Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[RobinWayRobinme]

What!!! costs against you for the time they spent reading a part of YOUR research. If thats the case maybe we should all ask as part of disclosure for copies of other sides research notes so we can read them and add them to our costs. Absolutely ridiculous!! Will be interesting to hear when S62 is able to, how they intoduced this as evidence. Agree with VJ, they may have shot themselves in foot with this.

 

Anyway, glad to hear you are OK shakey.

R

[cbrfan]

Pishcon's behaviour is proof, if any were needed, that lawyers are like prostitutes - they'll say or do anything for their client if the money's right.

love it !!! spot on

[Desperate Daniella]

Unlike Amex and all the other banks who are keen to fleece us, we are generally here because we cannot afford expert legal advice and have nowhere else to go. Obviously Mishcon and all the others just expect us to have no help from anyone so they can win without a fight.

 

CAG provides the means for us to know our rights and I'm sure all the banks hate that. It obviously takes us hours and hours of research (days and weeks of research actually) because I'm sure most of us don't have law degrees, and for lawyers to denigrate the site and imply that anyone asking for help here should in some way be penalised for doing so just stinks.

[cosalt]

Totally agree DD.

 

Lets also not forget that if they kept all their paperwork, issued correct agreements and DN's ( which is not exactly difficult ) and dealt with us sympatheticaly in our hour of need, they would not need to be concerned about sites like this.

 

By doing what they have done they clearly feel threatened by us, and all we are doing is standing up for our legal rights, nothing more, nothing less.

 

cosalt

[cbrfan]

Totally agree DD.

 

Lets also not forget that if they kept all their paperwork, issued correct agreements and DN's ( which is not exactly difficult ) and dealt with us sympatheticaly in our hour of need, they would not need to be concerned about sites like this.

 

By doing what they have done they clearly feel threatened by us, and all we are doing is standing up for our legal rights, nothing more, nothing less.

 

cosalt

i ended up here for exactly that reason when the c/c company kept upping the rate for no reason i phoned for some help and was told by the smug bitch on the other end that 'we can do whatever we want cbrfan' ... still saved me £3000 and a whole lot more

[Desperate Daniella]

I think most of us could have paid our credit cards if they had stayed at the same rate we agreed to, or at least been close to it. Not including 0% finance, of course , but realistic interest rates - 11%, 12%, etc. No-one who signed up at that rate would expect a rise to 29%, even 30+%.

 

I did try to start a thread once because I really believe it would give good ammunition to us in any court case, but got no response. I was hoping for someone who was really good at maths who'd be able to tell us how to work out what we would have paid if the interest rate had stayed at the orginal rate, because then I bet we'd almost all be able to prove we'd paid off what we had originally agreed to pay off.

 

The problem is that you'd have to bring in new purchases, work out the interest on charges, and so on, and without being clear instructions on how to do it, it is completely beyond me.

[MandM]

I think most of us could have paid our credit cards if they had stayed at the same rate we agreed to, or at least been close to it. Not including 0% finance, of course , but realistic interest rates - 11%, 12%, etc. No-one who signed up at that rate would expect a rise to 29%, even 30+%.

 

I did try to start a thread once because I really believe it would give good ammunition to us in any court case, but got no response. I was hoping for someone who was really good at maths who'd be able to tell us how to work out what we would have paid if the interest rate had stayed at the orginal rate, because then I bet we'd almost all be able to prove we'd paid off what we had originally agreed to pay off.

 

The problem is that you'd have to bring in new purchases, work out the interest on charges, and so on, and without being clear instructions on how to do it, it is completely beyond me.

 

Can be done. Maths is my area .

 

Provided you have all of your statements then it could be worked out relatively easily. Do you have a link to the thread DD?

 

M

 

PS. Glad you're good S62

 

M

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi M,

 

Thank you.

 

I can't even remember what I called it, and it may have been incorporated into another thread, but I'll have a trawl through and a search and come back to you.

 

DD

[foolishgirl]

I think most of us could have paid our credit cards if they had stayed at the same rate we agreed to, or at least been close to it. Not including 0% finance, of course , but realistic interest rates - 11%, 12%, etc. No-one who signed up at that rate would expect a rise to 29%, even 30+%.

 

 

It would certainly make a good counter argument for those DJs that seem to think they can ignore the provisions of the CCA in favour of morality (i.e. you've had the money, now pay it back) if you could prove that not only had you paid the capital back but it has also been enhanced for the creditor by an exorbitantly high interest rate.

[Desperate Daniella]

That was my point. Yes, sir or ma'am, I did have the money, I agreed to pay an interest rate of X%. I have already paid all the money back at X%.

 

Let's face it, most of us have no choice when we are hit by an interest rate hike because it's highly unlikely that most of us will have the odd, say, £5,000 to send them. If we had it, we wouldn't be using the credit cards in the first place.

[MandM]

That was my point. Yes, sir or ma'am, I did have the money, I agreed to pay an interest rate of X%. I have already paid all the money back at X%.

 

Let's face it, most of us have no choice when we are hit by an interest rate hike because it's highly unlikely that most of us will have the odd, say, £5,000 to send them. If we had it, we wouldn't be using the credit cards in the first place.

 

But don't forget that when they inform you of 'the new rate' you can choose not to accept it AT THAT POINT.

