Bob Diamond -  Former Barclays Leader who had  First Plus as one of His Operations - This Report is dated February 2012.

 Now the system of the Pharoah is crumbling 

as God's Judgment Manifests on the Nation

First Plus is now under Police Investigation

 

ACTION FRAUD

Metropolitan Police Service
New Scotland Yard
Broadway
London
SW1H 0BG

 

 

 

 

Kicking the Devil Out of the Banks!

CASE STILL ONGOING IN 2020!

If you are in a First Plus Miss-Sale Row

Contact us too - ecctv4219@gmail.com

We give our congratulations to Bob Diamond who according to AOL News's The Huffington Post on 06 February 2012 is expected to receive a 2 million pound bonus on top of his basis salary of 1.35 million pounds.

 

What is also exciting for him is that with share bonuses on top the top bonus package could run to more than ten million pounds.

 

We slaves of the system of Egypt and oh! yes the Barclays Building at Canary Wharf has a pyramid on top are saying we are working very hard for you oh  Great Pharoah!

We will continue to work hard and pay into your First Plus operation for we believed you when your company said - Life Is For Living! We thought that meant life was meant to be enjoyed for living! We did not know oh Great Pharaoah that the living meant working forever so that great Pharoah can have great bonus!

 

We read with great interest about your Great Pyramid Bank that has First Plus collecting great monies for you. We read with great interest that your great Bank is about to make great 6 billion pound profit despite of great turmoil in financial circles.

 

What great success you are but who has put into great bonus? We say many many small business people fighting for survival, losing their homes so as to pay you great bonus, many many great mortgage slaves who have paid you all your capital back but still owe you lots and lots of money which we have to fight for, even praying to our God so as to bow down to the Pharoah of Egypt and his great pyramid.

 

This website Oh Pharoah is about a Prophet standing up and coming into your court Oh great Pharoah! About a Prophet giving the Word of the Lord who is the Judge of all this.

 

We read with interest the comment of Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman Lord Oakeshott of the House of Lords, the same House who issued an edict showing rules that Banks must keep to with loans agreements, rules that we have been proved you have not kept but then you had the Egyptian over-rule of British Constitutional law to rely on, and even rulings of the House of Lords had to bow to a Judge who seemed to ignore the 1534 Act of Supremacy by allowing European law to over-rule.

 

But then the laws of our Christian Heritage have to bow to Egypt don't they Oh Pharoah! The Israelite Rules had to bow for so long until a Prophet rose up with his God Given Rod of Authority who cried Let my People Go!

 

On behalf of all the First Plus mis-sold mortgage victims we declare the same cry -

Let my people go!

 

We read also with great interest Oh Pharoah that your great bank promised restraint as part of the Project Merlin lending agreement with the government. Here is Merlin! He does not look very Christian does he and after all the God of Our Constitutional Acts, the God to whom all oaths and affirmations are declared in our legal system bears no relationship with the wizardry of Merlin!

So perhaps you did not mean what you said when agreeing to Merlin whose god in the Bible is described as a great deceiver!

 

The report from AOL Oh! mighty Pharoah is that restraint is not on your menu but us slaves will continue to work until the Rod of Authority of God is lifted up towards the Great Pyramid of the City of London.

 

We learn with great interest that pay at Barclays Capital is eight times higher than the UK average and so you have your staff beneath thy pyramid saying life is for living! Just like Barclays said to us when motivated by your advertising into taking out a loan from you - we thought it meant us and not you for now the slave - life is for continual working to keep the Egyptian system going!

 

We await your reply but as with First Plus we never seem to get reply except blaming the selling agent or relying on obscure technicalities consistent with what AOL News seem to say:

 

Barclays would not comment on the bonus payouts and it seems uncertain whether they will reveal Diamond's eventual payout.

Our attempts to get somewhere with a banking arm of Barclays with many accusing this organisation of

miss-selling mortgages!!!!!!

James 1:22  King James Version (KJV)

 

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

 

We fearlessly look to restore British Law to British Banking without any Global or Foreign thinking whatsoever and in this quest we have written to the following:

 

1)  First Plus looking for them to act rather than give the usual excuses!

 

2) The Financial Ombudsman who is there to see fair play - but we say British Law Fair Play - not foreign!

 

3)  Letter to MSB Solicitors of Liverpool who took this case on, seemingly backed out and then gave our fees to charity!

 

4)  Letter to the Law Society to see if they can make sense out of all this!!!!!!

 

04/02/2012 20:34:39

First Plus Financial Group PLC

The Avenue Business Park,

Pentwyn,

CARDIFF,

CF23 8FF.

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

 

Re. Account No. 1332467

Complaints against what we are putting forward as a

MIS-SOLD MORTGAGE and MIS-SOLD PPI (the latter admitted by you)

 

We wrote to you on 12. January 2011 in relation to our now alleged loan with you which we are putting to you as MIS-SOLD and as yours was the product sold to us by your agent loans.co.uk we are putting to you that it is for you to sort out with them as to who is to compensate us.

 

This is the case we presented to you last year. We hold the proofs mentioned as you should do and are not including them this time as we did last year.

 

 

We now insist on action on your part, not just letting it go making us seemingly pay you back forever particularly as it would seem we have paid you nearly all of the original capital amount back.

 

 

Key Points.

 

 

1)  Pushed into taking Higher Loan:

We present PROOF 1 proving an original enquiry of 07 September 2005 enquiring for a loan of £40,000. After making this enquiry we believe we came under very heavy control and manipulation with First Plus insisting on all lending to be declared, First Plus insisting on taking the lot. PROOF 2. (Please note: even though we agreed to clear, it was let known to us that we had to do this to get the deal, even though we did not want to increase the loan.) We even had an agreement for £70,000 showing there was a process of pushing the loan up against our wishes by First Plus. PROOF 2A.

 

 

SUMMARY OF POINT 1: We were continuously controlled and manipulated to take a higher loan than we desired. We believe this forcing the hand to be illegal. “Unless you agree to this we will not give you anything” type approach we believe to be immoral.

 

 

2012 COMMENT:  You have already admitted mis-selling us a PPI and so we declare that it naturally follows that if you mis-sold us one product then it is highly likely you have mis-sold us another.

 

 

It is our belief that this mortgage should be written off with immediate effect and full re-payment to us of all funds paid to you plus compensation for the considerable grief this product has given to us.

 

 

2) Mis-sold Payment Protection:

We appreciate you accepted we had mis-sold payment protection. What we had not realised was that you were going to place £21,587-94 on top of the loan as insurance, an incredible amount. It would seem that the whole figure of Protection Fee was put on top of loan & presumably charged interest on. We see this as Unfair Practice. Normally insurance would be simply taken out monthly.

 

 

SUMMARY OF POINT 2: www.loans.co.uk who you had as your agent had already been before the FSA for mis-selling insurance. We are holding proof of this.

 

 

2012 Comment:  If your agent has been found guilty for mis-selling insurance then it naturally follows they mis-sold us your product.

 

 

We put to you that this is your product and you used that agent and so it is for you to sort it out.

 

 

As a result of your admitted mis-sale you paid us back £6455-10 to us and to the account but it was £21,587-94 you placed as a capital amount on top of the loan and seemingly charged interest on it. Where is the remaining £15,132-84 and the compensation we require for mis-selling us a product?

 

 

3) Original Loan Agreement:

Proof 5: we see this as being heavily weighted in your direction whereas the constitution of our nation demands that law, and this is a legal document, be applied in a certain way, with “law and justice in mercy”. Let’s look at particular areas which demand attention:

 

 

As we look at the various documents under our title PROOF 6, it is clear that when Bank of England base rates went up, a letter would come referring to this and the FHBR. The FIRST PLUS RATE would go up as the Base Rate and FHBR went up! SEE PROOF 6A and 6B.

