How is it possible for NRAM to still enforce the terms of the together mortgage 6 years after it was wound up? I myself have one of these deals. I'm effectively renting my house off them. The unsecure portion renders homes in negative equity and unable to remortgage elsewhere. NRAM should allow is customers to remortgage and leave the unsecure loan with them to be paid separately at the very least. Alarm bells first rang with NRAM in 2008 when I applied for a personal loan. I took out my mortgage in 2007. They asked me was my salary still £29k. It had never ever been £29k. I t was only £16k at the time they granted me the mortgage which leads me to think either them, the broker or a combination of the two have been fraudulent as payslips were provided in my application. I wonder if there are grounds for complaint?

How is it possible for NRAM to still enforce the terms of the together mortgage 6 years after it was wound up? I myself have one of these deals. I'm effectively renting my house off them. The unsecure portion renders homes in negative equity and unable to remortgage elsewhere. NRAM should allow is customers to remortgage and leave the unsecure loan with them to be paid separately at the very least. Alarm bells first rang with NRAM in 2008 when I applied for a personal loan. I took out my mortgage in 2007. They asked me was my salary still £29k. It had never ever been £29k. It was only £16k at the time they granted me the mortgage which leads me to think either them, the broker or a combination of the two have been fraudulent as payslips were provided in my application. I wonder if there are grounds for complaint?

I'm interested in fighting NRAM. The very least they could does to scrap the enforcement of the together mortgage that they themselves binned in 2008. Allow customers to remortgage without hiking the rates. This gets the largest amount of money owed repaid and leaving the loan portion with NRAM takes away the negative equity customers are held in.

I have written to my MP over these NRAM products, of which I'm a customer and that they shouldn't be able to enforce the terms of them when they themselves done away with the together deal in 2008 and that they should allow customer to leave and remortgage without increasing rates if the loan portion is left with them. It was passed to the treasury and I received a reply stating the gov have no involvement with NRAM. They simply have UKAR run it for them and any issues need to be taken up with NRAM or the regulator. Washing their hands in effect. It makes perfect sense to allow customers to remortgage because that aids UKAR in the winding up of NRAM by clearing the mortgages. I myself smelt rats in mis-selling. I was only earning £17k Gwen they gave me a mortgage on 2006 yet in 2008 when I applied for a loan when the credit crunch hit they just ran through my details to confirm and they had my salary as £29k. Unscrupulous broker + NRAM knowing full well the shady deals = trapped customers.

People need to be wary of any claims forms who may claim to be able to write off the unsecured portion of the NRAM loans. I was informed about 7 years ago in the process of investigating an IVA that NRAM as the major creditor could change the terms of the loan from unsecure to secure on your home. Admittedly it may have changed since then. The best bet is to get NRAM based on its faulty together product they themselves ditched to allow customers to split the mortgage and loan so that we can remortgage elsewhere with fees, penalties or rate hikes. Only then when they're not in ownership of the mortgage can the loan be dealt with. Anyone agree?

If only NRAM would allow its mortgage holders to leave and remortgage whilst leaving the unsecured loan with NRAM and not increasing the interest rates. Because they can't offer new mortgages and the together aspect places homes into negative equity. Surely they've got to agree to splitting the two loans on a broken product they ceased to sell in 2008. UKAR spiked also get the mortgages paid off leaving only unsecure debts if they allowed homeowners to leave.

NR would only lend 95% of the mortgage. The other 5% had to be borrowed from them via a together loan or separate loan. They may have offered 125% but in reality only 95% was the secured part.

Just read your post and I'm in a similar situation. In sept 2006 I was 'advised' by a broker that a together mortgage was my only chance of getting onto the housing ladder. I had existing loan and credit card debts that the broker said would be no problem as they can be paid off with the together loan freeing up the cash to afford the mortgage. It all sounded great however a sticking point was that my salary was only £16k at the time which I thought nowhere near enough to qualify for a mortgage but was told that the together deal is taylor made for my circumstance. So the deal went through as £73.5k mtge ad £18.5k unsec loan. Here's the interesting part. I ran into financial difficulty around 12 mths after the completion date and called NR about a small unsecure loan to which they asked during the personal questions part is my salary still £28k??? it never was £28k and never has been £28k. What exactly did the broker tell them in arranging my mortgage? I have thought about a mis-selling claim through A duty of care whereby not only has a broker provided fraudulent information to obtain the mortgage and his referral and setup fee but NR also provided a mortgage product that once signed placed the holder into negative equity instantly. Surely this carries weight as to the responsibility of the lender. If anyone has any news, tips or pointers please reply. Also has the situation changed at all after the virgin takeover?