Tweet
Hi all, just a bit of advice needed please, NRAM recently completely ballsed up my mortgage when they issued me with advices of 14 days commencement of action for potential repossession on 2 separate occasions within a 21 day period on the basis of non payment of an ATP (Agreement to pay). These were totally without foundation and they have acknowledged that these have been issued due to errors created at their end due to actions of their own personnel.
It took me over 2 hours combined of calls and 3 separate assurances that the issues would not be repeated after the 1st instance, which of course they were and of course the issue was repeated.
Now the issue here is I am registered with their "vulnerable" dept as I have mental health issues and these letters threatening repossession and additional costs, court action etc, caused me MASSIVE distress not only at the receipt of the letters but the issues of having to contact NRAM to resolve it ( one of my main conditions is social phobia and I become extremely emotional when having to deal by phone if I do not know who the person is I am dealing with and what the whole context of the conversation will be ( anxiety and stress issues ) Ultimately I was not able to speak directly with the vulnerable dept and instead had to endure quite a grilling from their standard customer services dept of the why's and where for's of having to justify "my position" which in their view was non payment of contractual monthly payments. They eventually agreed to transfer me to the vulnerable dept when it was apparent there were very apparent NRAM errors and I was at this time quite hysterical and very very distressed.
Cutting the story short, they agreed to carry out an investigation and upon conclusion have agreed that all errors have been their own and there have been NO issues of non payment by myself - they agree that their have ONLY been internal errors regarding their failures in the mode of contact with me and that the letters issued which on each occasion were totally inappropriate and without foundation. They state that they are however UNABLE to remove the 2 non existent breaches of the ATP but have marked their records to state that these were internal errors and not as a result of ANYTHING to do with myself.
They have apologised and have upheld all of my complaints against them ( 4 in total ) and have offered £250 as a matter of conclusion ( It does not state gesture of goodwill, which is surprising)
My question is this, I personally feel that the level of compensation offered is not proportional to the nigh on 4 weeks of issues I suffered as a result of the errors caused, the correspondence received, the contact I had to have with NRAM and the additional counselling I undertook to help with coping with what was happening. However I have no way of quantifying what indeed is a reasonable level shall we say on a legal basis.
Their letter states "IF" I decline the offer I can refer to the ombudsman which I am advised is pretty standard procedure but it infers that I am not obliged to accept the offer. I know that the ombudsman charges about £550 to the financial institution to whom the complaint is levied and therefore straight away, if the ombudsman agrees with NRAM then it will have cost then £800 to pay me £250 in the end. which from their perspective doesn't make economic sense ?
Alternatively if the Ombudsman disagrees with NRAMS basis of settlement it could therefore cost them much much more as they have already held their hands up and admitted their MULTIPLE errors.
I don't want to be greedy and am not out to be mercenary I just want to ensure that for what they have done that they pay what will be perceived as the right amount from a legal perspective. It may not sound much but if the payment was or should have been closer to £500 or even more then that is more then at say £500 that extra £250 represents over a months food shopping to us, so it is not an insignificant amount at all.
Anyway, if anyone can offer any advices from the perspective of whether they, by means of a scale of payments from a legal view should be expected to pay more or if I should accept their offer as presented I would be most grateful as I will have to speak to them which is hard enough as it is but if I have at my disposal the reasoning behind an acceptance or declination of their offer then at least I can sound as though I know what I am doing.
Hope somebody can advise and cheers in advance
And as a caveat which I am following with more than just a passing interest NRAM have just saved over £258 million by somehow convincing the high courts that their Together mortgages with unsecured loans over £30k were compliant where the £25k ones weren't and guess who had a £30k one, yep !! me and 41000 others who have just been shafted by more than dubious proceedings ( taking themselves to court and using their own staff as plaintiffs ( as people who have a together mortgage ) all sound dubious, no ?
It took me over 2 hours combined of calls and 3 separate assurances that the issues would not be repeated after the 1st instance, which of course they were and of course the issue was repeated.
Now the issue here is I am registered with their "vulnerable" dept as I have mental health issues and these letters threatening repossession and additional costs, court action etc, caused me MASSIVE distress not only at the receipt of the letters but the issues of having to contact NRAM to resolve it ( one of my main conditions is social phobia and I become extremely emotional when having to deal by phone if I do not know who the person is I am dealing with and what the whole context of the conversation will be ( anxiety and stress issues ) Ultimately I was not able to speak directly with the vulnerable dept and instead had to endure quite a grilling from their standard customer services dept of the why's and where for's of having to justify "my position" which in their view was non payment of contractual monthly payments. They eventually agreed to transfer me to the vulnerable dept when it was apparent there were very apparent NRAM errors and I was at this time quite hysterical and very very distressed.
Cutting the story short, they agreed to carry out an investigation and upon conclusion have agreed that all errors have been their own and there have been NO issues of non payment by myself - they agree that their have ONLY been internal errors regarding their failures in the mode of contact with me and that the letters issued which on each occasion were totally inappropriate and without foundation. They state that they are however UNABLE to remove the 2 non existent breaches of the ATP but have marked their records to state that these were internal errors and not as a result of ANYTHING to do with myself.
They have apologised and have upheld all of my complaints against them ( 4 in total ) and have offered £250 as a matter of conclusion ( It does not state gesture of goodwill, which is surprising)
My question is this, I personally feel that the level of compensation offered is not proportional to the nigh on 4 weeks of issues I suffered as a result of the errors caused, the correspondence received, the contact I had to have with NRAM and the additional counselling I undertook to help with coping with what was happening. However I have no way of quantifying what indeed is a reasonable level shall we say on a legal basis.
Their letter states "IF" I decline the offer I can refer to the ombudsman which I am advised is pretty standard procedure but it infers that I am not obliged to accept the offer. I know that the ombudsman charges about £550 to the financial institution to whom the complaint is levied and therefore straight away, if the ombudsman agrees with NRAM then it will have cost then £800 to pay me £250 in the end. which from their perspective doesn't make economic sense ?
Alternatively if the Ombudsman disagrees with NRAMS basis of settlement it could therefore cost them much much more as they have already held their hands up and admitted their MULTIPLE errors.
I don't want to be greedy and am not out to be mercenary I just want to ensure that for what they have done that they pay what will be perceived as the right amount from a legal perspective. It may not sound much but if the payment was or should have been closer to £500 or even more then that is more then at say £500 that extra £250 represents over a months food shopping to us, so it is not an insignificant amount at all.
Anyway, if anyone can offer any advices from the perspective of whether they, by means of a scale of payments from a legal view should be expected to pay more or if I should accept their offer as presented I would be most grateful as I will have to speak to them which is hard enough as it is but if I have at my disposal the reasoning behind an acceptance or declination of their offer then at least I can sound as though I know what I am doing.
Hope somebody can advise and cheers in advance
And as a caveat which I am following with more than just a passing interest NRAM have just saved over £258 million by somehow convincing the high courts that their Together mortgages with unsecured loans over £30k were compliant where the £25k ones weren't and guess who had a £30k one, yep !! me and 41000 others who have just been shafted by more than dubious proceedings ( taking themselves to court and using their own staff as plaintiffs ( as people who have a together mortgage ) all sound dubious, no ?
Comment