Jump to content

supersleuth

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

supersleuth last won the day on January 2 2009

supersleuth had the most liked content!

Reputation

207 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Angnnig, You can charge them the same contractual rate of interest that they charged you. The contractual rate of interest is compound interest and usually compounds 12 times per year. You don't make it clear, but the 8% figure you refer to, is that the statutory interest rate you are referring to? If so, that is charged simple interest. You might want to fully research and study interest rates to determine your calculations for an accurate reflection of just how much they have screwed you for. Attached below is a useful guide explaining interest rates. Whilst you are told the APR interest rates, the bankers and corporate financiers always use the effective interest rate when working out the return on your loan because it more accurately reflects how much they actually got from you. Don't be put off, you can work it out and understand it if you are motivated and determined. Hope this helps EFFECTIVE INTEREST RATE EIR_Tucker.pdf
  2. Hi there diddled, Yes I would like you to go on. Please could you look at my thread here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/262954-expose-your-lender-horror.html#post2969717 The conflicts of interests issue and corrupt practices are things that would be of great interest if you could help with the research to expose the issues.
  3. Here's the thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgages-secured-loans/262768-eviction-date-today-i.html Also, have you had an eviction notice yet? Note in the advice in thread link posted above - that you can make an application to set aside an eviction. Also, Mrs Hobbit is right - if you have a solicitor that is doing the sale conveyance for you - see the advice about this in the thread link posted above. Plus, ask your conveyance solicitor why he has NOT GOT the deeds yet - it is a simple task. As your solicitor to tell you the REASON they have given for their failure to give him the deeds. Hope this helps Let us know how things are going so for you as many other people could offer you advice
  4. Miel, Sounds like you don't have an independent and impartial judge - which is a breach of your Article 6 right to a fair trial. Well that's the law as it stands, but unfortunately (for a large majority of us), we are subjected to these venal judges who are conflicted and use their judicial office for their own financial gains. There is another thread I was reading earlier today which was much along the same lines as yourself -i.e., house sold but mortgage lender took possession rather than let her sell it (although there was no mention of potential judicial corruption in her post). But there was some good advice there which could help. I will find the thread and post it up for you. Was the judge a Deputy District Judge by any chance? Also, was the possession order an immediate possession order or was it a suspended possession order?
  5. Hi JonCris, 100% agree with you. The judiciary and the lawyers must be held to account for their deeds against the ordinary public. Somebody, somewhere (of course not any of our institutions or authorities) may be working on that objective right now.
  6. tbern123 - I don't need you to keep asserting who you are not. In fact, I don't care who you are either. Hence, you don't need to keep posting your assertions as to who you are not. Your identity is boring and irrelevant to the discussion.
  7. Read the many threads of people who have had their homes repossessed. You may find that in most cases, as you rightly observe, it is the "minus fees" that is the problem. The borrower's equity is swallowed up in paying the many, many fees and costs levied on the borrower for the sale. Thus, most people's equity is swallowed up with these fees and in a lot of cases, those fees push the account to an alleged shortfall. Hence it is not only those borrowers who are in negative equity that suffer from this extortion, it is the many borrowers who do have equity in their homes. Again, read the many threads where repossessed people testify to this fact. BTW - another method of stealing people's equity is evident in the Horsham Properties v Heath case. Where the mortgagee sells the property cheap to a company at undervalue and then that purchaser sells on at a profit. There is no end to the strategies these people employ to steal your wealth.
  8. BTW, the cosy applecart does need to be rocked. The whole point of the statutory provisions of unenforceability was to DETER. If no lender ever suffers the enforcement of the deterrent, the whole lot of them will continue to shaft the consumer - which is what Parliament was trying to STOP!
