Forum Home» Loans

Northern rock loan over £25,000 - Page 5

New Post Advanced Search

Northern rock loan over £25,000

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Loans
1.9K replies 430.2K views
12357186

Replies

  • rmart wrote: »
    I think the only chance we have is if the loans over £25k were written on the wrong paperwork. The heading should have told us the loan was unregulated and not covered by the CCA, instead it clearly states it is regulated and therefore is misleading.

    That's the conclusion that I've come to as well
  • GhIFAGhIFA Forumite
    619 posts
    And you wouldn't have agreed to the loans if you'd been aware of this?
    I am an IFA. Any comments made on this forum are provided for information only and should not be construed as advice. Should you need advice on a specific area then please consult a local IFA.
  • GhIFA,

    whats your point ? We are in the middle of a big recession, the banks have screwed everyone over. If I spot a chance to get something back from NR I will take it for my daughters. I dont give a monkeys about the moral issues. The bank did not give a hoot did they when they were raking in profits from all their mis selling of PPI etc did they ?

    They dont care now about people who are in financial trouble do they ? In fact NR would not even discuss dropping the interest rate from almost 13% even when my daughters paid off £19k of the £27k loan.

    A taste of their own medicine may do them good.
  • what is quite fascinating is that after all the discussion NO ONE can give an answer as to the legal position. If anyone here has a copy of the original loan agreement (i have not got ours to hand) can you tell me if the signature box where you signed states that you should only sign if you want to be regulated by the CCA ?

    Also is there anything on there that states the loan falls outside the cca ?

    I am trying to locate our copy.
  • GhIFA wrote: »
    And you wouldn't have agreed to the loans if you'd been aware of this?


    In my case I would hope my Solicitor would have advised against it.
  • Yes, actually if I had been aware at the time, I would have advised my daughters to ask for the personal loan to be dropped to £24,999 and the mortgage upped by £3,000. That is of course if we had been told the future implications of the difference between the loan regulated by the CCA as stated on the paperwork and it being NON Regulated.
  • rmart wrote: »
    what is quite fascinating is that after all the discussion NO ONE can give an answer as to the legal position. If anyone here has a copy of the original loan agreement (i have not got ours to hand) can you tell me if the signature box where you signed states that you should only sign if you want to be regulated by the CCA ?

    Also is there anything on there that states the loan falls outside the cca ?

    I am trying to locate our copy.

    I've gone through all of the paperwork (original agreement was in 2004), and the consistent message is that the unsecured loan is CCA regulated, with nothing specifying to the contrary:
    • Original credit agreement heading 'Credit agreement regulated by the CCA 1974'
    • Credit agreement signature box 'This is a credit agreement regulated by the CCA 1974. Sign it only if you want to be bound by its terms'
    • On back of initial agreement 'Your rights - The CCA covers this agreement and lays down certain requirements for your protection which must be satisfied when the agreement is made. If they are not, we cannot enforce the agreement against you without a court order. The Act also gives you a number of rights. You have the right to settle this agreement at any time by giving notice in writing and paying off all amounts payable under the agreement.'
    • Letter from NR in 2009 'The new CCA 2006 requires us to provide a statement to each customer party to the mortgage. We will now provide you with duplicate copies of your statement in the same envelope' (i.e. NR continue to believe themselves that they lent to us in a way that is bound by this legislation!)
  • GhIFAGhIFA Forumite
    619 posts
    rmart wrote: »
    GhIFA,

    whats your point ? We are in the middle of a big recession, the banks have screwed everyone over. If I spot a chance to get something back from NR I will take it for my daughters. I dont give a monkeys about the moral issues. The bank did not give a hoot did they when they were raking in profits from all their mis selling of PPI etc did they ?

    They dont care now about people who are in financial trouble do they ? In fact NR would not even discuss dropping the interest rate from almost 13% even when my daughters paid off £19k of the £27k loan.

    A taste of their own medicine may do them good.

    For what it's worth, NR may well have made an error in the way they have printed the documents, and we'll see how things pan out on that, and it may end up that they have to extend the payout.

    However, there are comments being made about the fact that people would never have signed up for loans had they have known it wasn't regulated - which is quite plainly rubbish as they plainly had no idea of what the CCA was until it was mentioned in the last few days.

    Nobody was forced into taking out loans well in excess of the value of the property they were buying. And I don't understand people borrowing such sums of money without fully reading and understanding the terms and conditions attached. But, as is often the way, they seem to divulge responsibility for this from anyone but themselves when problems start to occur.

    If it was a non-state owned institution then I might agree with you to a certain degree, but it isn't. This farcical situation is already going to add £270million to the deficit when no-one has been financially disadvantaged, without any additional funds from people suddenly making spurious "mis-selling" claims off the back of it. This doesn't cost NR, it costs the public purse, which we all have to pay for.

    The irony is that if more people had taken as much interest in the T&C's, wordings, and documentation headings at the time they signed up, and considered the viability of borrowing more than the value of the property in a market bubble that everyone could see was going to burst at some point, or how they might afford the repayments when it did, maybe NR wouldn't have needed bailing out.

    At least you've now had the good grace to come out and admit the real reason you're doing this rather than dressing it up as others have.
    I am an IFA. Any comments made on this forum are provided for information only and should not be construed as advice. Should you need advice on a specific area then please consult a local IFA.
  • GhIFA wrote: »
    For what it's worth, NR may well have made an error in the way they have printed the documents, and we'll see how things pan out on that, and it may end up that they have to extend the payout.

    However, there are comments being made about the fact that people would never have signed up for loans had they have known it wasn't regulated - which is quite plainly rubbish as they plainly had no idea of what the CCA was until it was mentioned in the last few days.

    Nobody was forced into taking out loans well in excess of the value of the property they were buying. And I don't understand people borrowing such sums of money without fully reading and understanding the terms and conditions attached. But, as is often the way, they seem to divulge responsibility for this from anyone but themselves when problems start to occur.

    If it was a non-state owned institution then I might agree with you to a certain degree, but it isn't. This farcical situation is already going to add £270million to the deficit when no-one has been financially disadvantaged, without any additional funds from people suddenly making spurious "mis-selling" claims off the back of it. This doesn't cost NR, it costs the public purse, which we all have to pay for.

    The irony is that if more people had taken as much interest in the T&C's, wordings, and documentation headings at the time they signed up, and considered the viability of borrowing more than the value of the property in a market bubble that everyone could see was going to burst at some point, or how they might afford the repayments when it did, maybe NR wouldn't have needed bailing out.

    At least you've now had the good grace to come out and admit the real reason you're doing this rather than dressing it up as others have.

    I my financial advisor had explained that the loan was unregulated, I would have wanted more information on this.
    Being unregulated - does this mean Northern Rock can do what they like? Change interest rates when they like? Not send out statements? Demand more money?
  • GhIFA wrote: »

    However, there are comments being made about the fact that people would never have signed up for loans had they have known it wasn't regulated - which is quite plainly rubbish as they plainly had no idea of what the CCA was until it was mentioned in the last few days.


    The irony is that if more people had taken as much interest in the T&C's, wordings, and documentation headings at the time they signed up,

    Re your points above, I don't pretend to have a good working knowledge of the details behind consumer/financial legislation. However like a lot of other people, I went through a professional (mortgage broker) to help make up for this fact. NR also employed probably very well-paid and qualified legal experts on these matters.

    So if they missed this, is it really that surprising that we did too? And actually I am bothered that I was given incorrect information about my rights.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support