Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search

Results: Have you enquired about your Northern Rock CCA loan

Yes, I have been awarded compensation

3.57% • 1 votes

Yes, I have been advised there is no valid complaint

3.57% • 1 votes

Yes, I am awaiting a response from Northern Rock/NRAM

57.14% • 16 votes

No

35.71% • 10 votes

You may not vote on this poll

28 votes in total.

Page 71
    • NorthernRockVictim
    • By NorthernRockVictim 23rd Jul 15, 12:27 PM
    • 164 Posts
    • 68 Thanks
    NorthernRockVictim
    I am of the opinion that these judges have now set a precedent that could have serious implications for all lenders and borrowers. Watch how things unfold during forthcoming months, and how barristers will use this as a case study for their clients to escape the terms of formal contracts.
    • Lippyx
    • By Lippyx 23rd Jul 15, 12:27 PM
    • 191 Posts
    • 48 Thanks
    Lippyx
    NRAM PRESS RELEASE

    Loans over £25,000
    Last updated : 23 July 2015
    NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley Ė Court of Appeal decision in favour of NRAM
    NRAM notes the judgment made today by the Court of Appeal confirming that customers who took out unsecured loans of more than £25,000 under agreements that incorrectly stated these loans were regulated under the CCA, are not entitled to the same rights and remedies as those customers who took out loans that were regulated under the CCA.
    For loans taken out before 6 April 2008, the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) only applies where the amount we agreed to lend you (the amount of credit) was £25,000 or less.
    Historically, some NRAM customers took out unsecured loans for over £25k on documents which incorrectly stated these loans were regulated under the CCA. It was legally unclear whether those customers were entitled to the same rights and remedies as customers who took out loans that were regulated under the CCA. As NRAM is fully committed to acting in accordance with the law and treating both customers and the tax payer fairly, NRAM asked the High Court for a declaration of the meaning of those agreements. The High Court considered the documentation and decided that it meant customers were entitled to the rights and remedies applicable to a regulated agreement (in so far as this was possible).
    After considering legal advice NRAM decided to pursue an appeal to obtain fully legal clarity and secure a fair outcome for both customers and taxpayers. The Court of Appeal has now provided its judgment and ruled in favour of NRAM.
    What should I do now?
    Your loan continues to operate in the normal way and you must continue to make your usual monthly payments.
    Originally posted by CPR25


    So am I reading this right? If we are to be treated the same as those with loans under 25k, then we should get a pay out like they did, right?
  • CPR25
    This is hard as everyone's situation is different.


    I have an AOE on me, so if I stop, I would be whisked straight in front of a judge. Plus I have already spoken to NRAM about negotiating a full and final offer and they have said I have to pay the FULL amount owed, as they know they have me over a barrel. They aren't interested in negotiating. Why have less money given to you tomorrow, if you can wait 10 years and get exactly the amount you want... time means nothing to them, remember.


    I am all up for fighting, but how many times is a person to be knocked down before that person realises its a no win battle?
    Originally posted by Lippyx
    It's tough....and sad.

    I'm just going to look at that I could use my time more efficiently by bettering my life with other challenges rather than one which seems to have run its course.
  • CPR25
    So am I reading this right? If we are to be treated the same as those with loans under 25k, then we should get a pay out like they did, right?
    Originally posted by Lippyx
    NRAM notes the judgment made today by the Court of Appeal confirming that customers who took out unsecured loans of more than £25,000 under agreements that incorrectly stated these loans were regulated under the CCA, are not entitled to the same rights and remedies as those customers who took out loans that were regulated under the CCA.
    • Lippyx
    • By Lippyx 23rd Jul 15, 12:35 PM
    • 191 Posts
    • 48 Thanks
    Lippyx
    It's tough....and sad.

    I'm just going to look at that I could use my time more efficiently by bettering my life with other challenges rather than one which seems to have run its course.
    Originally posted by CPR25


    I think for a lot of people (including me) its gone past the money side of it, and its the principle that a company so big has been allowed to "screw" their customer's over.


