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 from last year’s letter with 2012 comments in red.
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!
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