 

 

We had decreases in the rate in March 2008 and February 2009 with a new referral to market conditions rather than the Base Rate. PROOFS 6C & D.

 

 

A complaint was issued by me dated 14 05 08 over a FIRST PLUS rate increase when the base rate went down! A new interest philosophy to what’s known as “market conditions” seems to have taken over at FIRST PLUS! “Market conditions” seems to be the criteria now for interest rates rather than the base rate remembering that we were not sold an “adverse credit” mortgage but a normal one. There was no adverse credit on any credit file on agreement date and so we expect a base rate criterion for interest rates rather than “market conditions.” PROOF 6E

On 12 June 2008 you replied in relation to my complaint. PROOF 6F & G.

 

 

Now the big question on interest rates:

 

 

http://boards.thisismoney.co.uk/tim/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=87&thread=66826  reports that First Plus mathematics on interest rates is that the calculation is not like an annual APR which is how the deal was sold but monthly meaning it is 12 times higher than a normal loan. If this is true customers pay this loan forever. We were sold a loan as a mortgage – not adverse but a normal loan. We have not got what we bought. PROOF 6H. Is your interest percentage rate monthly or annual remembering of course your presentation on selling the loan was consolidation on loans with a annual APR. Is yours annual or monthly? A straight answer please.

 

 

Also Real Life Claims http://www.reallifeclaims.com/#/first-plus/4543076178 ask questions in relation to secret commissions when selling the loan, increasing loan interest amount without our knowledge, did not offer other alternatives that might have been available, added on PPI when it may have not covered us, states 20 million policies mis-sold in UK. PROOF 6I Also the sellers of the deal were also found out by FSA for mis-selling PPI and so if they mis-sold that that it follows with all the other information gathered here that the whole deal was mis-sold PROOF 6J. This malpractice by www.loans.co.uk was not known by us when we were sold the First Plus deal.

 

 

SUMMARY OF POINT 3: It certainly seems that your criteria for assessing interest rates changed from Base Rate to “market conditions” No mention of being sold an “adverse credit mortgage” was given to us when the product was being sold. As we were not sold an “adverse credit” deal we should not be subject to “market conditions”. It is extremely important that when a financial product is sold that it is clearly shown what the product is. In no way would we have taken on the product had we known it was what is known as an “adverse credit” deal.

 

 

Also if the “This Is Money” Website is right and you are calculating your rate monthly rather than the normal APR, remembering your presentation as a consolidation loan – then certainly your product has been mis-sold to us on this count too. There are a number of counts to prove a mis-sale and this is another one!

 

 

2012 Comment:  Is the way you calculate interest 12 times higher than a normal loan? Well you added mis-sold PPI as an added capital amount seemingly putting interest on this.

 

 

The way all this is building up is that it is becoming more and more obvious that as well as a mis-sold PPI we have a mis-sold mortgage with the way you work completely different to your advertising and the way the product was sold to us.

 

 

WE therefore not only ask for an immediate halt on taking payments from us, we ask for a complete re-payment of all payments to you plus compensation. We deserve not only the full amount of payments returned but also compensation for the severe stress your mis-sold deal has put us under!

 

 

Also – there have been huge sums of interest added to the capital amount bearing little relation to normal ways of calculating interest.

 

 

Amount paid back = app. £94,146-59 (March 2012) (- £4000-10 & £2,455 = £6455-10 so total paid back by your admission of a mis-sale) = £87691-49 which basically is about the amount of the original loan

Say interest is at 10% apr = 7 years = £55,957-14 but that is for an adverse mortgage and the product was not sold as such First Plus did not respond to rate changes – even putting up rates when the base rate went down

So say interest is at a more normal 5% =£27,978-57 interest

 

 

But First Plus did not do this but put the full amount of an agreed mis-sold PPI costing £21,587-94 making the loan £109,737-94 @10% making the interest now £69,661-04

 

 

All I have record of you paying back on the admitted PPI is £6455-10 but what about the rest of it and the interest?

 

 

 Legal Charge Over Property: Proofs 7&8

We are challenging the legality of this charge at this stage as it links to what we see as a mis-sold deal.

 

 

4) Advertising:

Your apparent deal was taken up by us, we being victims of thy advertising. There does not seem to be any mention of putting cost of the cover in a huge sum on top of the loan in your Payment Protection booklet. The use of the term “Life is for Living” we question enormously because the way you have done business with us has placed us under enormous pressure, we having to stand up against your mammon-style business methods that should really have brought the slogan “Life is for Destroying.”

 

 

2012: We hold copies of your advertising material of the time which we put to you bears little relation to how the product has operated.

 

 

5) SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST:

You did respond to our requestwith a letter dated 28 August 2010. Our code for each part of the response is shown. You sent

 

 

a)    Accompanying letter saying information sent in accordance with Section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. PROOF 13

 

 

b)   Copy of Loan Agreement. PROOF 14

 

 

c)    Copy of Legal Charge. PROOF 15

 

 

d)    The Freehold and Abstract of Title. PROOF 16

 

 

e)    Direct Debit Mandate. PROOF 17

 

 

f)      External Valuation Report. PROOF 18

 

 

g)    Application Information. PROOF 19

 

 

h)   Complaint of increasing interest rate when base rate went down. PROOF 20

 

 

i)      MSB Letter. Consumer Credit Act 1974. Request. 11 02 09. PROOF 21

j)      First Plus Letter to MSB. PROOF 22

 

 

k)    Letter of 12 June 2008 saying FIRST PLUS rates not linked to changes in base rates. PROOF 23

 

 

l)      Looking into rate concerns dated 21 05 08. PROOF 24

 

 

m)10 04 07: Refund of over-payment. £2,455 credit of account. £4000-10 cheque to cover over-payment on the loan. Proof had been charging interest on the protection. PROOF 25

 

 

n)   Opening Letter and Account Details. PROOF 26.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

 

We believe there is more than enough evidence to show we have been thoroughly mis-sold this deal both by www.loans.co.uk and First Plus. It has to be acknowledged that we were sold a product totally unsuitable for us, a product that would completely remove our ability to own a house as the product involves vast amounts of interest being paid to you, interest linked to “market conditions” and not the base rate as it seemed to be on taking the loan. If it is true that your calculations link to a monthly rather than annual interest rate calculations, this means we are paying considerably more to you than that was agreed.

 

 

As you see we are holding proof on www.loans.co.uk that they do have a record with FSA for mis-selling and we believe too that there was an onus on you by having this company as your agent that proper presentation of the product was necessary.

 

 

We are determined to prove that this apparent deal we have with you is invalid. We would like an acceptance of this by you by return with a complete removing of this apparent deal from your records with an offer of substantial compensation. In addition we are looking for the deal to be removed from any external credit file.

 

 

Failure to do this will result in legal action being taken by us, this letter being copied to our solicitors in the case.

 

 

2012 Comment: You have failed to come back to us with any action on your part so we are starting legal processes at this stage.

 

 

You have had far longer than the eight weeks the Financial Ombudsman asks us to give you to deal with our complaints so a copy of this letter will be going to this department.

 

 

In addition a copy of this letter is going to MSB Solicitors of Liverpool who took on this case.

 

 

We view this whole matter extremely seriously and are looking for Barclays who seem to own First Plus to admit serious mistakes here and not only pay us back all payments but seriously givce us considerable compensation.