    If (like me) you've been kindly left with the debt by an ex, then it most certainly becomes more personal.
    • NorthernRockVictim
    • By NorthernRockVictim 23rd Jul 15, 12:38 PM
    • 164 Posts
    • 68 Thanks
    NorthernRockVictim
    Another consideration, I think that NRAM should fund an appeal in the Supreme Court as they did following the previous decision in the High Court. They keep banging on about how they took themselves to court in the interest of fairness, so just because this went their way, does their 'interest of fairness' still exist? If so they will do the proper thing and take this matter to the Supreme Court.
  • CPR25
    I think for a lot of people (including me) its gone past the money side of it, and its the principle that a company so big has been allowed to "screw" their customer's over.


    If (like me) you've been kindly left with the debt by an ex, then it most certainly becomes more personal.
    Originally posted by Lippyx
    Completely understand....I just feel like screaming morals at a brick wall is a waste of energy now.....If someone comes up with a legitimate legal argument that is backed both financially and technically then I will listen....but its just not going to happen (IMHO).

    I think all that we'll see now is media activity drummed up to try and 'out' NRAM....but that's all that it'll be...a one hour documentary at best that will be forgotten about 2 weeks later.....and what will it achieve anyway? NRAM are not a commercial entity relying on customers and profits....NRAM are the government and we will simply become one of the hundreds of protests held daily against the state
    • Lippyx
    • By Lippyx 23rd Jul 15, 12:51 PM
    • 191 Posts
    • 48 Thanks
    Lippyx
    Another consideration, I think that NRAM should fund an appeal in the Supreme Court as they did following the previous decision in the High Court. They keep banging on about how they took themselves to court in the interest of fairness, so just because this went their way, does their 'interest of fairness' still exist? If so they will do the proper thing and take this matter to the Supreme Court.
    Originally posted by NorthernRockVictim


    But do they have to? Who will make them? They got away with it this time, by the skin of their teeth. Why risk it all if they don't have to!?
  • mancpickup
    Has anybody seen what level of misrepresentation has been given in this case?
    Is there an oppurtunity here for Recission?

    http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967


    Any thoughts on this?
    • Lippyx
    • By Lippyx 23rd Jul 15, 1:00 PM
    • 191 Posts
    • 48 Thanks
    Lippyx
    Has anybody seen what level of misrepresentation has been given in this case?
    Is there an oppurtunity here for Recission?

    http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967


    Any thoughts on this?
    Originally posted by mancpickup


    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 ? "
  • CPR25
    Has anybody seen what level of misrepresentation has been given in this case?
    Is there an oppurtunity here for Recission?

    http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/misrepresentation-act-1967


    Any thoughts on this?
    Originally posted by mancpickup
    The court has said the misrepresentation was only 'administrative' ...therefore fraudulent misrepresentation isn't applicable I don't think
  • mancpickup
    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 ? "
    Originally posted by Lippyx
    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.
    • Lippyx
    • By Lippyx 23rd Jul 15, 1:23 PM
    • 191 Posts
    • 48 Thanks
    Lippyx
    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!!
  • mancpickup
    The court has said the misrepresentation was only 'administrative' ...therefore fraudulent misrepresentation isn't applicable I don't think
    Originally posted by CPR25
    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.
    • Lippyx
    • By Lippyx 23rd Jul 15, 1:41 PM
    • 191 Posts
    • 48 Thanks
    Lippyx
    "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."
    Originally posted by mancpickup


    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.
    • downhiller
    • By downhiller 23rd Jul 15, 1:43 PM
    • 123 Posts
    • 80 Thanks
    downhiller
    A disgraceful decision. The original mistake with the was just an administration error. This makes a total mockery of contracts.
    • NorthernRockVictim
    • By NorthernRockVictim 23rd Jul 15, 1:43 PM
    • 164 Posts
    • 68 Thanks
    NorthernRockVictim
    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!
  • CPR25
    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.
    Originally posted by mancpickup
    There has to be intent for it to be fraudulent and basically the courts have said there was no intent...just an administrative error
    • Former MSE Paloma
    • By Former MSE Paloma 23rd Jul 15, 2:42 PM
    • 526 Posts
    • 245 Thanks
    Former MSE Paloma
    MSE News: Northern Rock borrowers dealt blow as court rules redress isn't due
    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




    Click reply below to discuss. If you havenít already, join the forum to reply. If you arenít sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

  • Bignosher13
    There has to be intent for it to be fraudulent and basically the courts have said there was no intent...just an administrative error
    Originally posted by CPR25
    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?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

10Posts Today

4,143Users online

Martin's Twitter