Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


51 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks Fodder - for the avoidance of doubt the boiler was already installed so my issue is the kitchen install was defective.
  2. Hi all. I've recently had a new kitchen installed, as part of larger renovation that was overseen by a builder - all money paid to the builder. To cut a long story short my boiler was enclosed inside one of the new kitchen units however when I've come to have it serviced (mandatory part of warranty - 2 years old, 8 years warranty left), the boiler is now inaccessible due to the way the joiner has fitted the kitchen unit. The builder was fully aware of the need for access this is accepted irrespective of it being common sense. I'm now left with a boiler I cannot service or repair should it break down. To add insult to injury my warranty is now void as it's not been serviced during November. The options to resolve involve moving the boiler to the left slightly - however that will cost £500 - the builder says he won't pay. I'm ok with the general arguments under the consumer rights act re 'reasonable care and skill.' however I've read there's also legislation about boiler access - can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks in advance.
  3. The fight continues. Firstplus state the case here is not binding and counter citing another case where, they say, the judge found the clause to be fair. I know that is rubbish as the arguments put forward were incorrect - long story involving an incompetent barrister. Anyhow, we move on and are due to take the issue back to court soon. Personally I'm still waiting (over 4 years now) for the regulators to tell me what Firstplus did wrong when the reprimanded Firstplus. The continue to argue the legalities of disclosing under section 241a of the enterprise act, an act specifically brought in to assist consumers obtaining disclosure. 4 years - disgraceful. The OFT were found to have been maladministrative in their consideration but by the time the Parliamentary Ombudsman decided that the OFT had closed. The CMA reconsidered but now say it is not necessary for my contemplated proceedings. It's back with the Parliamentary Ombudsman now. I have accused the lot of them colluding and of being complicit in a cover up following the partial disclosure from the ICO - This shows that the tail wagged the dog and clearly shows that the OFT, incompetent as they were, found that there was a breach of the second charge lending guidance. Their incompetence / collusion in failing to deal with the material harm - evidenced to them via the published accounts will be a matter for the courts. Just waiting for the Parliamentary Ombudsman to notify me of their latest dodge then it's off to court I go - and I have masses of irrefutable evidence that proves profiteering, i.e. we're paying for PPI liability and the UTCCR's have been breached. It'll just depend whether the judge is prepared to do the right thing. I'm under no illusions that I'm taking on a bank, but all they had to do was treat me fair, but they haven't, not even close. Second charge loans are always going to have a stigma attached to them but I went into this with my eyes wide open - I honestly thought this was the answer and DID read the T&C's - I thought they were unambiguous, biggest mistake of my life. The regulators are a disgrace The OFT - "the SCLG does not require businesses to reduce rates when their costs decrease" - But they can increase rates when their costs increase. Wow - that's not how I read the T&C's The FOS - "The way in which variations have been applied is generally in line with base rate" - Unbelievable, 80% reduction in base rates and 20% increase in APR. I'll update when I have more info.
  4. Thanks Rebel - was hoping for a physical email like Paul's - i'll try the form though and if not joy i'll email the CEO and copy in the Ombudsman. Thanks again.
  5. Hi - does anyone have one? I'm in a bit of an unusual situation. I need to speak to TSB on behalf on a family member (iro his mortgage) - urgently, but for the last month I've been waiting for them to send a consent form out - to the family members house. Appreciate the need for that, no problem - I can get the consent approved pretty quickly. However, as it stands: It hasn't been received - i've chased 5 times It cannot be emailed apparently - It's a blank form It cannot be downloaded A letter of consent will not suffice - It has to be this specific form The form is different to the ones available at the local branch so I can't go and get one. When I spoke to them this morning they: Can't confirm whether or not one has been sent previously - despite it being a blank form,. Wont confirm whether or not they will or will not send out another blank form in the post. This is absolutely pathetic - I'm not daft, appreciate the need for consent but they're being obstructive. Thanks in advance.
  6. Not sure a class action is the way to go. The claim in my mind is that the loan should have tracked. Every base rate increase was applied in full, citing base rate increases. That said, I think i'll claim it should be fixed, i.e. the variation clause is unenforceable. By doing that it would get me under the £10k limit, whereas with a tracker I'd be over. I can't go into detail re the ongoing PHSO case but for it to take this long, and for it to be treated as a hot potato like it has proves to me that my argument is not without substance.
