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 5
    • e.scrooge
    • By e.scrooge 16th Dec 12, 1:08 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    e.scrooge
    Write to Treasury, BBC and your MP
    Following the lead of claret_mike and rmart I have written to Mr Javid at the Treasury (ministers@hmtreasury.gsi.gov.uk) and the BBC (using the form following the news item - link in the post by rmart). I have also written to NRAM explaining my concerns, but just received the standard reply like others. Can I encourage everyone to do the same ie write to Mr Javid at Treasury, the BBC, NRAM and your MP outlining your concerns, which are well articulated in this thread. It really can make a difference.
  • yumphla
    Took out a Together Mortgage in 2005, with unsecured element. Got a letter yesterday from NRAM saying I may be entitled to redress. Checked statement from Oct 11, and unsecured element was still over 26k, so obviously (maybe not???) original loan was for over 25k. Can't find original paperwork. Thought I wouldn't get a letter if amount of loan was over 25k; or does the fact I got this letter stating that they are looking into it, and that only loans under 25k are covered mean that I am automatically ruled out, if original loan was for over 25k??? Confused
  • ILW
    So if NR just say we will give equal levels of protection to CCA standard on loans over 25k, would that not be the end of it?
  • claret_mike
    I think the overall concerns on this topic is understanding what protection we all have. Is the loan CCA or is it not.

    I can't speak for everyone on here but I have just found my last statement and it did not have the prescribed information on it so if they were to to deal with me as I was a CCA customer, I would be satisfied because that is what I thought I had.

    If they decide that my loan is not regulated and therefore I am not afforded the same protection then I will want to take it further to understand how this affects me and see where that takes me.

    I would be more than happy if they were to say that it was regulated and we are therefore applying the same rules etc. I at no time have had any complaints or issues with NR or the together mortgage overall but if I find out that they have mis-led me and I am not afforded the same protection then I will have issue.

    Is it not understandable for people to want clarity on what protection they have or not...
  • ILW
    I think the overall concerns on this topic is understanding what protection we all have. Is the loan CCA or is it not.

    I can't speak for everyone on here but I have just found my last statement and it did not have the prescribed information on it so if they were to to deal with me as I was a CCA customer, I would be satisfied because that is what I thought I had.

    If they decide that my loan is not regulated and therefore I am not afforded the same protection then I will want to take it further to understand how this affects me and see where that takes me.

    I would be more than happy if they were to say that it was regulated and we are therefore applying the same rules etc. I at no time have had any complaints or issues with NR or the together mortgage overall but if I find out that they have mis-led me and I am not afforded the same protection then I will have issue.

    Is it not understandable for people to want clarity on what protection they have or not...
    Originally posted by claret_mike
    i gt the impression that quite a few are hoping to get the loans written off.
  • GhIFA
    i gt the impression that quite a few are hoping to get the loans written off.
    Originally posted by ILW
    On what basis??
    I am an IFA. Any comments made on this forum are provided for information only and should not be construed as advice. Should you need advice on a specific area then please consult a local IFA.
  • claret_mike
    That's not the case for me. As I said, I can't speak for all.

    I just want fairness to apply and to know where I stand. I am either afforded the same protection because the paperwork I have lead me to believe that I was protected or I am not.

    If I am -treat me the exact same way as everyone else with the protected rights of the CCA.

    If I am not then I will put in a formal complaint and I will go to the FOS if need be. If the FOS will not look at it then I will have to see what my other options are.. Simple as but as I am currently in front with payments etc and can maintain payments no problem, I am more than happy to challenge and know that they cannot threaten my home etc.
  • ILW
    On what basis??
    Originally posted by GhIFA
    No idea, but is is quite fashionable at the moment.
    Just look at post 2 on this thread.
  • claret_mike
    Post 2 is pretty much what I am saying.

    If they are not going to apply a fairness rule in that they led people to believe that they were protected when they were not then action needs to be taken as the product was not as described - i.e. mis-sold.

