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

[Amethyst]

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

JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association v Northern Rock (Asset Management) plc [2014] EWHC 291 (Ch)
http://roslingking.com/february-2014-lender-update-5/

The Decision
The High Court found that a non-compliant statement was not a statement under Section 77A of the Act and the Defendant’s construction was therefore correct. In circumstances where a creditor has provided a debtor with a non-compliant statement, the period of non-compliance shall therefore commence on a date to be calculated as if no statement had been served at all, and the period of non-compliance shall begin on the day following the last day on which a compliant statement could be given.

The decision of the High Court clarifies the circumstances in which a period of non-compliance will run should a creditor fail to issue a statement which adheres to the provisions of Section 77A.

[stevemLS]

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

Declaratory proceedings are a common and perfectly usual means of clearing up any legal ambiguity to bring clarity to a given situation, no need to see conspiracy.

[Amethyst]

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

It'd be quite a crap conspiracy really when it's announced in their annual report and by the HMT xx Hardly secretive and underhand lol. Actually seems a quite sensible thing to do to me.

[seduraed]

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

stll not sure what that means . my brain has started to atrophy

[jhill]

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

Declaratory proceedings are a common and perfectly usual means of clearing up any legal ambiguity to bring clarity to a given situation, no need to see conspiracy.

Hi stvemLS, Do you know if it is normal that both the prosecuter and defendent are Company X and employees of Company X in a declaratory proceeding?

[stevemLS]

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

Are you certain that they are precisely the same legal "person" rather than two different bits of the former legal entity?

Whilst in general terms the court won't deal with hypothetical questions, I don't think this would be regarded as hypothetical as they have received at the least threats of proceedings,

Alternatively, I think Part 8 proceedings could be issued which can be done without naming a defendant.

[jhill]

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

Declaratory proceedings are a common and perfectly usual means of clearing up any legal ambiguity to bring clarity to a given situation, no need to see conspiracy.

For sure, but two things...

1. Is it normal that the prosecutor would be company X and the defendant an employee of company X

2. What if they lie to the judge in the proceedings about specific details?

Thanks

[jhill]

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

Are you certain that they are precisely the same legal "person" rather than two different bits of the former legal entity?

Whilst in general terms the court won't deal with hypothetical questions, I don't think this would be regarded as hypothetical as they have received at the least threats of proceedings,

Alternatively, I think Part 8 proceedings could be issued which can be done without naming a defendant.

I have been told by the courts that the Prosecutor is NRAM and the defendant is a Jeffrey McAdam who, on his linkedin profile states he is head of unsecured debt recovery at UKAR (which NRAM is part of).

I'm really sorry but I dont understand what you are getting at with your last two paragraphs. Please forgive my ignorance!

[Amethyst]

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

I have been told by the courts that the Prosecutor is NRAM and the defendant is a Jeffrey McAdam who, on his linkedin profile states he is head of unsecured debt recovery at UKAR (which NRAM is part of).

Jeff Mcadam

TitleHead of Unsecured Debt Recovery at UK Asset ResolutionDemographic info Durham, United Kingdom | Banking Current Head of Unsecured Debt Recovery at UK Asset Resolution Past Head of Unsecured Operations at Northern Rock, Assistant Director at Northern Rock, Head of Site Collections at Citi

''In the last few years I have managed liquidating or troublesome portfolios and brought those both in line as far as financial performance expectations, whilst also controlling the cost element of managing the portfolios. ''


''Head of Unsecured Debt Recovery
UK Asset Resolution
November 2010 – Present (4 years)

At the establishment of UKAR (United Kingdom Asset Resolution) I hold responsibility for all unsecured portfolios in NRAM, Bradford & Bingley and Mortgage Express.

NRAM having the lion share of this and these have flowed through from Northern Rock with my role but this now also includes all mortgage shortfalls for B&B and ME, which effectively doubles the shortfall portfolio managed to circa 33,000 accounts for an outstanding of circa £1.4BN''

[Amethyst]

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

Okay - I need a laymans run down of Declaratory Proceedings please if someone has time.

I am presuming that its when the lender just asks the court to make a declaration on the issue at hand without having a particular claimant/defendant - and they pay their own costs ?

If the court declares the contracts were in unenforceable with the CCA then it opens things up for claims to be made against NRAM or they arrange to pay compensation / write off debts etc - and if not the company knows they are secure in defending any such claims ?

[jhill]

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

Hi Again, does anyone know how I can get the details of the court hearing?

Surely they are available on the net? It starts next monday and the reference is 2014folio507

Thanks!

[Amethyst]

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...pensation.html

[Amethyst]

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

'' I conclude that the Claimant was in breach of its obligations under the Agreement by virtue of its failure to indemnify the Defendants in respect of its breach of Section 77A.''

Judgment http://legalbeagles.info/nram-plc-cl...2-ann-hartley/

[Nibbler]

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

http://www.ukar.co.uk/media-centre/p...01-2015?page=1

NRAM plc v McAdam & Hartley – NRAM Board Seeks Leave to Appeal

14 Jan 2015

NRAM plc

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 safeguard public money and although the High Court found against us in December, it is important to remember that our customers have suffered no financial detriment. Following legal advice, we are seeking leave to appeal the Court’s decision.”

NOTES TO EDITORS

UK Asset Resolution Limited (UKAR)

UKAR was established on 1 October 2010 to facilitate the orderly management of the closed mortgage books of both Bradford & Bingley (B&B) and NRAM to maximise value for taxpayers, while ensuring that both companies continue to treat customers fairly, deliver consistently high levels of service and support those customers facing financial difficulty. Further information about UKAR is available at www.ukar.co.uk.

[Amethyst]

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

lol, dickheads.