 

 

It is our intention to push for this strongly now. You have had a year to properly address this complaint and failed in our view.

 

 

We now have to take the legal action necessary unless you can come back with an admission of serious error here and the way forward in the way we have intimated.

 

 

 

 

Yours faithfully,

Rev Dr David P Griffiths PhD DD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths PhD D Min

 

 

 

 

c.c. Mrs Joanna Connolly & Ms. Sam Audley,

Mrs. Joanna Connolly Office,

MSB Solicitors

MSB House

20-22 Tapton Way

Wavertree Business Village,

LIVERPOOL

L13 1DA

 

 

........................................................

06/02/2012 13:43:18

The Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza
183 Marsh Wall
London

E14 9SR

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

 

Re. Complaint Against Barclays First Plus

Account No. 1332467

Complaints against what we are putting forward as a

MIS-SOLD MORTGAGE and MIS-SOLD PPI

(the latter having been admitted by First Plus)

 

 

Please find enclosed a copy letter just sent to First Plus.

 

 

It is our view that we have given them ample time to deal with this matter and no action or even negotiation has taken place. The time to reply positively (not acknowledgement and putting blame on the seller of the mortgage) has been just over one year.

 

 

We begin by pointing out the great pressure put on us to increase the loan to maximum in 2005, our second point being that the admitted mis-sold PPI was put on top of the loan, a staggering figure of £21,587-94 and so we put to you that an equally staggering amount of interest will have been paid to First Plus as a result. The agent involved in the selling of this product was loans.co.uk who have already been found guilty of miss-selling insurance by the FSA. We ask you to look into the legality of putting a PPI on top of a loan and then charging interest on it!

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/loanscouk.pdf

 

 

Page 4 of our letter to First Plus gives our financial information pointing out to First Plus that we had not been told that the product was what was known as an adverse credit mortgage, a product well-advertised when we took the mortgage out. We show you a typical advert of First Plus given at the time. We argue that the illustration bears no relation to what we have had to pay and that we were taken in by such publicity. We believe this to be wrong and examination of our case shows that it looks as if we will be paying First Plus forever with all the extras that have been added on. Can you help?

 

 

Whilst our letter to First Plus gives the details of the case it is very clear that there has been a situation of looking to blame the agent of the sale whilst we argue both were at fault.

 

 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rev Dr David P Griffiths

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rev Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths

 

 

 

.....................................................

 

 

07/02/2012 13:59:03

Mrs Joanna Connolly & Ms. Sam Audley,

Mrs. Joanna Connolly Office,

MSB Solicitors

MSB House

20-22 Tapton Way

Wavertree Business Village,

LIVERPOOL

L13 1DA

 

 

Dear Mrs. Connolly and Ms. Audley,

 

 

Re Your ref. JC/SA/48744.010

Re. Complaint Against Barclays First Plus

Account No. 1332467

Complaints against what we are putting forward as a

MIS-SOLD MORTGAGE and MIS-SOLD PPI

(the latter having been admitted by First Plus)

 

 

We write to you with a copy of our latest letter to First Plus, a case you took on way back in 2008, a case you seem to have done little with except take our money and seemingly give it to charity if what we understand from your letters is the case!

 

 

This case is nothing to do with the pre-2007 unsecured cases but is a mis-sold mortgage and so your excuse you gave us on the other cases with this case does not apply.

 

 

Here is the log of your activity on this case:

 

 

MSB INVOLVEMENT IN CASE

i)                 Send Letter to First Plus with S. 77 Consumer Credit Act 1974 Request. Proof 21

ii)              Letter from First Plus to MSB dated 14 01 09 with details requested. PROOF 22

iii)           Original Letter to MSB with details 29 11 08 PROOF 23

iv)            E Mail To Sam Audley 19 11 08 on matter PROOF 24

v)               E Mail Reply from Sam Audley 19 11 08 PROOF 25

vi)            E Mail from Sam Audley 02 12 08 PROOF 26

vii)         Letter to MSB re action on First Plus 23 02 09 PROOF 27

viii)      E Mail to Sam Audley reminder 23 04 09 PROOF 28

ix)            Letter further reminder and info 16 09 09 PROOF 29

x)               DG Subject Access Request Letter to First Plus. PROOF 30 : 30 07 10

xi)            Letter to MSB re First Plus ongoing PROOF 31: 30 07 10

xii)         Letter from MSB referring to £2-50 cheque to be forwarded at conclusion of the case PROOF 32

xiii)      £2-50 cheque with letter saying that MSB be grateful if we would cash the cheque to clear your client balance and close your file of papers PROOF 33

xiv)       15 03 10: MSB Consumer Credit Cases Update PROOF 34

xv)          27 04 10: MSB seemingly backing out letter PROOF 35

xvi)       ORIGINAL LETTER and ENCLOSURES to MSB letter dated 29 11 08

As you see we keep the proofs of communications which we intend to offer to the Law Society to whom we intend to say we have had what we see as unusual service from you on this case. You had requested the necessary information from First Plus but failed in our view to act upon it giving monies we had paid you seemingly to charity.

 

 

Whether you can redeem yourselves with us on this case, we don’t know, but we never give up. We are continuing our fight with the other cases as well, and having great success as very obvious laws were broken in the dealings we have had with banking institutions. Our legal actions are now about to take place against the banking institutions you seemed to have backed off from and of course as you were involved for so long, we may require you to be witnesses to the forthcoming cases that we intend to prove are both criminal and civil matters.

 

 

We intend to show to the Law Society that you should have continued all of our cases, rather than return us cheques which we refused to cash as we were not backing out, so you gave the funds to charity it would seem.

 

 

We very much appreciated your very positive attitude to our cases when we first came to you. This positive attitude seemed to change however and this First Plus case is the first one we are dealing with of the cases we gave you. It is still our desire to work with on all these cases and this we will point out to the Law Society for the inspiring intimation of your Paul Bibby who declared:

 

 

This is not about people trying to evade paying money that is owed, it is about making sure lenders, large sophisticated financial institutions, organisations, comply with legislation

laid down by Parliament for the protection of the consumer.

 

 

Does your firm still stand on this principle for it is statements like this that inspires victims like us for your action in not taking up this matter and giving our monies to charity is to us an odd one to say the least!

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rev Dr David P Griffiths

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rev Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths

 

 

c.c. The Law Society Complaints Department

The Law Society's Hall
113 Chancery Lane
London WC2A 1PL

 

 

 

....................................................

08/02/2012 08:49:48

The Law Society Complaints Department

The Law Society's Hall
113 Chancery Lane
London WC2A 1PL

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

 

Re Complaint Against

Mrs Joanna Connolly & Ms. Sam Audley, Mrs. Joanna Connolly Office,

MSB Solicitors, MSB House, 20-22 Tapton Way, Wavertree Business Village, LIVERPOOL, L13 1DA

 

 

This is not about people trying to evade paying money that is owed, it is about making sure lenders, large sophisticated financial institutions, organisations, comply with legislation

laid down by Parliament for the protection of the consumer.

 

 

In Consumer Credit Affairs we need a champion, someone who would stand up for the victim of what we see as a failing banking system. That champion was Paul Bibby of MSB Solicitors, Liverpool to whom we handed over examination of our financial affairs. The Department of his solicitors firm was being run by the ladies mentioned above. He declared the above outstanding statement meaning that there was hope for the victims of financial suppression by the banking system with solicitors we could trust!

 

 

Oh! If the experience matched the statement!

 

 

I am sending to you at this stage just one of the financial cases we had placed in the hands of MSB Solicitors with Mrs Joanna Connolly and Ms Sam Audley.