    Up to now it could have been argued that no financial loss or detriment had occurred on the basis that we have been afforded the same administration of the loans as CCA regulated loans (regular statements and even letters explaining that they have to send separate copies to joint borrowers etc) so in that sense there could be a valid argument that no loss has been suffered previously.

    I am hopeful that now this has come to light and the topic is more in the public light, someone will have the common sense to say we have to make a decision on this and that my viewpoint will be concurred by the powers that be.

    PPI mis-selling, Endowment mis-selling have all been about putting the customer back in the position before the error/issue occurred. I see this as no different.
    • jimbo5661
    • By jimbo5661 16th Dec 12, 11:13 AM
    • 67 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    jimbo5661
    People surely aren't being serious in suggesting they want loans written off...

    People just want to be treated fairly. If their loan was sold to them as CCA regulated / protected then it should be treated as such and any redress afforded to those loans under 25k should apply to those over (as long as the error applies) if not they have a reasonable shout to know why the loan/s they were sold to them as protected were not! (Human nature is to request financial remuneration) especially when they feel aggrieved by being trapped to high SVR (this didn't always fall when the BOE rate fell and they received a special rate reduction which is less than the loyalty rate discount!)

    For some reason this seems to annoy certain forum Members on here who no doubt complained that PPI shouldn't have been an issue (read the small print it's all there they shouted!) and I'd imagine were against the endowment repayments too...
    • jimbo5661
    • By jimbo5661 16th Dec 12, 11:17 AM
    • 67 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    jimbo5661
    Further to above, if the IFA's explained the products they sell including the fees / charges / potential pitfalls rather than just get their customers to sign here, here and here then (with quick proc fees in mind) then I'm sure many of the people here would have thought twice about entering into and buying many of their financial products!
  • GhIFA
    Further to above, if the IFA's explained the products they sell including the fees / charges / potential pitfalls rather than just get their customers to sign here, here and here then (with quick proc fees in mind) then I'm sure many of the people here would have thought twice about entering into and buying many of their financial products!
    Originally posted by jimbo5661
    Sweeping generalisation there - I do, in fact I make a point of it more than once.

    There are poor practitioners in every walk of life. I'm sure you wouldn't like me to tar you with the same brush as those in yours, whatever it is, or might have been.

    I haven't argued that NR shouldn't fulfil their obligations, or extend them if it turns out they are at further fault. Where people have been genuinely mis-sold then it is only right that amends are made. However, as with PPI, there are many people who cry "mis-selling" where actually they haven't been, they have failed in their responsibilties in the first case by borrowing money they can't afford, or not considering the consequences of these actions, and then try to offload their responsibilities, or get out of paying what they owe for spurious reasons. However, in this case, it is everyone else that will have to pay for it.
    I am an IFA. Any comments made on this forum are provided for information only and should not be construed as advice. Should you need advice on a specific area then please consult a local IFA.
  • claret_mike

    I haven't argued that NR shouldn't fulfil their obligations, or extend them if it turns out they are at further fault. Where people have been genuinely mis-sold then it is only right that amends are made. However, as with PPI, there are many people who cry "mis-selling" where actually they haven't been, they have failed in their responsibilties in the first case by borrowing money they can't afford, or not considering the consequences of these actions, and then try to offload their responsibilities, or get out of paying what they owe for spurious reasons. However, in this case, it is everyone else that will have to pay for it.
    Originally posted by GhIFA
    I'm speechless at this little gem..

    PPI was generally taken knowingly by customers with the fact that they were told it was the responsible thing to do where income is affected by reasons outside their control.

    Your take on it is that they should never have taken the loan out in the first place because it was not affordable?

    Whilst conscious of going off at a tangent here on this thread - seriously, you see absolutely no evidence/reason why lenders/sales staff were at fault for mis-selling.

    Once again, another example of the industry getting it so far wrong and just looking at bottom line figures rather than actually considering whether the product was suitable or not. Allowing sales cultures to be encouraged to sell the product through incentive schemes which made it more beneficial to do the sale rather than the right thing.

