NRAM/Landmark Mortgages - Account in serious arrears default date issue

**pt2537** · 25th July 2017, 20:20:PM

Re: NRAM/Landmark Mortgages - Account in serious arrears default date issue

http://www.qualitysolicitors.com/how...eloan-customer

have you seen the above ? NRAM is something that i am actively looking into and have had some success with pursing too. If you wanted a hand, you can either register on the forum, whereby we can point you in the right direction or in the alternative feel free to read through the above link which explains what ive been looking at with NRAM

Heres a link to my blog which explains a little more about the NRAM cases, https://consumercreditlitigationandd...ram-customers/

**pt2537** · 25th July 2017, 22:21:PM

Re: NRAM/Landmark Mortgages - Account in serious arrears default date issue

Anyway, back to NRAM, if the mortage was a together mortgage, heres what i wrote on NRAM awhile ago now, i have no issue sharing my views on NRAM here and this is what i would have passed on to anyone who contacted me about NRAM anyway

Northern Rock (NRAM) hit the headlines in around December 2012 as a result of its errors from failing to provide its customers with statements of account as required by s.77(a) Consumer Credit Act 1974 (‘the 1974 Act’). According to press reports, NRAM was ordered to refund over £270 million to some 150,000 customers. It is worth noting however that these customers were customers whose loan agreements were under the £25,000 threshold. NRAM refused to refund customers whose loan agreements, such as yours, exceed the £25,000 threshold. As a result of the dispute between NRAM and the customers whose loans were in excess of £25,000, the case of NRAM v McAdam & Hartley was borne. This case ended up being determined by the Court of Appeal in which the Court was asked the question as to whether or not the NRAM loan agreements which exceeded the £25,000 threshold could be considered regulated agreements for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act. It was the customer’s views that the NRAM loan agreement stated that they were regulated and therefore contractually the loan agreements should fall within the remit of the 1974 Act. The Court of Appeal however disagreed. The Court ruled that the loan agreements which provided credit under the Northern Rock Together Scheme in excess of £25,000 were not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Court also found however, crucially, that the fact that the loan agreements stated that they were regulated by the 1974 Act and the fact that the sales staff who sold these loans had told the consumers that they would be protected by the 1974 Act could in effect give rise for misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act and/or, in the alternative, a claim for breach of warranty as the statements contained within the loan agreements that stated the agreements were regulated by the Act were considered by the Court of Appeal to be warranties (see paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Court of Appeal judgment). The Court of Appeal however came to the conclusion that there may well be defences available to Northern Rock if any proceedings were pursued by the customers whose loans exceeded £25,000. The Court’s view, as set out in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the NRAM v McAdam & Hartley judgment, was that there may be a potential limitation defence available due to the passage of time which had passed since the loan agreements were executed.
The Court however did not consider whether the relationship between the customers and NRAM was fair. In fact no determination was made as to whether or not the relationship was unfair as a result of NRAM’s failings.
Having considered the above and the relevant cases, we are of the view that there may be a claim under the provisions of s140A of the 1974 Act. These are the provisions which are often referred to as the unfair relationship provisions. The Court, if it makes a finding that the relationship is unfair, can make essentially any Order it deems just under the provision of s140B of the 1974 Act. The Court has the power to require the creditor to return, in part or in full, any monies received. The creditor could be ordered by the Court to do, or not to do, or to cease doing anything specified in the Court’s Order in connection with the agreement. The Court can alter any terms of the agreement and also has the ability to reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor under the agreement. To put it bluntly, the Court has almost unfettered power to make an Order that it deems just to compensate the customer in the event that the Court finds the relationship is unfair.