 

 

My wife and I come from an era where the Solicitor and Banking Official where pillars of society with a set of norms based on our Constitutional Acts, the 1534 Act of Supremacy, the 1689 Act Establishing the Coronation Oath, the Settlement of Elizabeth I as well as the 1700 Act of Settlement. These British Acts where the backbone of Society, it being illegal to accept verdicts of foreign courts over edicts of our own House of Lords! We put forward the conviction that as the Monarch is still on the throne the demands on Her remain the same and that Solicitors and Banking Officials must have that attitude.

 

 

Within our Constitutional Acts is a demand that there be a continuation of our customs. We find the Banking Institutions and now this large Solicitors firm seem highly ignorant despite of constant communications with them of their obligations under Constitutional law.

 

 

My son John at this time is studying law and there seems to be little mention in the course of the higher laws that surround the Monarch of our nation who still remains Head of State whose crest is still above every Judge’s seat in the land. Surely this stands for something that does not include European takeover of all that is precious to us.

 

 

The referendum for going into Europe was for a trading union, not for political and legal integration.

 

 

It is therefore not surprising that this MSB poor firm of solicitors in Liverpool were confused in dealing with us for on one side is the present day training of global and European integration and dealing with us who say that the Monarch’s oath to God is higher!

 

 

So to the case in hand! Our conviction is that we were mis-sold a mortgage by First Plus, a company owned by Barclays. As MSB Solicitors seem to have backed out of the case I have taken the matter over whilst still informing MSB of our activities in the case, which come from our knowledge of Constitutional law as well as modern laws which are beneath the Constitution of course.

 

 

The fact is they took on the case, the copy of my latest letter to them with the letter to First Plus shows their involvement going along a normal road of getting documents from First Plus but then backing out! We paid some monies up front for MSB to work on the case and refused the money back as we told them “no backing out”.

 

 

MSB seem to have given our monies to charity and now seemingly take no interest in the case. Now as we are old school people who are British citizens, not global or European citizens for this would be breaking Constitutional Law which of course would be treasonable, we think the World has gone mad! Do you?

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rev Dr David P Griffiths

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rev Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths

Clear then - that lawyers can take your money - back out of a case and give the money to charity against your will

-SPECIFIC CASE:  PAYING FIRST PLUS FOREVER

In 2005 my wife and I took out a First Plus Loan paid completely up to date but the amount owing is out of proportion to the promises made.

 

This is a genuine case of what we are presenting as THE SPIRIT OF MAMMON in action. It is the role of banks to be profitable and pay staff including executives reasonable wages.

 

What we are witnessing however is a payment of bonus to high ranking banking officials with bonuses far higher than even the salary of our Prime Minister and Cabinet Colleagues.

 

We believe that over the last twenty years banking deals have been weighted towards banks and banking bonuses, bonuses being gained through the destruction of the lives of many victims both in personal and in business banking.

 

CONTACT US NOW IF YOU ARE IN THIS SITUATION

ecctv4219@gmail.com

 

The fight-back is on and we present the notes of a on-going case with First Plus, an institution of Barclays based in South Wales. The Daily Mail has reported that borrowers of

First Plus have been trapped.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1199722/Borrowers-trapped-easy-payment-loan-company.html

Our argument is that it is expected practice that when a variable rate is advertised, then when the Bank of England Base Rate goes down the rate goes down, but as we show in this presentation First Plus have even put rates up when the base rate has gone down.

 

The "This Is Money" website questions too whether there is a monthly or annual interest rate calculation in force now resulting in 12 times more having to be paid by the victim.

 

It is the role of this Christian Website to set the captive free and so if you have been trapped by First Plus, please read the following genuine log and contact us if you would like help in being free! Where you read PROOF and a number this refers to a code to papers of evidence we hold.

 

This is such a serious case, the victims are happy to be named and lead the way for other slaves to follow them over the Red Sea to freedom! We are not bound to secrecy!

 

APPRAISAL OF CASE: January 2011

Key Points

 

1)  Pushed into taking Higher Loan:

Proof 1 – Original Enquiry of 07 09 05 enquiring for £40,000.Proof 2 = First Plus Financial forced all lending to be declared and insisted they took the lot. (Heavy Control and Manipulation) Proof 2A = was even a agreement for £70,000.

 

Under pressure the victims accepted a loan for £81,150. They did not want this much but were forced into it if business was to take place!

2) Mis-sold Payment Protection:

This was accepted but the whole figure of Protection Fee put on top of loan & presumably charged interest on. Unfair Practice. Normally insurance would be simply taken out monthly. Proofs 3&4

 

Persuasive selling resulted in the acceptance of insurance that was not needed, a point that was accepted by the banks agent loans.co.uk and First Plus themselves.

 

3) Original Loan Agreement:

Proof 5: the law has to be applied in a certain way: “law and justice in mercy.” This is a constitutional demand, it being law that if we can prove that victims of the bank have been trapped, it is by constitutional law that they have to be set free.

 

i)                Interest Rates Variability: Proof 6. Clear with First Plus – if Bank of England Base Rates go up – then their rates go up & quoted 14 04 07 PROOF 6A; 16 07 09 PROOF 6B.

 

When rates dramatically went down = NO REACTION (except to put up rate on 1 occasion) till 05 03 08 with only a 1.1% decrease with no comment over base rates as in PROOFS 6A &B. PROOF 6C & 18 02 09 PROOF 6D. 

 

Indeed letter of 14 05 08 showed a complaint that when Bank of England rates went down FIRST PLUS rates went up! PROOF 6E. First Plus letter saying rates not linked to BASE RATE 12 06 08 PROOF 6F. Looking into rate concerns PROOF 6G.

 

http://boards.thisismoney.co.uk/tim/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=87&thread=66826  reports that First Plus mathematics on interest rates is that the calculation is not like an annual APR which is how the deal was sold but monthly meaning it is 12 times higher than a normal loan. If this is true victims pay this loan forever. We were sold a loan as a mortgage – not adverse but a normal loan. We have not got what we bought. PROOF 6H.

 

Also Real Life Claims http://www.reallifeclaims.com/#/first-plus/4543076178ask questions in relation to secret commissions when selling the loan, increasing loan interest amount without our knowledge, not offering other alternatives that might have been available, added on PPI when it may have not covered us, states 20 million policies mis sold in UK. PROOF 6I

 

Also the sellers of the deal were also found out by FSA for mis-selling PPI and so if they mis-sold that that it follows with all the other information gathered here that the whole deal was mis-sold PROOF 6J. This malpractice by www.loans.co.uk was not known by us when we were sold the First Plus deal.

 

There are many questions around this company, the Daily Mail reporting possible action in relation to unfair contract rules.

 

4) Legal Charge Over Property: Proofs 7&8

 

Even though the lender has control over the victim's house, this is not reflected in interest rates that have increased in times of recession. No doubt the soundbite will be that this is because of falling house prices but surely those in contract together should work together and take new situations together. The contract however is weighted, weighted towards the lender.

 

5) Advertising:

i)                www.loans.co.uk recommended by MBNA. Proof 9

ii)              In Payment Protection Booklet no mention of putting the cost of the cover onto the loan, this presumably having interest on it. PROOF 10

iii)           Rachel Helpful Presentation. PROOF 11

iv)            Use of the term “Life is For Living” PROOF 12

 

We hold copies of advertising luring victims into the hold of this Bank. The statement of "Life is for Living" now looks sick and so First Plus has to take blame and responsibility for advertising a product that is destroying people's lives rather than bringing life to them. Only JESUS does this and he gave his life for the victims of mammon. Are we to see the same response that Jesus gave to victims from First Plus?

