Hughes has at least called into question whether the benefit of Wells Fargo’s payment and debt consolidation was “substantial” in light of the increase in Hughes’s monthly payment. Finally, Hughes alleges that Wells Fargo has “knowingly taken advantage of the inability of the consumer reasonably to protect his interests.” D.C.Code § 28-3904(r)(5). In support of this factor, Hughes asserts that a representative from a settlement company retained by Wells Fargo had Hughes “sign a stack of papers” but only gave Hughes “unsigned copies” and that “no notary was present.” Am. Compl. ¶40. This alleged lack of formal procedures to close the loan may be a poor business practice, but alone does not suggest Hughes’s inability to understand Wells Fargo’s terms. See Williams, 225 F.3d at 744-45 (<HOLDING>); Johnson, 451 F.Supp.2d at 38 (holding that
holding that plaintiff who had an eleventh grade education and who held no licenses did not satisfy the trained personnel exception even though having past experience as a health aide holding an accused with a sixth or seventh grade education who testified at suppression hearing that he had asked for a lawyer  although disbelieved by the trial court  indicated his familiarity with his rights holding that a retiree with a sixth grade education who was given little time to review the terms had stated a claim holding that the record did not belie the claimants iq of 58 where he attended special education classes did not live independently and dropped out of school at a low grade either in the sixth or eighth grade holding that completing sixth grade and a limited ability to read were not inconsistent with a valid iq score of 68