NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

[Fred]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

Ah well.............looks like the UTCCR, SCLG & CCA 140a/b "unfair relationships" is/are the best options. Just what is the new system regulating second charge next year going to do with some of these old contracts I wonder.

[Unregistered]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

Is there any impact if a financial advisor recomended you take this product?

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33642801
A court has reversed a decision that would have led to compensation being paid to 43,000 borrowers with the former bank Northern Rock.

A High Court ruling in December over the wording of documents sent out by the bank meant £261m would have been paid in refunded interest.
But the decision has now been reversed by the Court of Appeal.
The case related to Northern Rock's "Together Mortgage", and questioned the wording in past loan documents.
The Together Mortgage allowed unsecured loans of up to £30,000 alongside mortgages, to be repaid at the same rate as the mortgage.
In 2012, Northern Rock Asset Management had to pay out £270m in refunded interest after the bank failed to make mandatory disclosures in customer letters from 2008.
Newcastle-based Northern Rock was nationalised in 2008 following its near collapse at the onset of the global credit crunch

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

Is there any impact if a financial advisor recomended you take this product?

If it was misrepresented to you by the adviser you would be in exactly the same position regardless of the judgment IMO.

[Fred]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

I think only for the sake of "secret commissions" if indeed any exist.

[Fred]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

I suppose it is indifferent/good pending which side of the fence you are on for the potential claims or payouts but for me it still leaves a huge cloud over "unregulated" second charge lending & where consumers stand in terms of regulation or in the courts. One of the most poorly policed parts of contract regulation there is.

[Ruby]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

Unregulated lending is an absolute flipping mess! I would make a calculated guess that the very vast majority of people who took out such loans (including myself) were not properly advised on the pitfalls of an unregulated product. IMO we ALL deserve compensation for being able to even access such loans in a 'developed' country such as the UK.

I also make a calculated guess that unregulated loans more so than regulated ones were sold to people on fat commissions.

Whoever/whatever body thought up the idea of unregulated lending should be imprisoned.

[Fred]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

The FCA are not sending out the right messages either to consumers asking questions over regulation of "unregulated" loans.

[Unregistered]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

I'm really suprised that the FCA don't seem to be looking at this more seriously. Surely it's a bigger issue if you can just claim to be providing regulated products when you aren't?! Makes a mockery of the whole regulation system.

[jimmyay]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

Looks like the early hunches that it was going to go in NRAMs favour were correct. Gutting. And a great injustice I feel to all the remaining "Northern Rock prisoners" who remain shackled to these high interest, 12.79 percent 25 year godawful arrangements. And woe betide you ever fall into arrears , the additional charges and hard assed approach of NR will mean you'll neve pay it off. I've paid mine for 10 years and it's barely touched the original sum al because when it decoupled they jacked the rates up and left me stuck. Bad for me, but absolutely desperate and life destroying for those who are in even less fortunate circumstances .

[Unregistered]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

Does anybody belive there is a case for recission of the contract? After all we have only been told yesterday we are no longer regulated.

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

Loans over £25,000

Last updated : 23 July 2015

NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – 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.

............................

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

It was conceded that the statement that the agreements were CCA regulated was a misrepresentation. However, the Court of Appeal went further and said that "Given the prominence and context of the relevant statements, we take the view that they are to be construed not merely as representations but also as contractual warranties and that the borrowers would have been entitled to sue for breach of contractual warranty". However, limitation got NRAM off the hook - the relevant cause of action having accrued on entry into the loan agreement, and all the relevant agreements having been entered into prior to April 2008. However, the claim was not made and remains undetermined.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nram-...-kicker-isaacs

[pt2537]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nram-...-kicker-isaacs

LMAO limitation, yeah right, no limitation issues in these cases at all, not if you go down the right route that is.