 

6) SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST: Letter dated 28 August 2010 sent

 

For £10 one can request all the documentation both paper and electronic from First Plus. This is what came back to us.

 

a)   Accompanying letter saying information sent in accordance with Section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. PROOF 13

b)  Copy of Loan Agreement. PROOF 14

c)   Copy of Legal Charge. PROOF 15

d)  The Freehold and Abstract of Title. PROOF 16

e)   Direct Debit Mandate. PROOF 17

f)     External Valuation Report. PROOF 18

g)   Application Information. PROOF 19

h)  Complaint of increasing interest rate when base rate went down. PROOF 20

i)     Solicitor's Letter. Consumer Credit Act 1974. Request. 11 02 09. PROOF 21

j)     First Plus Letter to Solicitors's. PROOF 22

k)   Letter of 12 June 2008 saying FIRST PLUS rates not linked to changes in base rates. PROOF 23

l)     Looking into rate concerns dated 21 05 08. PROOF 24

m)                       10 04 07: Refund of over-payment. £2,455 credit of account. £4000-10 cheque to cover over-payment on the loan. Proof had been charging interest on the protection. PROOF 25

n)  Opening Letter and Account Details. PROOF 26. Original Loan 88150 – 01 12 05 so say after 5 years paid app £1000 a month = £60,000 in but account shows £63867 0wing and at present rate of interest app £61867 owing on 5 year anniversary.

 

The interest paid does not relate to a fair deal, at this rate the paying will go on and on!

 

 

We believe there is more than enough evidence to show that the First Plus deal has been thoroughly mis-sold this deal both by www.loans.co.uk and First Plus. It has to be acknowledged that a totally unsuitable product was sold, a product that would completely remove the ability to own a house as the product involves vast amounts of interest being paid to , interest linked to “market conditions” and not the base rate as it seemed to be on taking the loan. If it is true that First Plus calculations link to a monthly rather than annual interest rate calculations, this means victims considerably more to First Plus than that was agreed.

 

We hold proof on www.loans.co.uk that they  have a record with FSA for mis-selling and we believe too that there was an onus on First Plus by having this company as their agent that proper presentation of the product was necessary.

 

We are determined to prove that the apparent deal shown here we  is invalid. We are awaiting an acceptance of this by First Plus, legal action being planned should this not occur.

THE SPIRIT OF MAMMON is again found and David, our little website

has its spiritual stones ready to pull down this spiritual Goliath.

 

Come and join us! ecctv4219@gmail.com

Financial Ombudsman Help? We appealed anyway!

Part 1: Copy of Letter to the

Financial Ombudsman: 12th. April 2012 in Relation to a Mortgage sold by loans.co.uk & First Plus in 2005

Re. loans.co.uk & First Plus

Miss-Selling of PPI and a Mortgage

 

Thank you so much for your letter and forms dated 07 March 2012.

 

SPECIAL NOTE: As we are all aware loans.co.uk were found by FSA to be miss-selling and our story is a classic one. Also there is much evidence around of set sales pitches with large bonuses for salespeople operating these set sales pitches.

 

It would seem that both loans.co.uk and First Plus are no longer in operation although they have parent companies (MBNA & Barclays) who must be responsible for their children’s actions. Set Sales Pitches destroys the customer and the company the Salesperson is working for as has been proved with both loans.co.uk and First Plus.

 

Set Sales Pitches in the banking profession, a profession now struggling to gain credibility again are in my view illegal by way of the nation’s Constitutional Acts and by way of modern regulations of the British Parliament.

 

I press strongly at this point as a former Sales Manager who taught Sales Representatives their trade that there is such a thing as the ETHICAL SALES APPROACH that meets the need of the Customer by prospering them, and at the same time prosper the company which the Sales Person is working for.

 

THIS MIGHT BE A HARD LESSON FOR THE BANKS but it is a lesson that has to be learnt. I hereby press my claim against the parent companies MBNA & Barclays through you for the appalling way we have been treated, for the vast amount of interest that has been overcharged by calculating the mortgage in a way that was not mentioned by the sales people involved, for showing little interest in our personal situation when it came to PPI and for not mentioning to us that the First Plus product was for adverse credit customers – not those with a perfect credit record which we had at the time of sale.

 

The deal has well near destroyed us financially and has had health implications with the vast amount of extra work involved keeping up with what was a deal well different than the “Life is For Living” advertising of First Plus and more akin to being placed under many years of slavery trying to pay off the Pharaoh of First Plus.

 

WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT OF HAVING TO PUT OUR HOUSE UP FOR SALE TO COVER THE FIRST PLUS LOSSES!

 

We do come with a positive – a brief summary of how to sell ethically which I present right now to the Banking Profession who needs to regain its heart for the customer and as it does that it shall sow what it reaps and have successful business operations again under British law and regulation.

 

THESE ARE THE SIX STEPS TO THE CALL – I taught Sales Representatives in the 1980’s and these steps are still relevant today and had they been used in our situation – then we would not be facing the massive backlog of banking miss-sales cases you undoubtedly are wading through at this time:

 

STEP ONE: You study the features and benefits of your product, benefits being learnt so as to use these in adapting a product to meet the needs of the Customer.

 

STEP TWO: Approach – Listen, Study the person and the needs – use who, what, where, how and when questions to encourage the customer to open up fully about their situation, the benefits of what one has learnt about the product being used to match the needs of the customer.

 

If there is a problem, this needs to be isolated, the situation being constantly summarised to ensure understanding for both parties so a sensible decision can be reached.

 

STEP THREE: Presentation – From all the information gained, the previous study of products on offer, the answers to the questions in Step 2 etc. – a matching of benefits to features can be shown. The Presentation has to be open as to how interest is calculated etc. – a major issue with First Plus for it is well accepted to be customary that when Base Rates go up – variable mortgages go up; when they go down – they go down – in no way was that explained by loans.co.uk and First Plus that they were different to the norm – that in their case when base rates go down – they can put their mortgage rate up!

 

This is not normal practice and breaks all the heart of a nation that has never been “letter of the law” alone but has always applied the “spirit of the law” and that is most certainly allowed for in our Constitutional Acts which we apply in this case. In fact First Plus in their own letter state the Bank of England Base rate when the rate goes up and not when the Base Rate goes down! This is not fair!!!!!!

 

STEP FOUR: The Close – Closing the Sales involves full understanding on all sides. Loans.co.uk lured us into this major mortgage with use of PPI saying it would cover what was owed in 5 years by cash back – so in other words we were lured by a falsehood – in that the PPI was not needed – The Sun report into all the glitzy First Plus advertising describing the placing of PPI on top of the capital total as cunning. An ethical salesperson is not cunning but looks to meet the needs of the customer to the benefits of a product. I am saying very emphatically that what loans.co.uk and First Plus have done is both illegal and unethical.

 

STEP FIVE: The Follow On – The on-going interest in the success of the Customer. Regular Contact to see all is all right; adjust the product to ensure that it is. In this case, a good salesperson might look at ways for the customer to pay the loan off quicker rather than just getting the deal in a cunning way and make the customer seemingly pay for ever. THIS IS NOT GOOD SELLING PRACTICE! IT IS WRONG!

 

STEP SIX: The Keeping of Records of All That Has Gone On – There has to be care in the customer relationship, helping the customer and at the same time progressing the success of the selling company that has a record keeping customer care policy. This goes beyond the First Plus mantra – oh – we have kept to the law! We believe we are showing they have not even kept to the letter but what is more important – have they kept to the spirit of the law – Absolutely Not We Say – this is so serious that once all these banking cases are settled we need to bring our nation back to working together and address the serious mistrusts that have developed in our nation due to “cunning” operations like we bring to you right now!