    Beggars belief.. Have you not read the recent guidance papers on financial incentive schemes - there is a lot of reference to that.

    Seriously I am not being personal here but some of the things you are saying smack of having absolutely no thought behind it.
  • GhIFA
    I'm speechless at this little gem..

    PPI was generally taken knowingly by customers with the fact that they were told it was the responsible thing to do where income is affected by reasons outside their control.

    Your take on it is that they should never have taken the loan out in the first place because it was not affordable?

    Whilst conscious of going off at a tangent here on this thread - seriously, you see absolutely no evidence/reason why lenders/sales staff were at fault for mis-selling.

    Once again, another example of the industry getting it so far wrong and just looking at bottom line figures rather than actually considering whether the product was suitable or not. Allowing sales cultures to be encouraged to sell the product through incentive schemes which made it more beneficial to do the sale rather than the right thing.

    Beggars belief.. Have you not read the recent guidance papers on financial incentive schemes - there is a lot of reference to that.

    Seriously I am not being personal here but some of the things you are saying smack of having absolutely no thought behind it.
    Originally posted by claret_mike
    Mike, I have posted a reply on the other thread. Actually, I do think about what I say. I have never said that industry is not at fault, I clearly say that where mis-selling occurs it needs to be put right. And, there have been bad practices in the past, but equally there have been people who have entered into arrangements they shouldn't have done, because they haven't taken any responsibility to consider things themselves, who then think it must be someone else's fault and someone else must pay - Happens in all walks of life.

    As I said elsewhere, there is no need for me to keep restating my opinions so am withdrawing from this discussion. No need for it to descend in to an argument and given your assertion that your comments have not been personal so far or have been tongue in cheek, they are getting that way, and there's no point in that just because I happen to disagree with yours or others thinking just because I feel some of it is flawed.
    I am an IFA. Any comments made on this forum are provided for information only and should not be construed as advice. Should you need advice on a specific area then please consult a local IFA.
    • e.scrooge
    • By e.scrooge 16th Dec 12, 7:48 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    e.scrooge
    Post 2 is pretty much what I am saying.

    If they are not going to apply a fairness rule in that they led people to believe that they were protected when they were not then action needs to be taken as the product was not as described - i.e. mis-sold.

    Up to now it could have been argued that no financial loss or detriment had occurred on the basis that we have been afforded the same administration of the loans as CCA regulated loans (regular statements and even letters explaining that they have to send separate copies to joint borrowers etc) so in that sense there could be a valid argument that no loss has been suffered previously.

    I am hopeful that now this has come to light and the topic is more in the public light, someone will have the common sense to say we have to make a decision on this and that my viewpoint will be concurred by the powers that be.

    PPI mis-selling, Endowment mis-selling have all been about putting the customer back in the position before the error/issue occurred. I see this as no different.
    Originally posted by claret_mike
    So, for me, if NR say they will give equal protection to the CCA standard on loans over 25k that would be the end of it.

    If they do not then I am not being afforded the protection the paperwork from NR said they were giving me and in my view the loan was mis-sold.

    Agreed that up to now we have not been treated differently from those afforded CCA protection but if things proceed as NRAM say they will on their website then anyone with a loan over 25k will suffer significant loss.

    I am also hopeful that a sensible decision will eventually be made but I cannot believe that NRAM didn't know what paperwork customers with loans over 25k had been given before they made their announcement. In which case I can only conclude that they calculated they would get away with it. This will only change because pressure to do "the right thing" is applied by their key stakeholder (treasury) or because of a successful legal challenge.

    So, as many people as possible should write to treasury, their MPs and the press as well as NRAM. When they do so they should keep the arguments simple.

