Moreover, this witness relied on erroneous information, and accordingly the limit that exists in the Fair Credit Law should be applied to the loan (see his testimony on page 24) - even though this limitation does not exist in this case - since its sum exceeds the sum of ILS 1,197,707 (and this is also to the extent that only the amount transferred to the plaintiff and her husband's account is examined). It also became clear that the expert on behalf of the plaintiff claimed that interest at the rate of 7.9% per annum should be applied to the loan, but he was unable to present the calculation that is the basis for determining this rate, since he claimed that this was a calculation that existed in his worksheets, which he did not bring to the discussion (see his testimony on page 26). In these circumstances, I did not find it possible to accept the opinion on behalf of the plaintiff and I determine that in any case the plaintiff did not prove damages as claimed by her.
In the context of the interest collected by the defendant, the plaintiff claims that since the defendant collected a sum of ILS 50,000 as handling fees and attorney's fees - an amount that the plaintiff claims is excessive, this amount should also be regarded as payment for interest. I will note that there is no dispute that the defendant - as a lender - is obligated to disclose the collection fees that it collects as part of the details of the actual cost of the credit (see in this regard Civil Appeal Authority 7142/15 Pama Agencies in Tax Appeal v. Moshe Ron, para. 5 (24/1/16)) and however, not necessarily every payment of collection fees will be considered disguised interest, but in order for this to be determined, it must be shown that it is an excessive payment for collection services that is nothing but disguised interest. In the present case, the plaintiff merely claimed that this was an excessive price, but she did not present any evidence in support of this claim and therefore I am unable to accept it.