 

As you will see from the enclosures a lot of time has been spent in administration over this matter with loans.co.uk and First Plus.

 

In answer to your questions of Section E in your form, the sale took place over the phone with loans.co.uk Watford Office, an operation found out by the FSA in relation to miss-selling of PPI but I put to you that this went much further with the miss-selling of the First Plus Mortgage product.

 

The PPI was sold on the basis that it would cost us nothing in the context of a five year claim back that should cover the capital amount owing! It was the lure of this that sold it to us as we were pushed to increase the loan higher and higher not giving heed to the equity value on the property. We have been paid some money back in relation to what was overpaid but no apology and no compensation.

 

I believe we are owed substantial PPI compensation on the admitted miss-sale and other reasons listed in the FSA document that found against loans.co.uk

 

I believe we have more than paid the full capital amount without arrears and are due compensation in relation to the miss-sale of the mortgage for the reasons shown in the form and in our summary.

 

I believe MSB Solicitors whose details are shown in this presentation need to look at their administrative systems as their withdrawal from dealing with us seems to relate to other loans not relevant to this case. I am intending to file a full report to the Legal Ombudsman on this.

 

My wife Lindsay and I have been under great pressure in relation to taking out this deal, there being no talk on the way First Plus calculate their interest. This was certainly not explained to us by loans.co.uk

 

As regards to health issues which you ask for in your form, I have been diagnosed with high blood pressure, there being a huge amount of administrative work in all this and so I gave the work to MSB Solicitors of Liverpool who dropped the case I think confusing it with other loans not relevant to this matter. The pressure on us both has been enormous and it is no way right that we should have been taken in at a vulnerable time in our life the way we were.

 

I enclose some copies of proofs with my codes that I think are particularly relevant to the case but of course I can provide more if requested.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Rev Dr David P Griffiths

Rev Dr E M Lindsay Griffiths

Part 2: Summary of Case to Financial Ombudsman - April 2012

 

First Plus & loans.co.uk COMPLAINT

From Revs. Drs David & Lindsay Griffiths

(We have the proofs in question filed here - not available on line yet - If you want copies these can be forwarded)

ENCLOSURE D

 

APPRAISAL OF CASE: January 2011 with further details for Financial Ombudsman; April 2012.

 

Key Points of Complaint

 

1)  Pushed into taking Higher Loan: Proof 1 – Original Enquiry of 07 09 05 enquiring for £40,000.Proof 2 = First Plus Financial forced all lending to be declared and insisted they took the lot. (Heavy Control and Manipulation) Proof 2A = was even an agreement for £70,000.

 

April 2012 point: We had no idea that we were being pushed to clear all creditors as this was an adverse loan. We only wanted £40,000 but kept being pushed and pushed to take more. We hold documentary proof of our initial enquiry, the push being it would be cheaper with them, but it would seem from the way First Plus calculate interest this is far from the truth.

 

2) Mis-sold Payment Protection: This was accepted but the whole figure of Protection Fee put on top of loan & presumably charged interest on. Normally insurance would be simply taken out monthly. Proofs 3&4

First Plus stated they had credited our account by £2,455-64 on 10. April 2007 app. 18 months into the loan and sent a cheque for £4,000-10 to cover overpayment monthly payments on the PPI element of the loan but no mention is made of compensation. This is the clinical sum given over with NO APOLOGY whatsoever.

 

3) Interest Rates Variability: This is a major point of contention with First Plus.

I enclose a copy of our ref. PROOF 6A which related interest changes to Bank of England interest rates or the FHBR and the associated increase in our monthly payment related to that! The collection of proofs I enclose show an inconsistency with First Plus in that as long as Bank of England Base Rates were going up – they took notice – but as soon as there was dramatic decreases that indeed related to the downturn in the Housing Market, houses being the objects First Plus had their security in – then they even on one occasion put the rate up followed by a slight decrease – not in line with mortgage suppliers.

 

Remember – we were not sold an adverse credit mortgage by loans.co.uk but a normal one!

 

Clear with First Plus – if Bank of England Base Rates go up – then their rates go up & quoted 14 04 07

 

PROOF 6A; 16 07 09 PROOF 6B. When rates dramatically went down = NO REACTION (except to put up rate on 1 occasion) till 05 03 08 with only a 1.1% decrease with no comment over base rates as in PROOFS 6A &B. PROOF 6C & 18 02 09

 

PROOF 6D.  Indeed letter of 14 05 08 showed a complaint that when Bank of England rates went down FIRST PLUS rates went up! PROOF 6E. First Plus letter saying rates not linked to BASE RATE 12 06 08 PROOF 6F. Looking into rate concerns

PROOF 6G Interest rate decrease; February 2010

 

Now in our equation – we were sold a loan by loans.co.uk using a standard APR formula, a normal mortgage – not an adverse one with normal practice on a variable rate deal – when base rates go up – the re-payments go up; when base rates go down – they go down!!!!! That is how it was sold! It has not happened!

 

There is an additional factor – the mortgage was sold with pay back PPI which would pay back the capital amount owing in five years!!!!!!! What now happens with that promise as we were miss-sold the PPI??????

 

http://boards.thisismoney.co.uk/tim/threadnonInd.jsp?forum=87&thread=66826 

reports that First Plus mathematics on interest rates is that the calculation is not like an annual APR which is how the deal was sold but monthly meaning it is 12 times higher than a normal loan. If this is true customers pay this loan forever. We were sold a loan as a mortgage – not adverse but a normal loan. We have not got what we bought. PROOF 6H.

 

Also Real Life Claims http://www.reallifeclaims.com/#/first-plus/4543076178 ask questions in relation to secret commissions when selling the loan, increasing loan interest amount without our knowledge, did not offer other alternatives that might have been available, added on PPI when it may have not covered us, states 20 million policies mis sold in UK. PROOF 6I

 

Also the sellers of the deal were also found out by FSA for mis-selling PPI and so if they mis-sold that that it follows with all the other information gathered here that the whole deal was mis-sold PROOF 6J.

 

This malpractice by www.loans.co.uk was not known by us when we were sold the First Plus deal.

 

(These proofs we hold – if you want them – we can send.)

 

4) Advertising:

 

i)                 In Payment Protection Booklet no mention of putting the cost of the cover onto the loan, this presumably having interest on it. PROOF 10 enclosed

 

ii)              Use of the term “Life is For Living” PROOF 12 that includes a promise to consider top-up loans – now withdrawn. Look at the associations in the PROOF 12 enclosed

 

Additional Factors

ii)                 BBC News re loans.co.uk fine PROOF 12A

 

This article is very revealing because although this is secondary evidence (we hold the FSA judgment and so have the primary evidence) it shows the following:

 

a)   Loans.co.uk were found guilty of miss-selling and we have shown clearly we did not need the insurance and have not been compensated – only a small amount given on the cancelling of the insurance.

 

b)  FSA stated they were very critical of the way this company which we learned became owned by MBNA did their business typically over the telephone – as they did with us!

 

c)   The report says the company did not keep proper records describing their breach of regulations as “particularly serious”

 

d)  The report goes on in relation to poor selling.

 

iii)           This is Money Website details PROOF 12B:

a)   This deals with the fact that First Plus borrowers did not receive a reduction in repayments despite the plunge in the Bank of England Base Rate & this despite of our proven documentation that when rates were going up First Plus then put them up!!!!!!! THIS IS GROSSLY UNFAIR! First Plus state in the report that their conditions allow them to vary rates but I am applying here the Constitutional demand in our nation that it is laws and customs that have to be kept to and it is uncustomary to increase rates when the base rate goes down!