Bringing a claim under the unfair relationship provisions of the Consumer Credit Act also provides assistance on the question of limitation. As the Court of Appeal rightly noted, many of the claims identified in the Court of Appeal judgment would face difficulty as they would effectively be time barred. This is because when dealing with breach of contract or misrepresentation claims, the time for bringing the claim runs from when the breach of contract occurs or when the misrepresentation takes place. Therefore most of the claims would be time barred because more than 6 years has passed since the breach of warranty occurred or since the misrepresentation took place. However, under the provisions of s140A of the 1974 Act, when dealing with an unfair relationship, limitation only becomes an issue when the relationship has ended. Therefore in many of these cases, the relationship between the customer and NRAM is ongoing and therefore the issue of limitation falls away.
There are also Senior Court authorities on the question of whether or not it is permissible to bring a claim for misrepresentation or breach of warranty under the heading of s140A of the 1974 Act. The Court, in the case of Scotland v British Credit Trust, ruled that it was entirely right that a consumer could bring a claim for breach of contractual warranty and/or misrepresentation under the provisions of s140A of the 1974 Act. There was no rule which required a misrepresentation claim to be founded solely under the heading of the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Therefore, limitation falls away and if there are any claims for breach of warranty or misrepresentation, those claims can be brought under the heading of s140A of the 1974 Act. The key question the Court has to determine is whether or not the conduct complained of causes the relationship between the creditor and the debtor to become unfair.
In these NRAM matters, we are of the view that the customers may well have a challenge to be brought before the Court under the provisions of s140A of the 1974 Act. Unfortunately these issues are largely untested in Court. We have dealt with a number of County Court cases involving unfair relationships for various reasons, such as unfair harassment by telephone and unfair debt collection practices etc. Unfortunately however there is no Senior Court authority which deals with the question of NRAM loan agreements and whether or not the relationships are unfair.
As a consequence, it is difficult to give any formal indication as to what remedy the Court would award if the Court determines the relationship to be unfair. The Court may conclude that the relationship is unfair and may reduce the amount payable under the loan agreement to a level to compensate the customer as a result of the unfairness arising out of the particular case. The Court may also consider the relationship so unfair that only an Order compelling NRAM to repay the monies that the customer has paid under the loan agreement would suffice. Unfortunately the remedy which will be achieved does depend on the Judge on the day. It is also important that we should point out that whilst we may believe the relationship is unfair, the Court could take a different view. Equally the Court could rule that the relationship is unfair but that the unfairness is so insignificant that no damages or alternative remedy should be awarded. It is for this reason that we have decided to progress a batch of test cases to invite the Court to consider the facts of these cases involving NRAM and to invite the Court to assess which remedies would be suitable in these circumstances.
It is also equally important to highlight that given the issues in these NRAM matters, there is unfortunately no Court precedent as to how the Court will deal with cases such as this. As a consequence, it is difficult to envisage how the Court will progress these cases or indeed whether the cases will even get to Court. It is possible that the Defendant, upon receipt of our letter before legal action, may consider settlement of these cases before even proceeding. Equally the opponent may decide that it feels confident enough to take these matters through to Trial, it may be the case that we may advise on making an application for summary judgment in the course of any legal proceedings which we may pursue or it may be the case that we need to make further applications for disclosure etc.

**Landmarknightmare** · 26th July 2017, 20:39:PM

Re: NRAM/Landmark Mortgages - Account in serious arrears default date issue

Originally posted by pt2537 View Post

http://www.qualitysolicitors.com/how...eloan-customer

have you seen the above ? NRAM is something that i am actively looking into and have had some success with pursing too. If you wanted a hand, you can either register on the forum, whereby we can point you in the right direction or in the alternative feel free to read through the above link which explains what ive been looking at with NRAM

Heres a link to my blog which explains a little more about the NRAM cases, https://consumercreditlitigationandd...ram-customers/

Thank you

I have completed the form and sent it across this evening.

**Diana M** · 26th July 2017, 21:36:PM

Re: NRAM/Landmark Mortgages - Account in serious arrears default date issue

I've replied on your other thread

Di

NRAM/Landmark Mortgages - Account in serious arrears default date issue

NRAM/Landmark Mortgages - Account in serious arrears default date issue

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Announcement

Support LegalBeagles

Court Claim ?