Northern rock loan over £25,000

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.

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.

A disgraceful decision. The original mistake with the was just an administration error. This makes a total mockery of contracts.

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

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?