Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

[Guest]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

Sorry wrong thread

[jhill]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

Hi, just to say that I've been through the FOS process now from beginning to end. Despite the fact the Ombudsman agree we were mislead, he thought it wouldn't have made any difference to our decision (despite me clearly showing proof that CCA coverage was very important) but he felt that despite being mislead into a £250k mortgage, £100 compensation would be fair!!!!

i have kept all my documentation and I'm happy to post it up on here (there's a lot). What I'm looking to understand now is what the lowest cost / lowest risk avenue is to get a Judge to rule on the unsecured element of the agreement. I still can't get to grips with how an agreement can say "only sign if you wish to be bound by the CCA" and then the lender get away scot free by saying "Sorry, it was wrong". Doesn't seem like justice!

[jhill]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

One of the avenues I am considering is the small claims court for breach of contract? However, I've read about this 6 year law and we first took out the mortgage in 2006 does that mean we've lost that option?

[Bigjazzy]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

Hi all

As they say loans over £25k pre 2008 are unregulated what happens if one of these loans was signed in 2007 (on regulated paperwork), they then issue a default referring to the CCA 1974 and go to court and obtain a decree?

On one hand they claim these loans are unregulated but on the other had they implement the CCA to take it to court?

Any views?

[Celestine]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

One of the avenues I am considering is the small claims court for breach of contract? However, I've read about this 6 year law and we first took out the mortgage in 2006 does that mean we've lost that option?

No, as this was secured on property, The Limitation period is 12 years not 6.

[Guest]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

Hi all

As they say loans over £25k pre 2008 are unregulated what happens if one of these loans was signed in 2007 (on regulated paperwork), they then issue a default referring to the CCA 1974 and go to court and obtain a decree?

On one hand they claim these loans are unregulated but on the other had they implement the CCA to take it to court?

Any views?

It would not make it regulated unfortunately, however it would be unfair to mislead a potential debtor that they would have the protection of the act, I think a complaint to the FOS

[Bigjazzy]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

It would not make it regulated unfortunately, however it would be unfair to mislead a potential debtor that they would have the protection of the act, I think a complaint to the FOS

Could I overturn the decree on the basis I was mislead that I had protection of the act? If I could overturn the decree then then this debt would be statute barred

[Guest]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

Could I overturn the decree on the basis I was mislead that I had protection of the act? If I could overturn the decree then then this debt would be statute barred

I think it unlikely to be honest, the sums would be due under an agreement regulated or not IMO.

[ncf355]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

Would Evans v Cherry Tree Finance be of use here?

Appreciate it may not be directly related, but possibly some use can be gained from its findings?

[jhill]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

MASSIVELY IMPORTANT!

On the 17th of November "Declaratory Proceedings" take place in the High Court with regards to this whole debacle.

I am not a lawyer and so this is purely my opion and take on the matter and should not be considered a statement of fact.

NRAM are essentially taking themselves to court to get a ruling on precisely where they stand from a legal point of view.

But here's what I consider to be the dark side of things...The defendents in the case appear to be employees of NRAM! The Prosecters are NRAM whilst one of the defendent (according to their LinkedIn profile) is "Head of Unsecured Debt Recovery".

How on earth are the voices of thousands of mis-sold NRAM customers liekly to be voiced in such a court? This is an absolute sham!

Are there any moderators that can help bring this to greater light and get some heat on this case?

I am having to pay £50 to the high court to get the details of the Judge etc and so will update in the comings days. High Court don't except cards you have to pay cash or cheque...leaving me to call in favours from relatives to physcially go to the High Court in London so I can get this info.

I don't want to sound dramatical but to me this appears to be some really dark, cover-up.

Can anyone help? I have the case number Claim 2014folio507

[jhill]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

Hi, Sorry if this is a frowned upon way of bringing something to your attention but can you please read my post below.

Thanks!

[ncf355]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

Good grief

Will try and bring this to the attention of Mods

[Amethyst]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

MASSIVELY IMPORTANT!

On the 17th of November "Declaratory Proceedings" take place in the High Court with regards to this whole debacle.

