NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

[Legal Beagles]

Further to the High Court’s decision on 10 December 2014, the Board of NRAM plc, following legal advice and having carefully considered the implications for both customers and taxpayers, has decided to seek leave to appeal the Court’s decision. Richard Banks, Chief Executive Officer of UKAR, commented: “We have a duty to the taxpayer to […]

More...


Judgment being appealed http://legalbeagles.info/nram-plc-cl...2-ann-hartley/ and http://legalbeagles.info/northern-ro...uare-chambers/

[Nibbler]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

http://www.n-ram.co.uk/loans/loans-over-25000

Updated today 06/03/2015

The NRAM Board, after considering legal advice and the implications for both customers and taxpayers, has decided to pursue an appeal which will be heard by the Court of Appeal at the end of April 2015. We cannot be certain when we will know the outcome, but would expect it to be before the end of July 2015.
When then this process is complete and we have determined the appropriate course of action, if required, we will communicate with any affected customers to outline next steps and confirm any actions we are taking.

http://www.ukar.co.uk/media-centre/p...03-2015?page=1

06 Mar 2015

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 £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.

Following the initial High Court judgment, the NRAM Board sought leave to appeal in order to obtain full legal clarity. Leave to appeal was granted and the NRAM Board, after considering legal advice and the implications for both customers and taxpayers, has decided to pursue an appeal. This will be heard by the Court of Appeal at the end of April 2015 with the outcome expected to be before the end of July 2015.
When the process is complete, and we have determined the appropriate course of action, we will provide a further update and confirm any actions we are taking.

Richard Banks, Chief Executive Officer of UKAR, commented:

“We sought leave to appeal as we have a duty to the taxpayer to safeguard public money and no financial detriment has been suffered by customers. Having carefully considered legal advice, we have decided to appeal the High Court’s decision. Customers do not need to act at this stage. If any redress becomes due, we will write to all those affected to advise on next steps.”

[Nibbler]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

http://casetracker.justice.gov.uk/li...se_id=20150150

Case Tracker for Civil Appeals

Summary Case Details for 20150150

Case

Reference: A3/2015/0150
Title: NRAM Plc v McAdam & Anr
Type: Appeal
Appeal / Application:
from the order of Mr Justice Burton
High Court QBD Commercial Court dated 10-Dec-14

Hearing Status: Float on 27-Apr-15 or 28-Apr-15 estimated length (in hours): 10:00
Venue: London
Constitution:
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
LORD JUSTICE RICHARDS
LADY JUSTICE BLACK


Case results:

Track Your Case:

Current Status: Awaiting a hearing - see Hearing Status

Tracking Information:

20-Feb-15: Case passed to List Office
18-Feb-15: Letter sent to applicant/solicitor to request bundles and/or documents
17-Feb-15: Application allowed on paper by Lord/Lady Justice
06-Feb-15: Application referred to Lord/Lady Justice
22-Jan-15: Bundle(s) approved

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

http://www.radcliffechambers.com/new...ourt-of-appeal

On 27 and 28 April, the Court of Appeal heard an appeal by NRAM plc against the judgment of Mr Justice Burton in NRAM plc v McAdam and Hartley.

The broad issue underlying the proceedings is: What are the consequences of a creditor processing and documenting an agreement which is not in fact regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) as if it were CCA-regulated? In particular, does the agreement give the borrower the right to receive periodic statements complying with section 77A of the CCA and to be relieved from liability for interest and default sums if the statements provided are not compliant?

In the Commercial Court, Mr Justice Burton held that the borrower was entitled to the benefit of section 77A, along with the other provisions of the CCA which are capable of being applied to a non-regulated agreement. He reached this conclusion on the basis that statements in the agreement that it was regulated by the CCA had the effect of incorporating the applicable provisions of the CCA into the agreement.

The issue is relevant to the 41,000 or so borrowers who, between 1999 and 2008, entered into non-regulated fixed-sum credit agreements with NRAM plc (then called Northern Rock plc) as part of its popular Together mortgage product.

The Court of Appeal (Lords Justice Longmore and Richards and Lady Justice Gloster) has reserved judgment.

NRAM plc has been represented in the proceedings by Malcolm Waters QC, leading Patrick Goodall QC, on instructions from Ashurst LLP.

[Fred]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

The scope of regulation is determined by Government.

As noted, an unregulated loan does not benefit from CCA protections (other than the right to apply to the court under s140A unfair relationships), but – as the court found – it is possible for the parties to agree contractually that certain CCA rights should apply. If so, they apply by virtue of the contract rather than the law.

We have no reason to dissent from the judgment. Of course, this concerned the question of whether terms are imported into the contract, rather than under the legislation. The court did not find that sections 77 and 77A apply directly to an unregulated agreement.


The above being a comment made by the FCA..........

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

Malcom Waters has been involved in some pretty interesting cases

Cases and Work of Note

• Log Book Loans Ltd and Nine Regions Ltd v OFT [2010] UKFTT 643 (preliminary issues in proceedings by the OFT to revoke a consumer credit licence);

• Southern Pacific Mortgages Ltd v Heath [2009] EWCA Civ 1135 (multiple agreements and the effect of section 18 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974);

• Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National and others [2009] EWHC 36 (Comm) (whether charges relating to unarranged overdrafts capable of being penal);

• Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National and others [2008] EWHC 875 (Comm) (whether terms imposing charges relating to unarranged overdrafts assessable for fairness);

• Bristol and West plc v Bartlett & anr; Paragon Finance plc v Banks; Halifax plc v Grant [2002] 4 All ER 544 (when an action to recover the shortfall due under a mortgage becomes time-barred);

• Director-General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2002] 1 AC 481 (whether a term making interest on a loan payable at the contract rate after judgment unfair);

• Woolwich plc v Gomm (2000) 79 P&CR 61 Court of Appeal (whether bank had imputed notice of undue influence);

• Harwood-Smart v Caws [2000] Pens LR 101 Chancery Division (rights to pension scheme surplus);

• Building Societies Commission v Halifax Building Society and Leeds Permanent Building Society [1997] Ch 255 Chancery Division (merger of building societies with a view to conversion to plc status);

• Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996] 1 WLR 343 Court of Appeal (terms on which possession orders should be suspended);

• Halifax Building Society v Thomas [1996] Ch 217 Court of Appeal (profits derived from mortgage fraud);

• Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Building Societies Commission [1995] Ch 185 Chancery Division (acquisition of a building society by a bank);

• Peggs v Lamb [1994] Ch 172 Chancery Division (charities and charitable purposes);

• Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Grattidge (1993) 25 HLR 454. Court of Appeal (relationship between money judgment and suspended possession order);

• Abbey National Building Society v Building Society Commission (1989) 5 BCC 259. Chancery Division (conversion of building society to plc status);

• Midland Bank Trust Co v Green [1981] A.C. 513 (land charges registration);

• Pritchard v Briggs (rights of pre-emption).

[Nibbler]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

I'm sure the CoA will make a sensible judgement.

Oh... wait... Beavis... cough...

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

The above being a comment made by the FCA..........

where was that comment made Fred?

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

I'm sure the CoA will make a sensible judgement.

Oh... wait... Beavis... cough...

lol, oh ye of little faith....

[Fred]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

where was that comment made Fred?

To me personally & I quote word for word.

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

Ahh, well it's right. (IMHO anyway for what that is worth)

[Fred]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

Ahh, well it's right. (IMHO anyway for what that is worth)

I have a little more optimism on this one in that I do not see how (if successfully argued that is) that more of the CCA can apply than currently accepted............a couple of days or just a few quid making a difference to the way people are treated in court is bizarre to me.

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

It sounds as though the court ordered NRAM to publish full transcripts of this weeks hearing on their website asap. That should be very interesting and might give a better idea which way the court will go with this appeal. Quite unusual I think to have the transcripts published of a hearing before the judgment is handed down, the court must have had a reason to order that, any ideas ?

[Fred]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

The majority of the public have no idea what this could mean for them..............& other lenders have what say in this ?

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal – UK Asset Resolut

That's true, maybe the transcripts will help make it clearer ?

Have other lenders had similar issues ? I know we've seen a few cases where there were loans over £25k (when that was the limit) yet marked on the agreements as being regulated under the CCA. I'll have to look up some of those cases actually. I have a feeling they were concerned for s.77 issues only.

We've also seen the hell a lot of people with actual unregulated loans have gone through as it seems unregulated meant the bank could do whatever the feck they liked to you without any comeback.

So if NRAM win the appeal then there is surely an issue of misselling as opposed to the impact that repaying interest for not complying with the CCA requirements would have... which would be greater impact ? Which way do we want it to go?