#2
Here is where I think NR have another big problem. My daughters took a together mortgage in 2006 the loan part was over 25k. The agreement said it was regulated by the 1974 CCA.



At this point it probably was not a problem. However, now they have cocked up by not following the CCA guidelines from 2008 to 2012 they create a new problem.



People like my daughters are going to say. Hey my agreement is covered by the 1974 CCA, it says so on the agreement you made me sign.



If northern rock say, no it is not, that was a mistake, you loan is over 25k so is not protected, then surely my daughters can say they were given bad advice and mis sold a product, therefore making it invalid.



There is more to unfold here imo.

#3
Great idea! I'm in the same boat. We had a loan for 29.5K (asked for £25K initially but they upped the unsecured part to provide a greater part of the deposit - we had no choice) taken out May 2004. Paperwork all says "Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974" and has our signatures on it.



Remortgaged May 2008, which meant the loan needed remortgaging too, this time for 28K or so. Paperwork has the same statement at the top, although we don't seem to have a copy of anything with our signature on so I guess they must have that part.



I've been doing a bit of research and come up with this thread here which is an interesting read - I posted it in the other thread but it's probably long buried by now:



http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?178390-Credit-Agreements-over-25k-Pre-April-2008



It's an old thread on another board, not related to this latest turn of events, but the issues raised i.e. the paperwork having this printed on it, are still very relevant. To summarise the thread, at the time nobody was sure what would happen if somebody challenged it.



It'll be interesting to see how this goes, and if the £270 million quoted includes those with loans over £25K because if it doesn't and a challenge is successful, there will be a lot more upset.

#4
Just spoke to NR. They are saying that letters are going out tomorrow to those affected. As my daughters loan was for more than £25k she said she may not be entitled to the refund.



However in my mind this has opened up a new claim which could be even better. In my opinion the fact that they presented an agreement to them which states it is protected by the 1974 CCA was a mis sell as this was untrue.



Could this make the whole agreement invalid ? My daughters did not know they were being told something that was incorrect. In their mind they have an agreement which Northern Rock told them (in writing) was protected by the CCA..... interesting times ahead.

#5
(£30K loan with together mortgage Jan 2007 )

Have just been through all my mortgage and loan documents.

On the Key facts about the mortgage says it is regulated by the CCA 1974

The pre contract information also states this

The actual loan agreement documents header line is - Fixed-sum loan agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974



Will just have to wait and see...............

#6
found this on the other thread....



My conclusion is that if your agreement is for an unregulated amount, but is executed on regulated paperwork - then the agreement is probably unregulated.



HOWEVER. - By executing the agreement on that paper it becomes "contractually" regulated by the act - and therefore all of the consumer protections that are afforded to regulated agreements become part of the contract.



This is also the opinion of

Goode LAP

"Consumer sales law" (Author: Jon Keith Mcleod - he references a citation, but I have been able to find the case details - it may be unreported.)

Trading Standards.



It is the opinion of Trading Standards (but only a judge can really decide blah blah blah) - That should the company deny you any rights under the CCA 1974 and amendments - they would be in breach of contract, and you could pursue them for damages.

#7



found this on the other thread....



My conclusion is that if your agreement is for an unregulated amount, but is executed on regulated paperwork - then the agreement is probably unregulated.



HOWEVER. - By executing the agreement on that paper it becomes "contractually" regulated by the act - and therefore all of the consumer protections that are afforded to regulated agreements become part of the contract.



This is also the opinion of

Goode LAP

"Consumer sales law" (Author: Jon Keith Mcleod - he references a citation, but I have been able to find the case details - it may be unreported.)

Trading Standards.



It is the opinion of Trading Standards (but only a judge can really decide blah blah blah) - That should the company deny you any rights under the CCA 1974 and amendments - they would be in breach of contract, and you could pursue them for damages.
Originally posted by rmart




So, if they deny us our rights under the CCA 1974 in not refunding our loan interest surely they will be in breach of contract

#8
it seems to me that you have to look at it through the eyes of the borrower. i.e, my two daughters sat in front of a financial advisor and then a solicitor at the ages of 21 and 22 and were advised to sign documents that were presented as protected by the CCA. Now they beleive they have a claim under those rules the bank cannot say that the agreement is not protected because either



a). the wrong paper work was used

b.) the loan is over the cca limit



It seems pretty simple to me.

#9
That was what I was thinking too - that by *not* giving us protection under the CCA, we are losing out on this repayment. Because normally you have to prove that you've suffered some sort of material loss - well, a few grand in interest repayments sounds like a material loss to me. But I am no lawyer.



Like most of us in this situation I have an axe to grind against the rock for reasons I won't bore anyone with here but suffice to say they've had waaaay too much of our money and their rates and rules have significantly impacted in a bad way on our lives in general. So I don't feel too bad about any potential payout.

#10
exactly lizards, before this problem the fact that they were given a protected agreement incorrectly was not an issue.



Now it is an issue because they messed up, so all those with a loan over £25k on regulated paperwork have a material loss if they refuse to pay.



My preference would be to let them dismiss us and then get a lawyer to look at mis selling. This imo could see a better outcome for us.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron