Curious twist on two CCA requests-they are taking me to Court!

[noomill060]

Morgan Stanley try the same thing as stated in zubo's post- the charges are payed first out of the customers next payment.

 

Unfortunatley for them, they state the exact opposite on the T&Cs.

 

in any case, even if payments first went to clear any charges, this would mean that there was proportionately less paid off the credit balance, which would continue to attract interest at the contractual rate.

 

ie: You have a credit balance of £100 and you get a £30 charge for a late payment making credit balance £130.

 

You pay £50 off this, leaving you with a balance of £80 on which is being added interest at the contractual rate.

 

Had the unlawful charge not been levied, your credit balance would now only be £50.

[noomill060]

Therefore you are still being deceived into paying interest at the contractual rate on £30 more than you should be, as a direct result of the unlawful charge.

 

Clever, eh?

[Laiste]

Noomill060 makes a very interesting point, they seem to have us all ways in terms of ingenious ways of making unlawful profits.

 

I am going to post up the charges and dates later. I presume from what Noomill060 has said, I need to detail the balance when each charge has been levied to get a full picture? What rate of interest is charged on charges, I assume it's not the purchase rate? Having been a naughty customer I imagine they will have thrown the book at us and charged an extortionate rate? Can someone clarify this for me.

 

I'll be back a bit later.

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[Guest Battleaxe]

Laiste,

 

I calculated my lot at the unauthorised interest rate, from the first unlawful charge. This gives me a bargaining base if they dispute this, so far they haven't

[Laiste]

Hi Battleaxe,

 

I hope you're well and enjoying the w/end!

 

I am trying to determine what interest rate HFC would have used, of course any rate would be unfair, given that it's levied on unlawful charges, but I want to be as accurate as possible when I present my case to the Court.

 

The whole premise for doing this is simple, where an agreement is deemed an extortionate credit bargain, the Crt has the power to order that ALL sums paid under the agreement are repaid! I believe that charging interest on the charges amounts to an ECB, so I want to make full use of this argument. What I don't want to do though, is apply an interest rate that is grossly in excess of what they would have charged, which will open up my argument to ridicule/criticism, resulting in its meaning being lost and possibly dismissed! I want to pin them down on this and make them answerable for it!

 

Laiste.

[noomill060]

Any news?

[jalex_uk]

subscribing

[lookinforinfo]

Laiste, you will probably find that you may be better using "unjust enrichment"

as the reason for your reclaim of interest rather than extortionate bargain.

And then you can bring in the Law of Restitution to assist.

[Laiste]

Hello all!

 

It's been a while hasn't it? The case has been adjourned again, various things have gone on, following the tel hearing. Amended particulars of claim, defence and witness stmts have been submitted. At this rate this case will be concluded in 2020!

 

The arguments have got much lengthier and complex since this case began, as both sides battle to gain the advantage!

 

Thanks LookingforInfo, I have further submissions to make and I was considering unjust enrichment, as the extortionate credit bargain agrument, has been upheld in very few cases since 1974, which is pretty pathetic really!

 

I hope everyone's well and I will keep you posted!

 

Regards,

 

Laiste.

[lookinforinfo]

I think the trouble is that so many of the Extortionate Credit cases I have seen are where borrowers have been charged around 25-30% interest on

an unsecured loan and were poor credit risks to start with. Doomed to

failure almost.

 

However, you can always try and get two bites at the cherry by going for

the unjust enrichment first [which I think is the better bet] but carrying on to

say that if it is nut unjust enrichment, then it is extortionate credit-especially

if the interest is compounded.

[standingupformyself]

Wow, I have spent a couple hours reading this thread..... they are making you suffer every step of the way... I will look forward to hearing how things go from here... Good Luck, I am so impressed with you ! I can tell how much knoweldge you have gained every step of the way...

xx

[hellhasnofury]

Subscribing reading with interest

[Josie8]

Hows it going Laiste?

[Laiste]

Hi Josie,

 

Thank you for your interest. I'm afraid I have nothing to report at the moment. I will certainly post back when there's some news.

 

Kind regards,

 

Laiste.

[BigBrother]

Well, your thread has taken me more than an hour to read from start to finish, and was more gripping than most thrillers I've read! I'm just waiting for the fairy-tale ending.

 

The sickening thing is that the sols get paid for writing letters (regardless of the outcome), the judge gets paid, the bosses of HFC get paid, but we all have to spend our free time fighting for justice.

 

Anyway, stick with it. Best of luck BB;)

[bandyandstrange]

Just read the whole thread amazing! I am at the beginning of this with EGG, Capital 1, Morganstanley, halifax CC, Lloyds CC, Although I have succesfully reclaimed my bank account charges last year with HSBC this is a tottally different kettle of fish and just starting to read up on it all it has given me hope that we can do something about these bullys, Laiste is truly amazing at what she has done so far well done Gold Stars!! and good luck in your Trial!

