Northern rock loan over £25,000

in Loans
1.9K replies 432.1K views
1139140142144145186

Replies

  • Lippyx wrote: »
    As already stated, I am trying this route and keep getting blocked by NRAM, who tell me I need to PROVE it!
    Also:


    "Under contract law, a plaintiff can recover against a defendant on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation if (1) a representation was made; (2) that was false; (3) that when made, the representation was known to be false or made recklessly without knowledge of its truth; (4) that it was made with the intention that the plaintiff rely on it; (5) that the plaintiff did rely on it; and (6) that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.

    It's 4,5,6 that hold the issue. The appeal court have said it was administrative (which presumably indicates it was not intended the customer relied on it - did the customer rely on it ? If so in what way ? and what damages has the plaintiff suffered because of their reliance on it ? "

    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.
  • LippyxLippyx Forumite
    191 Posts
    I've tried FOS, they are not interested at all. EVERYONE who went to them all got told the same thing.
    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!!
  • CPR25 wrote: »
    The court has said the misrepresentation was only 'administrative' ...therefore fraudulent misrepresentation isn't applicable I don't think

    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.
  • LippyxLippyx Forumite
    191 Posts
    mancpickup wrote: »
    "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."



    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.
  • downhillerdownhiller Forumite
    123 Posts
    A disgraceful decision. The original mistake with the was just an administration error. This makes a total mockery of contracts.
  • Hope the Directors of NRAM are reading this. I think that you are a crooked bunch of individuals and may your conscience affect your sleep and day to life, that is if you have one which I doubt!
  • CPR25CPR25 Forumite
    33 Posts
    mancpickup wrote: »
    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.

    There has to be intent for it to be fraudulent and basically the courts have said there was no intent...just an administrative error
  • About 41,000 Northern Rock mortgage customers with unsecured loans of between £25,000 and £30,000 won't receive redress...
    Read the full story:

    Northern Rock borrowers dealt blow as court rules redress isn't due

    OfficialStamp.gif


    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.
  • CPR25 wrote: »
    There has to be intent for it to be fraudulent and basically the courts have said there was no intent...just an administrative error

    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?
  • CPR25CPR25 Forumite
    33 Posts
    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
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides