NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Appeal heard now awaiting judgment... TODAY !!

For all the above reasons, in our judgment the judge was wrong to conclude that, if no relevant contractual term was incorporated in the loan agreement, nonetheless NRAM was estopped on the basis of some sort of contractual estoppel, estoppel by convention or estoppel by representation from denying that the respondents had the benefit of some, but not all, of the protections contained in the 1974 Act and in particular those contained in section 77A.

Issue (5): whether there was a representation or warranty that the loan agreement was a regulated agreement when it was not
As we have already said in earlier passages in this judgment, in our view the relevant statements on any basis amounted to a representation by NRAM that the loan agreement was an agreement regulated by the 1974 Act and that the borrowers were entitled to the protections afforded by the Act to borrowers under such regulated agreements. That representation, as Mr Waters accepted, indeed had legal effect in the sense that, if, as was the case, it was false, the borrower would be entitled to sue for misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Given the context and prominence 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.

No argument was addressed to us that there would be any difference in remedy depending on whether the claim was simply a claim in misrepresentation or for breach of contractual warranty. Both Mr Taylor and Mr Waters accepted that, on either basis, a breach would have occurred at the time the relevant loan agreement was entered into and it may therefore be that, in such circumstances, limitation defences might be available to bar any claims for misrepresentation or breach of contractual warranty. That issue does not, however, arise for decision in the present case.

Disposition
For the above reasons, the appeal will be allowed. Counsel should endeavour to agree the precise terms of any declarations and consequential orders which the court will be invited to make. If agreement cannot be reached, the court will resolve any dispute on the basis of written submissions.


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/751.html

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Appeal heard now awaiting judgment... TODAY !!

For the above reasons the judge was wrong to conclude that it was a contractual term of the agreement that the borrowers would be treated as if they had the benefit of certain, but not all, of the protections of the 1974 Act conferred upon borrowers under a regulated agreement. In particular he was wrong to conclude that the borrowers had no obligation to pay interest during periods when NRAM had failed to give statements which complied with the form set out in section 77A of the 1974 Act.

Basically only

only rights conferred by the 1974 Act which have been incorporated as contractual terms are those actually set out in the agreement itself

However there may be a claim of misrepresentation, subject to limitation of course, if a consumer can evidence they look the loan on the BASIS it was protected by the CCA 1974. This judgment just means the rights under the CCA 1974 do not apply to the contract simply because the contract is entitled as being regulated, despite not being so ( by virtue of the amount loaned)

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Appeal heard now awaiting judgment... TODAY !!

Here

In contrast, in the present case there is no contextual background to justify reading the relevant statements that the agreement is "regulated", as meaning anything other than their prima facie meaning that the agreement falls within the scope of statutory regulation of the 1974 Act and that the borrowers have the rights conferred by that Act. There is no factual matrix that supports the judge's approach that the representation should be construed as an agreement on the part of the parties that, irrespective of whether the agreement was in fact regulated, the parties agreed that the borrowers would be treated "as if" the agreement was regulated. The fact that the respondents in this case, and, as one might suppose, many borrowers in the other 41,000 cases, thought they had entered into regulated agreements which had the protection of the 1974 Act, or alternatively thought that, irrespective of whether their loan agreement was actually a regulated agreement, they nonetheless had the protections of the 1974 Act, is of itself no basis to justify the inclusion of the term found to exist by the judge. 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. In our judgment, the judge was wrong to have treated the majority decision in Daejan effectively as establishing a rule of construction that a statement that X is the case should be construed as meaning that the parties are agreeing to treat X as if it is the case.

( my emphasis)

[rumsey0808]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

Is there not a question now of mis selling?

can see this one going on and on

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

In my view, you'd have to demonstrate that a primary consideration in accepting the loan was that it was covered by the Consumer Credit Act. I'm not sure many people, when taking out the loan, would have known or particularly cared what the specific protections were, and thus it would be extremely difficult to evidence you relied on the representation the loan was regulated.

[jhill]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

What if they knew the statements were false when they sold it? Surely that is then fraudulent misrepresentation?

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

Oddly the Appeal court seems to have said it was simply an administrative issue...

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.

[jhill]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

No. They say they are prepared to assume NRAM was well aware the agreements where sum borrowed was in excess of £25k.....not regulated

- - - Updated - - -

My point is, If they did know at the time the agreements were not regulated, is there there a possibility that fraudulent misrepresentation has occurred?

[jhill]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

https://www.walkermorris.co.uk/harml...sunderstanding

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

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 ?

Think those are the main questions need looking at with regards the 41,000?? customers who had these unregulated (but misrepped as regualted) loans.

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...medium=twitter

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...1032X420150723

(Reuters) - The UK government will not have to pay more than 260 million pounds ($405 million) in compensation to former customers of bailed-out bank Northern Rock after winning a UK court appeal over the wording of 43,000 past loans.

NRAM Plc -- which is part of a state-run 'bad bank' running down the old loans of Northern Rock -- said the UK Court of Appeal ruled in its favour on Thursday, overturning a High Court decision in December.

The case affected customers who took out unsecured loans of more than 25,000 pounds, which had incorrect wording on the documents.

They could have had 261 million pounds, or just over 6,000 pounds each, knocked off their outstanding loans if the ruling had gone against NRAM.

The British taxpayer would effectively have picked up the bill. NRAM Plc had made a provision for the compensation and is now likely to release that.

NRAM brought the legal claim itself, hoping to get a legally binding judgment on customers who took out unsecured loans of between 25,000 and 30,000 pounds on top of their mortgages with Northern Rock between 1999 and 2008.

Northern Rock was nationalised in 2008 after almost collapsing. ($1 = 0.6411 pounds) (Editing by Carolyn Cohn and Keith Weir)

[Unregistered]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

I'm one of the "over 25ks" and I didn't even know anything about this until a couple of weeks ago so I'm trying to get my head round it all.

What specifically have we been told we are entitled to, which we're actually not? I've read much of the court documents but I haven't seen a detailed description of what cover we were led to believe we had.

Thanks

[Amethyst]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

Basically ( very basically ) the loans under £25k are regulated by the CCA 1974, and that says particular statements must be sent to customers else they are not entitled to charge interest in the period of default. Therefore there's a period in 2008(I believe) where interest was charged when it shouldn't have been, so is being returned to customers. http://www.n-ram.co.uk/loans/cca-loans

[Unregistered]

Re: NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM JUDGMENT

Basically ( very basically ) the loans under £25k are regulated by the CCA 1974, and that says particular statements must be sent to customers else they are not entitled to charge interest in the period of default. Therefore there's a period in 2008(I believe) where interest was charged when it shouldn't have been, so is being returned to customers. http://www.n-ram.co.uk/loans/cca-loans

I had thought the issue was us being told our loans were regulated under the CCA 1974, when they weren't. And the court is saying this doesn't matter?