I am not a lawyer and so this is purely my opion and take on the matter and should not be considered a statement of fact.

NRAM are essentially taking themselves to court to get a ruling on precisely where they stand from a legal point of view.

But here's what I consider to be the dark side of things...The defendents in the case appear to be employees of NRAM! The Prosecters are NRAM whilst one of the defendent (according to their LinkedIn profile) is "Head of Unsecured Debt Recovery".

How on earth are the voices of thousands of mis-sold NRAM customers liekly to be voiced in such a court? This is an absolute sham!

Are there any moderators that can help bring this to greater light and get some heat on this case?

I am having to pay £50 to the high court to get the details of the Judge etc and so will update in the comings days. High Court don't except cards you have to pay cash or cheque...leaving me to call in favours from relatives to physcially go to the High Court in London so I can get this info.

I don't want to sound dramatical but to me this appears to be some really dark, cover-up.

Can anyone help? I have the case number Claim 2014folio507

Sounds interesting. How do you know about this case? Could you point me to the source please.(forget that I've got it see next post)

If it is being heard at the High Court it should appear in the listings the week before (which should give details of Judge etc) so not sure what you are obtaining for your £50 ?

How did you find out the date?

[Amethyst]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

Ok got it - attached file



39. Contingent liabilities
The Consumer Credit Act ('CCA') regulates certain classes of mortgages and loans including the majority of the unsecured
element of the 'Together' mortgage portfolio. As detailed in the Group's 2012 Annual Report and Accounts, NRAM did not
comply with the requirements of the CCA in respect of some documentation provided to certain customers with CCA
regulated loans. NRAM, therefore, made provisions during 2012 and the current period, for NRAM's best estimate of the cost
of providing remediation to those customers (see note 28).
Where NRAM made unsecured loans for sums in excess of £25,000 prior to 6 April 2008, the documentation incorrectly
stated that these loans were also regulated under the CCA. Having considered all the information available to us, including
legal advice and favourable adjudications by the Financial Ombudsman Service, we are of the view that such loans are not
covered by CCA regulation and, therefore, do not require remediation or a provision. However, to provide clarity for
ourselves and our customers, NRAM has commenced declaratory proceedings in the High Court to determine whether
customers who took out such loans are entitled to the same or similar rights and remedies as those customers who took out
loans that were regulated under the CCA. We expect this clarity by 31 March 2015. If the Court makes a decision adverse to
our position, then NRAM would consider the impact and could be liable for remediation to these customers. Any such
remediation would be likely to be through adjustment to customer balances. The current exposure, as at 31 March 2014,
resulting from this uncertainty, together with any other potential actions following a judgement, falls within a range up to an
estimated maximum of £240m.
In July 2013 the Company completed the £400m sale of its standalone unsecured personal loan book, realising a profit on
sale of £21.2m. Under the terms of the sale, the Company provided certain warranties. Any claims under the warranties
must be made by 12 March 2015. The Group's maximum liability under these warranties is limited to £35m.
The Company has provided a number of financial guarantees to other NRAM Group companies. The Directors do not expect
any claims to be made against the Company under these guarantees and hence no provision has been made.

[Amethyst]

Re: Loan taken out under CCA 1974 where lender is now saying it is unregulated

Also here - Page 163 (attached)

NRAM loans
Prior to 6 April 2008, NRAM made unsecured loans for sums in excess of £25,000 using
documentation which incorrectly stated that these loans were regulated under the Consumer
Credit Act (CCA). To provide clarity for themselves and their customers, NRAM has commenced
declaratory proceedings in the High Court to determine whether customers who took out such
loans are entitled to the same or similar rights and remedies as those customers who took out
loans that were regulated under the CCA. Clarity is expected by 31 March 2015. In the event of
an adverse decision, then NRAM would consider the impact and could be liable for remediation
to these customers. Any such remediation would be likely to be through adjustment to customer
balances. The current exposure, as at 31 March 2014, resulting from this uncertainty, together
with any other potential actions following a judgement, falls within a range up to an estimated
maximum of £240 million.