NRAM CCA Documentation Error

Hi all,

Some advice would be great....

I took out a Northern Rock Together mortgage in around 2007 which included an unsecured loan.

NRAM say that this loan doesnt qualify for any interest repayment due under their current documentation blunder as its for more than £25K and hence isnt covered by the Consumer Credit Act. However my original contract states clearly that the agreement is regulated by the CCA.

Does the fact that the original documentation states (incorrectly) that the loan is regulated, when apparently it isn't, warrant cause for complaint/recourse?

Many thanks for your time.

Nick Williams

 

How much was the loan

How much was the loan element?

Profile: Independent (self-employed) legal professional: 25+ year work history incl. 10 years in child protection - seven years legal experience in non-molestation/occupation orders; housing law (tenant/landlord); mortgages; possession hearings and family proceedings. Advice is provided for the purpose of answering the questions posed, based on the information given.

Hi, it was £30k. Rgds  

Hi,

it was £30k.

Rgds

 

If you took the loan out

If you took the loan out before April 2007, then it would generally be unregulated.  Presumably that is what you have been told by NRAM.  Though they are known for getting things wrong, so double check your paperwork and the relevant date.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about these types of loans and the information that NRAM incorrectly sent out - so there may be updates in the near future from them with regards to whether or not your loan is regulated.

Profile: Independent (self-employed) legal professional: 25+ year work history incl. 10 years in child protection - seven years legal experience in non-molestation/occupation orders; housing law (tenant/landlord); mortgages; possession hearings and family proceedings. Advice is provided for the purpose of answering the questions posed, based on the information given.

Thats great, thanks. Assuming

Thats great, thanks.

Assuming they got the original paperwork wrong - ie. It states "regulated" when in fact it isn't - is this something that could be challenged? Would it make any part of the agreement unenforceable? From another angle, might there be a claim against them for interest paid to date?

Regards

It is almost certainly not

It is almost certainly not going to be 'unenforceable'. Unfortunately lots of people online seem to think they can get out of paying a loan because they read about 'unenforceability', without understanding the term, or realising that the courts can apply the rules of equity to their decision making when ruling on such an issue before them.

NRAM haven't concluded their assessments/reviews of what they are doing regarding the loans affected by their incorrect information - until they do, they're not going to even look at the loans that currently appear to fall outside it - as yours does.

Wait and see is the best advice at this stage.

Profile: Independent (self-employed) legal professional: 25+ year work history incl. 10 years in child protection - seven years legal experience in non-molestation/occupation orders; housing law (tenant/landlord); mortgages; possession hearings and family proceedings. Advice is provided for the purpose of answering the questions posed, based on the information given.

A bad turn of phrase. Clearly

A bad turn of phrase. Clearly i dont think that the entire loan is now in question.

i think you have missed my point, regardless of NRAM's investigation into a very specific documentation screw up (which I dont think i am involved), it is incumbent upon a corporation to ensure their documentation is correct. I would assume that if i sign a binding agreement then the wording of that agreement must be completely accurate, and if it transpires that the wording is wrong then shouldnt i have legitimate reason to complain?

My original question was nothing to do with NRAM's ongoing investigation, but a general question as to whether they can use the phrase 'regulated by the consumer credit act', when it wasn't regulated by them at all?

Yes they can (and did). It is

Yes they can (and did).

It is incumbent on any signatory to a contract to know what they are signing.

 

 

Profile: Independent (self-employed) legal professional: 25+ year work history incl. 10 years in child protection - seven years legal experience in non-molestation/occupation orders; housing law (tenant/landlord); mortgages; possession hearings and family proceedings. Advice is provided for the purpose of answering the questions posed, based on the information given.

Yes of course it is, but most

Yes of course it is, but most would expect that the documentation is correct and i'm pretty certain a court would agree. Evidently you dont.

Anyway thanks for your thoughts.

Your 'certainty' is

Your 'certainty' is misplaced.

I gave you the legal position. The incorrect information will not be fatal to loan paperwork.

Read the caselaw.

Profile: Independent (self-employed) legal professional: 25+ year work history incl. 10 years in child protection - seven years legal experience in non-molestation/occupation orders; housing law (tenant/landlord); mortgages; possession hearings and family proceedings. Advice is provided for the purpose of answering the questions posed, based on the information given.

NRAM CCA Documentation Error

Hi Nick,

I wondered whether you ever got anywhere with this. Did you manage to obtain a repayment from them for the interest paid on the unsecured loan?

Thanks

 

Wow - this is an old thread,

Wow - this is an old thread, had forgotten about it!

I'll give you 3 guesses whether I got anywhere with this... They just fobbed me off with responses that have been posted on boards like this a hundred times. Several independent legal specialists I spoke to seemed to agree with them that the documentation error doesnt mean a thing and a court case would be expensive and pointless. Still seems unfair to me that they can author an agreement that has such a glaring mistake with no redress for the signatories. Bloody banks.

Regards

NRAM

Hello, apologies realise I am replying to a very old post but would like to know what the relevance is of the April 2007 date that has been quoted by the user Blueview? Thanks.  

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 12 guests online.

Online users

  • spacecadet
sarginsons law link

User login

Navigation

twitter link facebook link
netlawman link