  9. Again you're right. Consequences to the economy. So the judiciary neglect to consider that making families homeless has huge consequences to the tax-payer. Every family that is made homeless becomes a burden to the local authority who must house them, usually, being homeless makes it unsustainable to hold down a job, so the people become dependant on the state - which means, state benefits, housing benefits etc., etc., But so long as the bankers get ignore to their statutory duties when entering into CCA's, and as long as the consumer cannot enforce the protections parliament bequeathed the consumer - the economy (read the City, because that's all that's left of our "economy") will be fine. Never mind that the tax-payer is burdened with the aftermath of ensuring the City boys get all the wealth out of the economy. At what point will the tax-payer be unable to sustain the social costs of these repossessions? Don't you think that that is a valid social question that the courts should consider? But more pertinent, don't you think that if Parliament said the contract is unenforceable - the court has no lawful right to defeat the intention of Parliament? They are supposed to give effect to the intention of Parliament when interpreting statutes. Just because the Judge prefer to take wealth from the consumer to give to the City that does not justify a judge defeating Parliament and negating democracy. Incidentally, the economy, which is the City that asset strips the companies that employ people and make those people unemployed too. And once unemployed, the next step is repossessing their homes. Take Cadbury's as a recent example. When will the City ever create jobs rather than destroy everything. Destroy jobs, destroy homes and families. The only other elements of our economy is the defence industry and the public employer, civil servants etc. Sycophantic reverence for the City has gone too far. It's time to rebalance the scales of justice - sadly, all too lacking for the family in this country. As for the Walker decision from the Supreme court - yes, I wait with baited breath to see if they've taken the opportunity to turn the tide on these injustices. Would like to think that they'd uphold Parliament's intention but don't have any confidence in our judicial system at all. The judiciary haven't given any of us any reasons to have confidence in their version of "justice". We can only have confidence that the judiciary will give the bankers EVERYTHING.
  10. You've got it in one. Repossession is far more profitable than lending to the customer for 25 years. That's why they force people into arrears. Firstly they charge interest at rates they know is untenable for the borrower to sustain. They know how to force the borrower into arrears because they know exactly the fixed income that the borrower declared on their application. Secondly, they know that once they've tripped the borrower up on its first missed payment - from there they can add all the extortionate fees that are really profitable. If you manage to re-mortgage, then they can stuff you for an ERC in the tens of thousands. So it's good business for them to force you into "alleged" arrears. But then the next mortgage company will soon have you in the same boat a few years down the line anyway, plus they've also screw you for all the extensive costs in remortgaging as well. Maximised profits. Why should they lend for 25 years? It's much more profitable to force you into arrears. If you haven't been able to remortgage, the next profit centre is just as lucrative - taking your home. Then they can steal all the equity from your home. And, even after taking all your equity, there's more. Fees, fees and more fees for the sale of your property and then they get to have you in their clutches for the contrived "shortfall", all of which attracts compound interest. So then they leave you alone for a few years while you financially recover and then, once you recover, they miraculously appear. With their compounded interest on the alleged shortfall over say 6 or 12 years and they get to hound you for another small fortune. Read the many threads on this topic regarding repossessions that took place in the 1990's. Oh boy, it's soooo much more profitable to repossess than it is to let the borrower have the loan for 25 years. You will never be allowed to get out of their clutches even after they've taken everything you've got. Until our blind, deaf and dumb moron judges understand the abuse and frauds perpetrated on the back of their "rights" over a mortgaged person, Bankruptcy or Death is the only way out. Opps, even your death may not be the way out because then these shysters will hound your family. They have no scruples they just want ALL YOU MONEY - THAT IS EACH AND EVERY PENNY YOU EVER GET - FOREVER AND EVER!