 

regards

Bandyandstrange

[monopoly23]

Hi Laiste.

 

I just came across this thread this morning - and have just finished reading it now!

 

I can't believe you have helped so many people including myself, whilst all this has been going on! Are you a conjoined twin?

 

Good luck in your fight against HFC, but having seen your talents first hand, I doubt you'll need it!

[groovychickmum]

subscribing, its took a canny few hours start to finish of this one, n i aint going to miss the best bit, so GOOD LUCK , Laiste.

[M.Willows]

Laiste is an inspiration to all

Picks herself up everytime she falls

Amongst all the confusion and mayhem

She remains calm and is ready to slay them

Keep going Laiste , we all wish you well

On behalf of us all GO GIVE THEM ALL HELL subscribing

[Curlyben]

Laiste awe-inspiring stuff indeed.

[Laiste]

Hi guys,

 

Thanks ever so much for your positive and uplifting comments! It means a lot to me that people have taken the time the read this tome and offer support and encouragement!

 

I wasn't going to say anything until after the event, but just to let people know who have been following my thread, the trial is imminent. I'm not going to disclose any further details, (I have my reasons) but it's going to be one hell of a fight and I am more than ready for it!

 

It's time to put this matter to rest once and for all, so we'll see what happens......I'll report back after the David and Goliath encounter!

 

Many thanks to everyone who has offered support, wisdom and a sense of humour when mine had left the building!

 

Regards to all,

 

Laiste.

[noomill060]

Just to let you know I rooting for you as well.

[Jeff2000]

Just to let you know I rooting for you as well.

 

 

 

Absolutely!

 

Good luck Laiste!

 

 

Regards, Jeff.

[Laiste]

Hi everyone,

 

Well I do have some news, that has amused me no end!

 

The trial date was set for the 17th September, however it's not going ahead now! Yesterday we received a copy of an Application Notice filed by the Claimant's Solicitor basically seeking a stay of proceedings. The grounds they have sought the stay on are basically in relation to the OFT case set to be heard next year.

 

Penalty charges are no longer part of the sum they are claiming, that issue was dealt with by telephone hearing earlier this year, as some of you will recall! The issue centres upon our argument that penalty charges formed part of the sum claimed in the DN, and given that a DN must state the amount correctly, the inclusion of penalty charges rendered the DN unlawful. Obviously, the pending case will establish once and for all the legality or otherwise of penalty charges, but the argument they have raised is tenuous to say the least! You have to ask the question, why, when they knew approximately 2 months ago (?) when the OFT case was adjourned and set for a further hearing, was an Application to stay proceedings not filed then... and left until a few days before trial? They must take us for complete idiots!

 

The answer is obvious to me, they were waiting to see if we would cave in and settle with them, scared of going to trial, (they wish) or file an Application Notice on some basis to have the trial adjourned. Had we done that, they would have vehemently objected to the Application, insisting that the trial proceed, because they would sense that we were not confident about our arguments and might lose.

 

However, we have made no Applications and neither have we been in touch with the solicitors at any time, we had no reason to, because we are ready to go to trial! I firmly believe they are getting very jittery about this case, particularly in view of the amount of damages we are seeking, so they really should be worried! They have filed this spurious application just a few days before the trial, one, to buy more time, whilst they decide what to do and two, because they think it will stress us out big time that the matter is not going to be resolved for another few months! If the latter point is part of their objective, they've failed miserably, because rather than irritate, annoy or stress us out, they are playing right into our hands and have certainly left us in doubt whatsoever that they know they have no case!

 

I was laughing as I read their Application, there is literally nothing they aren't prepared to do to avoid going to trial! This is the 3rd trial date that's been vacated, it's farcical! At the end of the day, if the agreement's unenforceable (which it is) any issues surrounding the DN are entirely superfluous to the case!

 

So as you've probably all gathered they got their stay! For reasons I can't go into, we have some surprises planned for HFC, which lets just say, will not make them happy bunnies at all! I will report back when we've sprung our surprises!

 

Whoever thought litigation could be so entertaining...!

 

Regards to all,

 

Laiste.

[JonCris]

Laiste You may be aware that some lenders are no longer in possession of the original properly executed agreement & are 'reconstructing' agreements based on their recorded data in order to comply with consumers CCA requests.

 

They then, without admitting the reconstruction, proceed to enforce the debt using these reconstructed agreements

 

These unsigned reconstructed agreements are not valid for the purpose of recovery as a copy of the original 'signed' agreement is required should the debtor demand it before the debt can be enforced.

 

Therefore my question is have you, as a matter of course, challenged any such docs supplied by the creditor - if not you should