    What we are asking NRAM is: Give us the protection you told us we had or accept that the loans weren't as described and mis-sold.
  • rmart
    Took out a Together Mortgage in 2005, with unsecured element. Got a letter yesterday from NRAM saying I may be entitled to redress. Checked statement from Oct 11, and unsecured element was still over 26k, so obviously (maybe not???) original loan was for over 25k. Can't find original paperwork. Thought I wouldn't get a letter if amount of loan was over 25k; or does the fact I got this letter stating that they are looking into it, and that only loans under 25k are covered mean that I am automatically ruled out, if original loan was for over 25k??? Confused
    Originally posted by yumphla
    Thanks for this, so now we have someone with a loan over 25k who has received the letter and has therefore been offered the same CCA protection as those with a loan under 25k.

    They cannot do that for one and not the others. Very interesting.
    • Fizzy Fish
    • By Fizzy Fish 17th Dec 12, 11:30 AM
    • 43 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Fizzy Fish
    Some more interesting news - I just received my annual statement from NRAM, and it looks like they are continuing to treat my loan as though it is CCA regulated.

    The statement has changed format, and although it doesn't show the amount of credit provided, there is a note on the back saying 'This statement does not contain all the information which you are entitled to receive from us about your agreement...[explains how you can request this if needed]...The information which is missing is the amount of credit provided under your fixed-sum agreement'

    This note comes under a whole section headed 'The following paragraphs relate to your CCA regulated credit agreement'. Within this are sub-sections about settling your credit agreement early, paying less than the agreed sum, and dispute resolution - which may be the missing text that was mentioned in the original announcements about this issue.

    So it's still early days, but coupled with the post above it's starting to look a bit more encouraging for us!
  • dvr80
    Just spoke with NRAM, still no official comment regarding 25k+ loans, only that they're still dealing with the <25k loans.

    They also couldn't tell me whether any letters had been sent out to customers in this position or even if I had been sent one... as the chap I spoke to commented, there's not much point in having the helpline when they can't comment on these things and have to refer people back to the limited info available on their website!

    I was looking to redeem my mortgage and move lenders in the next month or so but might hang on for a bit to see where this goes... it would be just my luck for something to come out of this and lose out having moved away from NRAM!
    Last edited by dvr80; 17-12-2012 at 4:38 PM.
    • NorthernRockNewbie
    • By NorthernRockNewbie 17th Dec 12, 5:12 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 16 Thanks
    NorthernRockNewbie
    Announcement Tomorrow
    Hi, I've just got off the phone with a Journalist from the Mirror whom I made aware of the issue and they should be publishing a small story on it on Tuesday 18th December so I will post a link if it is online.

    Here's the heads up...

    Apparently their official line to the Mirror is that customers with loans over 25k WILL NOT be afforded CCA protection despite what their contracts might say.

    I really think we need to get a Barrister to look at this issue on our behalves. No offence to GhIFA but it is not the opinion of an IFA that matters here since this is a legal issue.

    I'm going to follow things up tomorrow once the story has been published to see if we may be able to get a Law Firm to look at this on behalf of all of us and see if they may even do so without charge given that it may give them some free press.

    From the work I did looking into this back in 2009, the view of the solicitor I had look at this was that so long as NRAM afforded us the protection of the CCA then everything would be fine.

    My work involves a far degree of understanding of certain aspect of UK Law (not finance) and I can not grasp how one party could declare something at the very head of an agreement and not be made to keep to that part of the agreement by a court.
  • claret_mike
    I had a phone call from another national media company - which will remain nameless for the time being - I was told that they wanted my permission to pass my details on to a journalist also who is looking into this whole debacle.

    When I hear from them, I may be needing further case studies so between us, we should be able to get NRAM to make clear the situation and see where that takes us.

    I think that the minute they do not afford us CCA protection then we can argue that they have misrepresented the loan to us. I think it's bang out of order that someone there cannot make a decision on the 25k plus cases...
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

1,860Posts Today

7,512Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Boris Johnson is now going to be our prime minister. Worth a pause for thought, whatever your political persuasion.

  • Boy they're dragging out this #conservativeleadership announcement.Three introducers now each grabbing air time. Get on with it please!

  • RT @Screeeeamer: @dwlstacey @MartinSLewis @TUIUK Dear mr Stacy, I need to let you know of a slight amendment to the Porsche 911 you ordered?

  • Follow Martin