 

iv)            SUN MONEY on £27,000 compensation PROOF 12 C

a)   This report relates to a couple who took out a £100,000 loan from First Plus and theSun describes your landmark decision of more than £27,000 after being sold “useless insurance.”

 

b)  The report declares that Brunel Franklin handled their claim but I put to you that only was the PPI miss-sold but the whole mortgage deal. The Sun here describes the First Plus policy (not told to us by loans.co.uk) as cunning; offered no breakdown, just calculating the repayments to include the unwanted insurance; wrongly said as they said to us that cash back after five years could be claimed; failing to explain we could shop around for PPI. Indeed in our case it was pushed so heavily on the all the money come back to clear your balance in five years routine.

 

c)   Initial offer to the couple £3,000 and we have had back about that total which considering what we have been through does not cover the stress and pressure Lindsay and I have suffered with this deal.

 

d)  We read in the article of huge incentives to pay the PPI and scripted sales pitches which is UNETHICAL SELLING. This is particularly disgusting with people under pressure as cited in this case, there having been a real possibility of the family losing their home as it is with us with the decrease in house values and the huge amounts we have paid back to First Plus.

 

5) SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST and this received: Letter dated 28 August 2010 sent

 

a)   Accompanying letter saying information sent in accordance with Section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. PROOF 13

 

b)  Copy of Loan Agreement. PROOF 14

 

c)   Copy of Legal Charge. PROOF 15

 

d)  The Freehold and Abstract of Title. PROOF 16

 

e)   Direct Debit Mandate. PROOF 17

 

f)     External Valuation Report. PROOF 18

 

g)   Application Information. PROOF 19

 

h)  Complaint of increasing interest rate when base rate went down. PROOF 20

 

i)     MSB Letter. Consumer Credit Act 1974. Request. 11 02 09. PROOF 21

 

j)     First Plus Letter to MSB. PROOF 22

 

k)   Letter of 12 June 2008 saying FIRST PLUS rates not linked to changes in base rates. PROOF 23

 

l)     Looking into rate concerns dated 21 05 08. PROOF 24

 

m)                       10 04 07: Refund of over-payment. £2,455 credit of account. £4000-10 cheque to cover over-payment on the loan. Proof had been charging interest on the protection. PROOF 25

 

n)  Opening Letter and Account Details. PROOF 26. Original Loan 88150 – 01 12 05 so say after 5 years paid app £1000 a month = £60,000 in but account shows £63867 0wing and at present rate of interest app £61867 owing on 5 year anniversary. 26283 paid off, 35290-27 interest so say the loan on 88150 and the interest each year on that figure (but of course it’s not as the amount owing goes down. 7085-05 a year interest.

 

6) MSB SOLICITORS, LIVERPOOL INVOLVEMENT IN CASE

 

Despite of advertising Consumer Credit Services and paying them fees, these solicitors have done little in the case, this being outlined as follows:

 

i)                 Send Letter to First Plus with S. 77 Consumer Credit Act 1974 Request. Proof 21

ii)              Letter from First Plus to MSB dated 14 01 09 with details requested. PROOF 22

iii)           Original Letter to MSB with details 29 11 08 PROOF 23

iv)            E Mail To Sam Audley 19 11 08 on matter PROOF 24

v)               E Mail Reply from Sam Audley 19 11 08 PROOF 25

vi)            E Mail from Sam Audley 02 12 08 PROOF 26

vii)         Letter to MSB re action on First Plus 23 02 09 PROOF 27

viii)      E Mail to Sam Audley reminder 23 04 09 PROOF 28

ix)            Letter further reminder and info 16 09 09 PROOF 29

x)               DG Subject Access Request Letter to First Plus. PROOF 30 : 30 07 10

xi)            Letter to MSB re First Plus ongoing PROOF 31: 30 07 10

xii)         Letter from MSB referring to £2-50 cheque to be forwarded at conclusion of the case PROOF 32

xiii)      £2-50 cheque with letter saying that MSB be grateful if we would cash the cheque to clear your client balance and close your file of papers PROOF 33

xiv)       15 03 10: MSB Consumer Credit Cases Update PROOF 34

xv)          27 04 10: MSB seemingly backing out letter PROOF 35

xvi)       ORIGINAL LETTER and ENCLOSURES to MSB letter dated 29 11 08

MSB Solicitors took on this case but strangely dropped out, a matter I am now bringing up with the Legal Ombudsman as this matter relates to a MISS-SOLD MORTGAGE and MISS-SOLD PPI not to the inability of banking institutions to provide documentation in line with Section 77/78 of the Consumer Credit Act. This case is an entirely separate one to this and I have had to take over the considerable workload on the case, despite of I having sent MSB Solicitors the information. See PROOFS 34 & 35 where the Solicitors details are shown.

 

7)                     Case follow up

i)                 17 01 11: Reply from First Plus putting blame on loans.co.uk

ii)              18 01 11: Our reply to First Plus pointing out areas to address

iii)           20 01 11: loans.co.uk reply

iv)            26 01 11: “Final letter” from First Plus so action needs to be taken by us

v)               27 01 11: Letter to say facing issues saying broker sold the deal which is true; with technical details and stating saying they cannot uphold our complaint.

vi)            02 02 11: Transferring our complaint to legal team

vii)         04 02 12: Further Letter of Complaint being sent to First Plus

viii)      06 02 12: Letter to Financial Ombudsman Service with First Plus Complaint Letter.

ix)            08 02 12: Letter to MSB re their involvement

x)               08 02 12: Letter to Law Society re MSB back out of case

x1)         27 04 12: Transfer of complaint to Legal Ombudsman

xii)        03 05 12: Reply from Legal Ombudsmen re MSB Solicitors involvement saying they cannot help due to time limits. The reason we were late in reporting was bewcause of MSB inaction and the fact we had to take it on!!!!!!!!! The situation is crazy but we will press on!!!

Results:

 

24 04 12:  Letter from Financial Ombudsman acknowledging complaint - saying that due to very high numbers of enquiries there may be a delay in dealing with the case of up to four weeks.

 

This delay proves the general dissatisfaction with banking services in U.K. and we accept and understand what this office must be going through!

 

30 04 12: Letter from Financial Ombudsman that we should send a PPI questionnaire to Loans.co.uk and contact them ......

 

23 05 12 We did and received an incredible reply stating the following points ........

 

1)  That we had raised no new points from previous letters

2)  Acknowledgement that we had brought in the Financial Ombudsman

3)  Denial that Loans.co.uk sold us a loan - but rather introduced customers to lenders!!!!!!! (This is a new one!)

4)  Denial that Loans.co.uk acted as our financial adviser!!!!!!!!!!! (Incredible!)

5)  Point that we did not have to take their loan (yes, but we were persuaded in our view by false advertising from from loans.co.uk & First Plus. Persuaded too by sales techniques including the PPI payback scheme!)

6)  States that full amount of PPI paid back - but our argument is that loans.co.uk mis-sold and gave false information on the deal & substantial compensation due!

 

31 07 12:  Letter back to Loans.co.uk from us ........

 

31/07/2012 09:36:08

Ms. Sarah Walsh,

Loans.co.uk

Chester Business Park,

Wrexham Road,

CHESTER, CH4 9FB

 

Dear Ms Walsh,

 

Re. First Plus Account No. 1332467

Complaints against what we are putting forward as a

MIS-SOLD MORTGAGE and MIS-SOLD PPI

(the latter admitted by you) by Loans.co.uk

Financial Ombudsman Service Ref. No. 1136-4119/LM/CCPP

Your Ref. 983663

 

Your reply to my letter of 23. May 2012 is unacceptable, as is the tone of your letter with an apparent apology followed by the statement that Loans.co.uk do not agree that the loan was mis-sold to us.

