Jump to content


FirstPlus.


finlander
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4949 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi folks.... along with my other thread......

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/103597-finlander-takes-world-well-2.html

 

I have another issue that I want a bit of justice with and Im wondering if all the legal minds here could help me see if we can frighten FirstPlus. I had a loan with them recently and settled it early to buy my new house. I'm in the process of doing a SAR request with them for all the details. No Im pretty sure the settlement charge was pretty extortinate and want to see if I can get it back (I think there was PPI as well). Now as this is all paid off and (no nasty DCA's etc can get involved to muddy the water) How about if I post all the contracts ect on here when they arrive and we see if all you very clever legal people can pick some holes in it?

 

I only ask because reading some of the threads on this company I cant help thinking they are little short of loan sharks. Surely there must be some protection from the law... an example being.....

 

' borrowed £50,000 in May 2004. Have repaid approx 15k to date, requested settlement figure last month (2.5 years after taking out the loan) and the amount to settle is £50.5k!!!'

 

I don't know but maybe its wiorth a try.... I mean nobody got their bank charges back until they examined the law and picked holes in the contract nad im prepared to scan all mine up when they arrive... perhaps uder utcc laws...:confused:

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

San them up when you've got them and I'm sure someone will be able to give you some advice.

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bring it on :D

If my advice has been helpful please feel free to click on my scales :grin:

 

Creditors and DCAs - Letter Templates & Budget Planner (CCA request letter N)and other templates)

 

Debt Collection Agencies & Statutory Demands, a few strategies

 

Abbey charges, Won

B-card non-disclosure of S.A.R, WON £30 costs awarded

B-Card, court for harrasement, failed to defend WON £175 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/125554-28-days-later-no.html#post1422508

B-Card charges, partial refund, still fighting

Vanquis-Cabot, GIVEN UP :lol:

HFC & my mum, no brainer, no CCA http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/133330-hfc-my-mum.html#post1404514

 

PLEASE donate to CAG however small. They are fighting for YOUR rights as a consumer. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be going over old ground , what with smith v ME, but firstplus must be in breach of the FSA rules... their hand book states...

 

(1) Principle 6 requires a firm to pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.1 A firm is also under an obligation, as a consequence of this sourcebook's disclosure requirements,1 to make charges transparent to customers. This chapter reinforces these requirements by preventing a firm from imposing unfair and excessive charges.

 

(2) The level of charges under a regulated mortgage contract or home reversion plan1 is not typically a matter for regulation. However, in certain limited circumstances, the FSA believes that customers should be protected from unfair and excessive charging practices. This chapter considers four specific circumstances, where: (a) the charges imposed upon a customer seeking to terminate a regulated mortgage contract before the end of the term of the contract do not reflect the cost of termination to the firm;

(b) the charges imposed on a customer in payment difficulties are not based upon the costs incurred by the firm;

© the charges (including rates of interest) imposed on a customer under a regulated mortgage contract or home reversion plan1 are excessive and contrary to the customer's interests; and

(d) 1 the charges made to a customer in connection with a firm entering into, making a further advance on, administering, arranging or advising on a regulated mortgage contract or home reversion plan, or arranging or advising on a variation to the terms of a regulated mortgage contract or home reversion plan are excessive.1

 

 

A firm must ensure that any regulated mortgage contract that it enters into does not impose, and cannot be used to impose, an early repayment charge other than one that is:

(1) able to be expressed as a cash value; and

(2) a reasonable pre-estimate of the costs as a result of the customer repaying the amount due under the regulated mortgage contract before the contract has terminated.

MCOB 12.3.2 guide_icon.gif A firm can choose the method it employs for calculating early repayment charges in accordance with MCOB 12.3.1 R. A firm should not use the 'Rule of 78' (as contained in Schedule 2 of the Consumer Credit (Rebate on Early Settlement) Regulations 1983), which is not appropriate as it effectively overstates the cost to the mortgage lender. MCOB 12.3.3 guide_icon.gif A firm may calculate the same level of early repayment charge for all regulated mortgage contracts of a similar type (for example a tranche of regulated mortgage contracts offering a particular fixed rate of interest), rather than on the basis of the individual regulated mortgage contract with the particular customer.

 

Now all that says to me that it can't use rule 78 and can use it's own rules to calculate the early settlement figure.. but that charge MUST be 'a reasonable pre-estimate of the costs as a result of the customer repaying the amount due under the regulated mortgage contract before the contract has terminated'... well the examples I've seen on here don't seem to be!!!

 

any thoughts?:(

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...