Published decisions
558
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Firm analysis
NRAM plc complaint analysis
A public analysis page covering published Financial Ombudsman decisions involving NRAM plc, including outcome context, product mix, complaint themes, and representative cases.
Page summary
558 published decisions involving NRAM plc, with product mix, upheld-rate context, complaint themes, precedent signals, and representative cases.
Published decisions
558
Firm-specific decision volume in the public corpus
Upheld rate
34.4%
192 upheld decisions
Latest published decision 23 Jan 2019
Upheld rate
34.4%
192 upheld decisions
Leading product
Banking and credit
415 decisions
Leading complaint theme
Delay In Claim Handling
100 tagged decisions
NRAM plc at a glance
NRAM plc appears in 558 published decisions in this corpus. 34.4% of those decisions were upheld, which gives a public view of how often complaints involving this firm ended in a fully upheld outcome in the final published set.
Banking and credit is the firm’s clearest product exposure in the published decisions, with 415 decisions and an upheld rate of 33.7%.
- Latest active year in the published data: 2019 (3 decisions)
- Most common complaint theme: Delay In Claim Handling
- Most common precedent signal: Consumer Credit Act 1974
Volume and outcome trajectory
NRAM plc's decision trail runs from 2014 to 2019. That range gives enough public history to see whether complaint exposure has been broad-based or concentrated into certain years.
In the latest year represented here, NRAM plc appeared in 3 published decisions with an upheld rate of 0.0%.
- 2019: 3 decisions, 0.0% upheld
- 2018: 31 decisions, 25.8% upheld
- 2017: 93 decisions, 34.4% upheld
- 2016: 141 decisions, 37.6% upheld
- 2015: 184 decisions, 39.1% upheld
Themes, products, and precedent signals
Delay In Claim Handling is the strongest complaint-theme signal tied to NRAM plc in the published decisions. In this corpus, those themes are the most stable public proxy for complaint “type”.
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Mcob, Disp, and others are the most visible precedent signals in the firm’s published decisions. That gives extra context on the rules and fairness arguments appearing most often around the firm.
- Banking and credit: 415 decisions
- Second complaint theme: Affordability Assessment Failure
- Second precedent signal: Mcob
Representative cases
Recent published decisions in this slice
5 examples shown
DRN801239523 Jan 2019Not upheld
NRAM plc · Banking and credit
Mr H and Miss Y complain that Landmark Mortgages Limited continue to send a field agent to visit them, despite their request for these visits to stop. It is also adding fees for this which is making their financial situation worse. backgroundMr H and Miss Y say t... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN190718621 Jan 2019Not upheld
NRAM plc · Payment protection insurance (PPI)
Mr and Mrs B complain that Landmark Mortgages Limited mis-sold them a payment protection insurance (“PPI”) policy. The complaint is brought on their behalf by a claims management company.backgroundIn October 2008, Mr and Mrs B took out a PPI policy when they applied fo... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN575581815 Jan 2019Not upheld
NRAM plc · Banking and credit
Mr M complains NRAM plc didn’t do enough to notify him when his mortgage fell into arrears during and after 2012. He thinks NRAM should’ve sent him collection letters threatening repossession of his property and it didn’t follow any collection procedures.backgroundMr M ... (3 pages)
View source decisionDRN311679320 Dec 2018Not upheld
NRAM plc · Banking and credit
Mr and Mrs W complain that Landmark Mortgages Limited didn’t explain properly the effect of a payment holiday and is now charging them too much interest. Mr and Mrs W want Landmark to deduct the overcharged interest from the mortgage.backgroundMr and Mrs W have an int... (2 pages)
View source decisionDRN275966129 Nov 2018Not upheld
NRAM plc · Banking and credit
Mr and Mrs E complain that Landmark Mortgages Limited acted unfairly and unreasonably when dealing with their mortgage and the interest charged. They want matters put right.backgroundMr and Mrs E took out a mortgage with a lender, which ended up being sold to Landmark.... (2 pages)
View source decision