Energy Price Cap announcement: Watch Martin Lewis explain what it means for your electricity and gas bills this winter
Northern rock loan over £25,000
1.9K replies 432.5K views
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Energy Price Cap change
Martin Lewis on what it means for youMSE News
Best £1 you've ever spent?
Share your most impressive bargainsMSE Forum
New MSE Forum avatars available
Try 'em out nowMSE Forum
Missed your previous post
I took NRAM to the FOS in 2012 for miselling and misrepesentation and was rejected on both counts. But now they have admitted misrepresentation it makes me think to reopen the case.
You are right that 4, 5 and 6 is the difficult part to prove but would only invest more time here if it is seen by the transcripts of the appeal they were guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation, any other kind I do not see a case.
All I see in the transcripts is that they presume they were aware and it was an admin error.
If you went back there now, FOS will just say the court has made their ruling and unless you can prove NRAM misrepresented, you haven't got a case. Apparently, a contract stating it is covered by CCA 1974, but at the time only covered loans under 25k doesn't count as proof!!
Thanks I have found this quote now
"For these purposes we are prepared to assume (although there was no evidence on the point) that NRAM was well aware that agreements where the sum borrowed was in excess of £25,000 were not agreements regulated by the 1974 Act and adopted the arrangements which it did merely for administrative convenience."
This suggests they only presume as no evidence was given, but reading this presumption if NRAM did know and did it for admistrative convenience, this in my opinion is fradulent, as done with their knowledge.
I would not expect a financial organisation to be negligent here as they are the experts and should know where the act applies.
All I am considering here is to see if I can reopen not to claim damages but to take the contract back to how it was before signed for both parties as we are in a contract which cannot be fullfilled.
I maybe clutching at my final staw but appreciate all comments.
Surely here is your problem, proof. Prove that NRAM were aware of what they were doing, and you'd probably have a case.
In a court of law you need evidence.
There has to be intent for it to be fraudulent and basically the courts have said there was no intent...just an administrative error
Northern Rock borrowers dealt blow as court rules redress isn't due
Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
Hmm, joined the forum two days ago, twenty five philosophical and unsympathetic posts later.
You seem to have a thorough grasp of this and maybe even some legal knowledge?
Did you borrow more than 25k CPR25?
Yes I did....I joined this forum when I heard it was going to be announced today. Trust me, I wish i was on here for other reasons but I'm afraid like you I wanted redress.
I've clearly explained my opinions...I'm not unsympathetic just a realist