Northern rock loan over £25,000

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.

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.

• 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!)

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.