 

The downside is that for them to accept your 'non-acceptance' you have to cease using the card and maintain your payments at your current level, be it the minimum monthly amount, a set amount or a percentage of the outstanding. You must, however write AT THE TIME and confirm your non-acceptance and that you no longer wish to use the card at their new silly rate. One of 2 things will usually happen; either they say 'fair enough, we'll accept your payments and the current rate remains (unless your original agreement specified a date and amount of interest for the rise - rare), or they'll hold the rate if they want to hang onto you.

 

None of this should deter us from arguing that the charges are unfair though if the opportunity has already passed.

 

Apologies for cluttering your thread S62 .

 

M

[middenmess]

That was my point. Yes, sir or ma'am, I did have the money, I agreed to pay an interest rate of X%. I have already paid all the money back at X%.

 

With so many judges apparently unable to understand the requirements of the 1974 CCA you'd have more chance of pushing treacle uphill then getting some judges to understand your hypothesis regarding the continual hiking of interest rates to 'enslave' us plebs.

 

Another difficult approach would be arguing against the retrospective application of the increased rates on sums already borrowed.

 

You borrow at say 12%,fail to clear balance each month and fall into financial difficulty so the banks increase the interest rate and therefore increase your debt.

 

That has to be an unfair relationship,surely?

 

We all know that the banks sell off defaulted accounts to DCA at a small percentage of the total,but rather than being a discounted amount,could that figure be the actual sum that is actually owed with all the interest rate hikes removed?

 

Or am I just waffling?

Edited June 2, 2010 by middenmess
spelling!

[Desperate Daniella]

No, they are my thoughts too, but it's all sooo complicated, especially the fact about the new rates on the amounts you'd borrowed at the original rate.

 

It's a good idea about the selling price to the DCA. Hadn't thought of that one.

 

I wish I had thought of refusing the new interest rates at the time, but we tend not to because if they don't accept it you are left without credit. I've been living without credit for 18 months now since I started challenging the cards and it's very, very difficult.

 

It's clearly an unfair relationship as we're forced into it.

 

Again, sorry Shakey for hi-jacking your thread - just keeping it warm for you really while you are busy.

 

DD

[diddydicky]

Pishcon's behaviour is proof, if any were needed, that lawyers are like prostitutes - they'll say or do anything for their client if the money's right.

 

a prostittue is far more honest than a lawyer- you know exaclty what you are paying for and what you will get

[rhodium78]

I hope this is not directed to lawyers in general and is instead to the dubious ones who you are encountering on a day to day basis. I find everyone's comments about lawyers offensive but understand why people are saying that but put it into context so no more generalised remarks about a profession which might have a few bad apples in it, not unlike other professions.

[diddydicky]

I hope this is not directed to lawyers in general and is instead to the dubious ones who you are encountering on a day to day basis. I find everyone's comments about lawyers offensive but understand why people are saying that but put it into context so no more generalised remarks about a profession which might have a few bad apples in it, not unlike other professions.

 

it's an old joke- about as old as i am- lighten up!!

[rhodium78]

Verrrrrrry Funny... I am laughing all the way to the prossie house! Something is not funny when you have to repeat it 4 times or more... Your age does not show in your banter... Lighten up on indiscriminate insults to a profession... what's next... actually, that was rhetorical question, so don't answer that! Have a nice evening.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Not all Lawyers are bad.

 

But, if you do see a good one....

 

...shoot him!

 

...quick!

 

...before he turns bad!

 

Amazingly, some even have a sense of humour!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Alphageek]

That reminds me of a line from a John Grisham novel I read once;

 

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

 

A good start!

[slick132]

I think the thread DD was looking for is here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/229028-if-your-card-interest.html

 

Can we keep Shakey's thread on topic from here on please.

 

Don't want to be a party-pooper but ............

 

Thanks.

[cups]

Hi

 

Just on the Lawyer front I had one quote 'that my Defence was straight off the internet, it was a cut and paste job' . It may have had some parts to it that were from here but did that not arise from the fact that DCA's are taking us all to court on generally the same old flawed application forms that they say are agreements,and other such rubbish!!

 

Just because I have had help from CAG does not make it wrong.

 

Cups

[JonCris]

Hi

 

Just on the Lawyer front I had one quote 'that my Defence was straight off the internet, it was a cut and paste job' . It may have had some parts to it that were from here but did that not arise from the fact that DCA's are taking us all to court on generally the same old flawed application forms that they say are agreements,and other such rubbish!!

 

Just because I have had help from CAG does not make it wrong.

 

Cups

 

I do hope you responded with something like "yeah well unlike your clients I can't afford legal representation but like thousands of other ordinary citizens who are no longer able to get legal aid to fight the sharks I'm not prepared to lie down & let you & your client abuse my right to seek justice"

[tedney]

I do hope you responded with something like "yeah well unlike your clients I can't afford legal representation but like thousands of other ordinary citizens who are no longer able to get legal aid to fight the sharks I'm not prepared to lie down & let you & your client abuse my right to seek justice"

Here:) Here:)

[citizenB]

Hi

 

Just on the Lawyer front I had one quote 'that my Defence was straight off the internet, it was a cut and paste job' . It may have had some parts to it that were from here but did that not arise from the fact that DCA's are taking us all to court on generally the same old flawed application forms that they say are agreements,and other such rubbish!!

 

Just because I have had help from CAG does not make it wrong.

 

Cups

 

Hmmm, they will try preventing us from using the reference libraries next

[fredleped]

I see there is no further news from Shakey then.