Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • well done you i'm going to recommend we announce this too.   i've merged your old thread for history
    • The FOS have finally seen that there is a massive issue with these loans after years of customers telling them. I was taken to court by them in 2013/2014 for possession but successfully got a decision from the judge that the interest rate variation clause written in the contract was unfair (see Firstplus vs Murphy & Dye) but others have not been so lucky - some have lost their homes to these people or are maybe still struggling to pay them If you have a first plus loan (now transferred to Elderbridge) please make sure you make a complaint to Elderbridge or Barclays first plus asap! please feel free to use the court judgement above too - although it did not set a precedent, it will only help you! Please also check out the following urls (use chrome) - these are archived web pages from first plus's website the first is in 2006 - under the section How does the variable interest rate affect my loan? they state quite clearly "From time-to-time, your monthly repayments may go up or down in accordance with the Bank of England interest rate movements." http://web.archive.org/web/20060812175251/http://www.firstplus.co.uk/new_customers_faq.aspx#loanfor Yet they did not reduce their rates when the BOE rate dropped to a historic low did they? then 2008 where you can see they changed it to say "This is the rate of interest that fluctuates over time with general interest rates" – becoming quite vague in their explanations. http://web.archive.org/web/20080223123115/http://www.firstplus.co.uk/aboutourloans/Pages/loan-jargon-buster.aspx#v And finally in 2015 close to when they sold their loan book to Elderbridge they then changed their website and then said that it is not tied to the BOE or FHBR http://web.archive.org/web/20150511120847/http://www.firstplus.co.uk/FAQs(please select Interest rate changes for the dropdown to view) Here it states "The product is a variable rate product and the rates charged on the loan are not tied to the Bank of England or Finance House Base Rate. Our terms and conditions permit changes to the rate for various reasons, including to reflect changes to interest rates and to ensure our business is carried out prudently, efficiently and competitively. The reasons which allow us to vary the interest rate are set out in your loan terms and conditions." This is a clear contradiction to the version in 2006 when most customers took out their loans. This is simply mis-selling of product as well as being unfair, you have not been able to predict or rely on any specific market deviations that may give rise to a change, moreover, they do not provide any specific data to enable you as the customer to plan for any such changes. I have now not paid them for 2 years and complained again last year - my case is with the FOS and I hope that it will resolved soon, I have done a simple internet search and found a freedom of information request to the FOS for the numbers of complaints about this, the reply was that they have negotiated settlements on 150 cases and have 60 outstanding (this letter was dated July 2020) I in my complaint to first plus I advised that I have been given a lot of information from a friend who was in court with them but due to what she was about to ask for in court they very quickly settled her account in full after previously giving her a settlement figure of 189k! Based on this I stopped paying them 2 years ago and they have not chased me - now I do not suggest you do that as it will affect your credit score - I did because I had already suffered the default on my credit report for 6 years so would not affect me and I wanted them to take me to court again but they have not even written to me to ask why I have stopped paying. So again please make sure you make a complaint now - you will need to give Elderbridge 8 weeks to resolve -they will deny that they have done anything wrong but after that make sure you send to the FOS. Do not be put off by anyone on other advise sites such as Moneysaving expert or elsewhere, you have been miss-sold miss-led and generally treated badly and it's time for payback!
    • The advice is still the same-do NOT divulge the name of the driver or suggest to us that you were driving. Please answer the questions on post 2 so we can see what they say. Illegal parking sounds very dubious. Unlawful possibly but not illegal.
    • With airlines grounded due to Covid, we speak to three former pilots who have left the industry. View the full article
    • With new hotel quarantine rules for arrivals from abroad, many people are seeking UK holidays instead. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2370 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

8.1 certainly appears to provide for its application of charges...last by interpretation and common sense :-)

 

I understand the FCA are reviewing MBNA's redress calcs but its not exactly public knowledge as yet beyond the small volume 'pressure' groups on here and other sites who have been pressing the FCA and FOS to intervene since early this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 397
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8.1 certainly appears to provide for its application of charges...last by interpretation and common sense :-) Yes that's what I thought, so I have written this down as additional evidence that they were applied to the account by 'mistake' I will post up what I intend to say in court this week when I have finished typing it.

