NRAM PLC Claimant – and – (1) JEFFREY PATRICK McADAM Defendants (2) ANN HARTLEY

[Legal Beagles]

More than 40,000 British borrowers are in line to get thousands of pounds in compensation after London's High Court ruled against former bank Northern Rock in a test case over how past loan documents were phrased.
The High Court judgement said the ruling could cost Northern Rock Asset Management about 258 million pounds in compensation to 41,000 customers
NRAM is the former "bad bank" of Northern Rock that was nationalised in 2008 and is now part of UK Asset Resolution (UKAR), a state-run 'zombie bank' that does not take on new business
NRAM brought the case against itself to get legal clarification over whether documents issued to customers under previous "Together" mortgages were incorrect. NRAM is considering whether to appeal the ruling, however, people familiar with the matter said.
Reuters

Download Judgment Here NRAM Plc v McAdam & Anor [2014] EWHC 4174 (Comm)






Download Judgment Here nram-plc-v-mcadam-hartley * Conclusion 33. With regard to the proposed declarations set out in paragraph 10 above, I shall hear further arguments from counsel in relation to the form of any order but: (i) I am satisfied that the rights and remedies in relation to Section 77A were imported into the Agreement. (ii) […]

More...

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM PLC Claimant – and – (1) JEFFREY PATRICK McADAM Defendants (2) ANN HARTLEY

from http://www.investegate.co.uk/Index.a...e=3&words=46OZ

High Court Decision - Declaratory Proceedings

NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley



NRAM plc previously disclosed that it had commenced declaratory proceedings in the High Court to determine whether customers who took out unsecured loans above the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) regulated cap of GBP 25,000 and that were written on CCA documentation are entitled to similar rights and remedies as those who took out loans that were regulated by the CCA.

The High Court has today declared that the defendants to the proceedings are contractually entitled to the rights and remedies applicable to a regulated agreement under the CCA in force from time to time so far as capable of being applied to a non-regulated agreement. Accordingly NRAM was in breach of its obligations by issuing the defendants with statements which do not comply with the requirements set out in section 77A of the CCA and by not re-crediting to them the interest or default sums paid by them during the period of non-compliance.

NRAM is considering the impact of the declaration on all customers who took out unsecured loans for over £25,000 which were written on CCA documentation and is also taking legal advice on whether to appeal the decision. Based on the High Court ruling, NRAM will make an immediate provision for the current cost to remediate the customer accounts concerned which is approximately GBP 261m, plus associated costs. All future interest accruing on these accounts, which currently amounts to approximately £3m per month, will also be provided against until resolution is achieved. .

[Nibbler]

Re: NRAM PLC Claimant – and – (1) JEFFREY PATRICK McADAM Defendants (2) ANN HARTLEY

Their statement on the judgement.

http://www.ukar.co.uk/media-centre/p...12-2014?page=1