 

I remind your company of its record of mis-selling. Your company so reports the FSA on 26. October 2006 was fined £455,000 for failing to treat its customers fairly when selling PPI, the regulator finding your company at the time of selling PPI and an inappropriate loan to us did not have appropriate systems and controls in place to minimise the risk of unsuitable sales.

 

The FSA investigation found that your firm failed to gather and record information to ensure policy recommendations were suitable. Our argument is that if you were found guilty in relation to mis-selling PPI, then it is highly likely you are guilty of mis-selling mortgages and we put to you our strong conviction that your company seriously mis-sold a mortgage to us, what is known in the trade as an adverse mortgage when neither of us had any adverse credit record at the time.

 

The report of 2006 notes that the FSA regulates the sale of mortgages and general insurance and we through the Ombudsman intend to press the FSA to move strongly against your company in the area of what we are presenting as our mis-sold mortgage, a mis-sale costing us thousands, thousands we intend to claim back with compensation.

 

Your letter goes on to say that as far as you are concerned we have not raised new issues and that you are satisfied that our complaint was thoroughly investigated and dealt with in 2011, your company not willing to offer us any compensation or take any other action.

 

Whilst the unresolved issues remain, and they will continue to remain until justice is done, I do raise a new issue with the Financial Ombudsman at this time. Your comment that reads:

 

Loans.co.uk did not sell loans, instead it processed customers’ information and then introduced customers to the lender, who then sold the loan through direct mail sales processes. In this case, Loans.co.uk introduced you to First Plus. Loans.co.uk did not act as your financial adviser and did not give you any advice.

 

Having been a Professional Sales Manager and Sales Representative of a large company I am prepared to affirm in court in my professional capacity that we were definitely sold PPI and a mortgage, the very FSA report of 2006 using the word “selling” in its report about your “selling activities!”

 

I have also lectured on the subject of ethical selling which involves listening to customers and giving benefits of a product or service to the customer. Are you therefore saying that you did not listen to us and pitch benefits of the First Plus product to us? We say the benefits you pitched did not relate to our needs, hence our accusation of a mis-sale by your company.

 

Your statement that your role was to act as a broker only seems to mean that brokers do not sell. There are numerous brokers selling products and services today and it is the responsibility of the broker to ethically sell – we say that your company did not, the FSA finding you guilty of mis-selling.

 

You suggest that we contact First Plus if we are in financial difficulties but we have always paid First Plus on time, never missing a payment frankly under duress because of the apparent hold First Plus have on our house. Our calculations show that even though we have well paid off the capital side of the mortgage, we still have years to go to pay off interest calculated in such a way that was not explained to us, with PPI put on top of the loan and interest charged on it. This was not explained to us and whilst you say the full amount of £21,587-94 plus associated interest was paid back to us with £4,000 of over-payments paid back to us, these financial calculations do not give us compensation for the mis-sale of PPI; the fact that these calculations took place proves admission on your part of mis-selling. Surely the customer needs to be compensated for that mis-sale! This has never happened. In the sales pitch of the PPI was a comment that it was worth taking the PPI as it would all be paid back after five years, the capital amount of the mortgage being covered by the pay back!!!!!!!!! Do you have record of that? It is compensation we are chasing for the PPI mis-sale – promises given never materialising and compensation is required.

 

Our argument continues with the point that if the PPI was mis-sold (despite your point that you did not sell) then it naturally follows that the mortgage itself was mis-sold.

 

Your letter fails to deal with the following issues:

 

1)      Being pushed into higher loan;

2)     Original Loan “Agreement” and variable interest rates

3)     Advertising that included Loans.co.uk adverts at the time

4)     Selling of an “adverse mortgage” to non-adverse customers.

 

A copy of your reply letter and a copy of this letter are to be sent to the Financial Ombudsman and we do trust that these issues can be addressed and we put to you, theGuardian reporting on 26. October 2006 that the FSA had found your company guilty in relation to your clear failure to treat your customers fairly and whilst you say that the account was put in position as if PPI had never been put on the account, the fact is IT WAS and we have never been compensated for the PPI mis-sale; and the issue of the mis-sold mortgage has to be addressed to.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Rev Dr Cllr David P Griffiths

 

 

Rev Dr Cllr E M Lindsay Griffiths

07 08 12:  Above sent to Financial Ombudsman!

 

WATCH THIS SPACE!

 

23 01 14 Apologizing for delay reply from Ombudsman!

 

02 02 14 reply to Ombudsman:

 

02/02/2014 09:24:35

Gary Wilkinson,

Director,

Financial Ombudsman Service,

South Quay Plaza,

183, Marsh Wall,

LONDON,

E14 9SR

 

Dear Gary Wilkinson,

 

Your Ref. 1136-4119/SS/CCPP (PPI); 1163-3240/CK/CCCH

Re. loans.co.uk & First Plus: Mis-Selling of PPI and a Mortgage

 

The main issue here however is not the mis-selling of PPI but the mis-selling of a mortgage. I am well aware we are not the only victims of this mis-sale – there are many, so it is my view they can be dealt with on mass.

 

It is not difficult to prove the following which we pointed out to you on 23. November 2012. The delay in dealing with this issue has now meant we are having to sell our house having been grossly overcharged by First Plus.

 

These are our original points:

 

KEY POINTS

 

*  PUSHED INTO HIGHER LOAN THAN REQUESTED – NOT TOLD THAT THIS WAS AN “ADVERSE LOAN” – Glossy advertising not linked to product being sold

 

*  MIS-SOLD PPI with whole cost put on top of loan collecting interest for them – technical amount paid back but without compensation

 

 

*  TOLD LOAN COULD BE CLEARED IN FIVE YEARS which was the basis of selling the PPI and our reason for buying the loan.

 

    Not told that British Custom of reducing Interest rates when Bank of England Base Rate goes down would not apply here – there being occasion that when the rate went down – FIRST PLUS put the mortgage up!

 

*  Not told that the APR calculation would be on a monthly basis rather than annual = 12 times the cost of a normal loan.

 

*  Loans.co.uk already been found guilty of PPI mis-sale so why are they not found guilty of loan mis-selling with all the evidence before us? UNFAIR CONTRACT!

 

I do trust you can help us for the compensation we deserve could well bring the conditions for us to keep our house.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

Rev Dr David P Griffiths

So many have suffered from in our view the

miss-sale of First Plus Mortgages ......

the time for compensation to ordinary people has to come ......

Join the Constitution Keepers

From UK Telephone: 01492 544451

From Overseas:  0044 1492 544451

A Ministry of ECCTV.ORG

and the Bible College of Wales -

The Orginal Vision

Give Net by Stewardship - 

UK Tax Payers (Gift Aid Claim) may give offerings at  

https://www.give.net/2020everycreatureappeal

23-27 George Street, Whithorn, Wigtownshire, DG8 8NS

Non Waged Ministry - Funds all used for the cause - EMail ecctv4219@gmail.com

FINANCIAL YEAR OF THE MINISTRY: 1st May 2020 to 30 April 2021

31 10 20 amount in (un-audited as yet) = £18,676-49 ; $24,176-60; 20,703-58 EURO

LCMI Trust: England & Wales - Charity Commission No. 1065192

Scotland – OSCR Registration No. SCO48778