed has been great and things seem to be progressing well, thanks guys!

cot1198

manvdebt wrote: »

@cot1198, you say FOS sent the complaint to a specialist team. That is interesting as I have never heard of that before. Maybe this is generating some good momentum.

.[/B]

Lets hope so. I think they did the same thing at the start of the PPI issue when a flood of complaints started coming in.

manvdebt

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.

I totally agree with your here, this is different from the PPI issue.

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.

Saying you could have paid off other debts, gained interest on money in your account is most likely balloney, you know very well you would have continued to live according to your means and beyond regardless as you have already likely demonstrated. Leopards do not change their spots.

They were not forced, misled. The NRAM issue has also caused financial loss as NRAM were taking money not due to them. For instance, imagine Person A had money problems in 2011, they were paying a sum that they were not legally obliged to pay and could have offset this payment against another debt to help keep up repayments. The average person was awarded £1750, myself much more. This equates to £50 per month plus that could have went a long way towards an IVA or Trust Deed being accepted or rejected. So there is a real financial loss here that has been overlooked.

Before going any further, I am not having a personal dig at you Tracy7, merely playing devils advocate.

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

Did you REALLY need to take out your loan? I like many really did need to put these additional payments towards a trust deed at the time, having excluded NRAM from the Trust Deed in case I lost my home. Hindsight and knowledge gained now tells me that my Loan and Mortgage were two legally separate Loans, however, I did NRAM a favour by paying THEM more than they were due, both in the case of the interest payments and outwith my DMP!

Your quote above brings me to something else you mentioned, were you really just jumping on the bandwagon with everyone else? In all honesty, you probably were. There is nothing wrong with that as you were "legally" entitled to your PPI reclaim, as us NRAM Customers are entitled to our Overpayments and Interest back.

My argument for interest is that NRAM have accrued interest on our money and we have lost out by not being able to invest these overpayments elsewhere and in more drastic cases, watched Trust Deeds and IVA's fail due to not being able to afford the minimum monthly cost.

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.

Therefore it is OK for me to pay for your PPI reclaim!?

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.

The difference against your PPI claim is what exactly?

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.

No matter who you are, what financial trouble you have found yourself in, NRAM have done wrong and should have given their Customers a choice.

You have not been deliberately misled, forced or coerced into this agreement. You have not suffered an actual loss, the payment was agreed by you.

As was your PPI!

Your argument is totally biased.

I assume you either:

- Have not been affected by this,
- Have been affected by this and are quite happy to have your Loan reduced as you do not need the money, nor would it have made a difference to your financial circumstances.

Don't take my post personally, I am just exposing flaws in your arguments as I think they are !!!!!!!!.

The only valid point you make is that it is different from the PPI reclaims.

Scottydog09

Ok, so I have had my formal response from NRAM which states that they are taking the decision on reducing the balance as per the terms of the agreement. The contentious part is that they are highlighting the part of the agreement that says they have the right to to reduce the balance or number of payments in the event of "Overpayments made by you to reduce the balance". The question is whether or not this amount should be classed as an overpayment? Certainly none of the documentation refers to "overpayments" only "redress", Complaint already typed to the FOS. Updates to follow.

As a closing note, it always amazes me when people take time out of their busy day to troll these forums and offer no help or advice but purely look to provoke others. If you don't want a refund. Fine! If this doesn't impact you. Fine! If you don't agree with the opinions. Fine! Just let the people this means something to get only with airing their views and trying to help other with similar views!