  11. Hi ANW, This case highlights the criminal extortion perpetrated by the securitisation structure. Take a logical look at the figures. A loan of £17,500 taken out in April 2005 on a 15 year term. 4.5 years into the loan (i.e. Nov 2009), the loan has (allegedly) accrued £40K in arrears. Therefore, adding arrears and the principal amount borrowed, the Walkers (allegedly) owe SPPL £57,500. Wow, within 4.5 years a 17.5K loan turns into a whopping £57,500 DEBT! As you rightly point out - the claimant is concerned that the Walkers would have a windfall. That "windfall" would be £17.5K. But SPPL would have a "windfall" of MORE THAN THREE TIMES that amount! And in any event, I have no doubt that within that 4.5 years, the Walkers had already made payment way in excess of £17.5K so SPPL lost NOTHING from an agreement that was declared by court before Judge Halbert as unenforceable. The whole point of the CCA rendering agreements unenforceable was to act as a deterrent to unscrupulous lenders - to DETER them from screwing over the consumer. But alas, our courts don't worry about the consumer being screwed over, our courts are more concerned with ASSISTING these criminals in their frauds! From a social justice perspective, the judge had to make a choice to either prevent SPPL from being unable to screw over all its other customers or send the Walkers into bankruptcy. The judge clearly decided that impoverishing the consumer and letting SPPL continue to screw over all the rest of us consumers was social justice. Moreover, the courts do not care that through our democratic process Parliament intended that there be deterrents against unscrupulous lenders - the courts do not care to ENFORCE those deterrents against unscrupulous lenders. The upshot is that AT LAW our justice system encourages, assists and supports the fraudulent exploitation of the British consumer. The courts continue to "interpret" the statutes in the light most favourable to the lender and to defeat the intentions of our parliamentary democracy. I would like to know how may judges in our judiciary have favourable "loans" from these companies. As for the SPPL's contention in the judgment that the Walkers would have a windfall of £40K that is a nonsence. The Walkers only received £17.5K and off the back of that miserable sum - they loose ALL the wealth - absolutely EVERYTHING. Well done SPPL - you and the courts and judges absolutely disgust me! Is this JUSTICE? Does this give you confidence is our so-called "justice" system? Mummery (the judge) GOT IT WRONG in his judgment. DJ Halbert's judgment is the most faithful application of the rule of law I have ever read. Halbert's judgment is unimpeachable. Mummery does his slight-of-hand at para. 43. He says, s.127(3) of the CCA 1974 was a discretionary provision. Mummery is wrong. Read C of A on the Wilson case. The CofA made it clear in the Wilson case that s.127(3) was NOT A DISCRETIONARY PROVISION. But Mummery is a law unto himself and he fudges it (with the connivance of the others). Mummery reverses Halbert on the allegation that Halbert erred in the exercise of his discretion on s.127(3). It was IMPOSSIBLE for Halbert to err in the exercise of his discretion on s.127(3) BECAUSE there IS NO DISCRETION on the application of s.127(3). The rule of law is DEAD in this country. Corruption rules. In short as our judiciary apply the so-called "law" at the moment - if you take out a loan with any of these fraudsters no matter how small the loan is - the courts will give that lender EVERYTHING YOU OWN and send you and your family to the park bench! Can't wait to hear the poppycock from our Supreme Court on this case. No doubt they'll deliver Supreme Injustice! The consumer will always be subjected to the frauds of this companies until the courts ENFORCE the consumer protections parliament intended we have and positively DETER these fraudsters from perpetrating their crimes against us. At the moment, crime pays for these companies, and our courts make sure those crimes are handsomely paid for by us.
  12. Observe that the CAG site team concur with Suetonius and Andrew1. Andrew1 has just started posting on this thread but he/she warns us that it is perilous to use that line of defence because if you do, you will loose your home. Quite frankly, the lender's are going to take your home whatever defence you run. So if you've got the mettle to stand up to these criminals, run every and all potential defences of your choosing. It's shocking that one member of the CAG site team rallies in to support the new poster to this thread, namely Andrew1 (and as a natural consequence, Suetonius) to impress upon us that we must not attempt any line of defence that would expose what is really going on. In view of the excellent pioneering and ground breaking work that the consumer action group achieved in the field of bank account charges, it is disappointing that the consumer action group doesn't want any of us to disturb or lawfully challenge the lawfulness of the securitisation structure. Litigation with these financial giants is always going to be the David and Goliath battle, but one of us, somewhere, sometime may be the one that throws the proverbial stone. Good luck to all of you impressive geniune caggers that have, and do have the guts to stand-up for your rights. One of you may break through just like the original CAG consumers did in the days of the bank charges fiasco. For me, it seems that members of the CAG site team have forgot the fundamental reason for providing this forum - to help consumers defend themselves against these extortioners. Supersleuth
  13. Hi Crapstone, Maybe Suetonious posted the simplified version as a kindness taking his lead from JebediahSpringfield. You see, JebediahSpringfield had commented on his posts that he would simplify his/her arguments for my simple brain.... or maybe, in the words of Shakespere methinketh he doth protesteth too much
×
×
  • Create New...