Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


supersleuth last won the day on January 2 2009

supersleuth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

207 Excellent

1 Follower

About supersleuth

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

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 t
  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
  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)
  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
  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 bequeathe
  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
  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
  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 im
  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...