  7. Cheers Andrew, deleted my address so not bothered about name and reference to be honest. They (FOS, OFT, PHSO) know there's something seriously wrong here, I'm just waiting for disclosure of the reasons for the OFT reprimand and i'll be filing my claim. It's about time the FOS was disbanded like the OFT, absolutely useless.
  8. Agreed. Section 241a of the Enterprise Act should however allow disclosure so a person can identify whether they have been wronged. There are stringent restrictions with it, e.g. you cannot share etc. Even using that though I've found that the OFT refuse citing public interest and protection of commercial interest. And then when you claim that the OFT are maladministrative in their interpretation of s241a the Parliamentary Ombudsman take 3 YEARS (and counting) to consider. There is something seriously wrong here.
  9. Everyone got the same reply from Barclays. I've just had my response from the FOS. They won't intervene either - we all have to go to court apparently.
  10. Sadly that is not the case. My experiences of the OFT and FOS over the past few years have left me gobsmacked. I still have hopes for the FCA, but as they say it's not their responsibility, at the moment. We're going to attempt to get more publicity for this, the OFT deserve every possible criticism as they have forgotten who they are supposed to be protecting, i.e. what their job is.
  11. The FCA don't want to know, they just say it's not their responsibility.
  12. The OFT have replied to our groups email. They confirm: They note the ruling, but it does not change their public opinion, which they repeat. - The OFT previously imposed requirement under s33a of the CCA. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer-credit/first-plus.pdf - The OFT had not found that Firstplus had acted in breach of the second charge lending guidance. ( it could be argued that this is true as the guide contains NOTHING regarding the reduction of rates, it only deals with the scenario of rate increases. There's a lot of other waffle but essentially that is it, they're doing nothing. Why is my clause, and the other 50,000+ clauses OK? It's exactly the same wording and been administered in exactly the same way as the one that's been found to be unfair - in a court of law. What we have here is a completely useless, bias, waste of space regulator. They infer that they have already done something, when in fact they have done nothing. They issued a s33a CCA reprimand after the harm had been done (i.e. after base rates fell), knowing full well that such reprimands have no retrospective impact (legally). And when you ask why the reprimand was issued, or ask a simple question like "what cost increases have there been to warrant my rate being higher", or "why am I paying £8,000 more than I agreed to at inception", the OFT say they cannot say, "as it would harm Firstplus' commercial interests". This really is a disgrace, the OFT are a disgrace. I would urge all Firstplus customers to send the email detailed above if not already sent, and when they get the same refusals, contact your MP and demand action is taken.
  13. Not really a digress as it's all interlinked. This market is corrupt, and the regulators have, so far, shown a complete unwillingness / inability to deal with the issues. If you read page 7 onwards of this http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file41381.pdf you'll see that I couldn't share any info given to me, it's just the OFT know that if they told me i'd be able to wipe the floor with Firstplus. They are complicit - end of. Makes you wonder why my maladministration claim is taking so long to be considered.
  14. Ah right, remember seeing the Swift reprimand as well. As you say maybe move that discussion elsewhere as it's off topic. We'll get there in the end.
  15. The 2010 reprimand decision do you mean? If so, no. I had the ICO decide on that at the same time as pursuing under section 241a of the Enterprise Act. I'll post the FoIA rejection reasons below in a minute. ------------- As you are aware, I have now received the OFT’s response to my query as to whether all of the information you requested is covered by section 238 of the Enterprise Act 2002 or whether some of the information is covered solely by section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. That response, which is from the OFT’s General Counsel, clarifies the point by informing me that some of the withheld information consists entirely of “specified information” and the remainder, while covered by section 31 of FOIA, also contains, discusses and refers to “specified information”. Therefore, the information covered by sections 31 and 44 of FOIA is very closely interwoven. As you will be aware, specified information is defined in section 238(1) of the Enterprise Act 2002 as information which comes to a public authority in connection with its exercise of certain functions. The OFT has stated, in earlier correspondence, that the withheld information came to it in connection with its functions under the Consumer Credit Act. Section 44(1) of FOIA provides a statutory bar against the release of information if such release is prohibited by or under any enactment. In this case, that enactment is section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002, which prohibits the disclosure of specified information other than in certain circumstances. The exemption under section 44(1) of FOIA is absolute. Given that all of the withheld information either consists entirely of, or contains, specified information, the Commissioner would consider that it is completely covered by section 44(1) of the FOIA. As this is an absolute statutory bar, unfortunately the Commissioner cannot assist you further in obtaining the withheld information. He has no jurisdiction to assess the merits of a public authority’s application and interpretation of any legislation other than that which he regulates.
  • Create New...