 

I understand the FCA are reviewing MBNA's redress calcs but its not exactly public knowledge as yet beyond the small volume 'pressure' groups on here and other sites who have been pressing the FCA and FOS to intervene since early this year. So I assume, as it is not common knowledge and I can't refer to it anywhere, it wont be worth mentioning for additional ammo :-(

 

Also, do I need to prepare an opening statement or something of the like?

 

Thanks

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites
8.1 certainly appears to provide for its application of charges...last by interpretation and common sense :-)

 

I understand the FCA are reviewing MBNA's redress calcs but its not exactly public knowledge as yet beyond the small volume 'pressure' groups on here and other sites who have been pressing the FCA and FOS to intervene since early this year.

 

I am in correspondence with the FOS/FCA on this and their last letter they have asked MBNA for more information about its calculations,

 

And they will up date me & Others at a later date after investigations completed. that was middle of last May 2014, BUT a DJ would simply ignore any comment unless you have evidence to the contrary about PPI redress at this stage as I found out.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am in correspondence with the FOS on this and their last letter they have asked MBNA for more information about its calculations,

 

And they will up date me & Others at a later date after investigations completed. that was middle of last May 2014, BVUT a DJ would simply ignore any comment unless you have evidence to the contrary about PPI redress at this stage as I found out.

 

Suspected as much :-(:sad::sad:

 

Oh well, if by some miracle something I can take to Court develops by Friday, please let me know :-) - That would be soooo sweet

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any info would probably be treated as hearsay, really not sure the court would entertain any additional witness evidence this late in the day and I can't imagine the FCA showing its cards by supplying anyone with the merest hint as to its investigation process. From what I have seen of its correspondence to date it just seems to be at the stage of collating complaints data for testing calculations and reconciling with DISP.

 

Having said that, if the other side is using its t&c as a shield along with its public statement regarding Ind reviews etc it should really be pressed to allow inspection of any documents its relying on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, very true, thanks Mike.

 

The attachment is what I am planning on going by if asked to speak about why I think s.32 would cover my case.

 

Please let me know where I've gone wrong, if I've totally misunderstood stuff or if I need to add or omit anything as I don't want to look stupid in front of the judge. :madgrin:

 

Many thanks guys for your time in helping me with this

 

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you understand the argument, press releases prob won't hold much water but using its terms; point of charge, future allocation of payments may.

 

Use your attachment as a prompt and be prepared for any/all possible counter intuitive rebuttals from the other side. You need to think about what novel arguments it may use to retain its position and how you can show the court it lacks candour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Use your attachment as a prompt and be prepared for any/all possible counter intuitive rebuttals from the other side. You need to think about what novel arguments it may use to retain its position and how you can show the court it lacks candour.

 

Yes indeed Mike,

 

Pity I can't get a sneak of the Jackanory book they'll be reading from.

 

Up2

 

 

letter to-day fron FOS states still not completed investigation into MBNA PPI redress as reported in the press, but will update again soon.

 

Well no news is good news in the respect of the greater good, but it would have been great to pull that out of my sleeve on Friday

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a long shot, but on 14 Dec 2010 The Shadow blogged a report about MBNA debt collection restrictions imposed by the OFT I have tried to find the report, but can only find press stories.

 

Harassment is also forming part of my case and MBNA have basically said in their witness statement that I'm lying, despite providing evidence in my witness statement. I am sure this will get mentioned in Court due to the severity of it and if I could get my hands on this report would help my case as what they have had their wrists slapped over is exactly what forms my complaint.

 

If any of the site team have this archived anywhere I would be very grateful for a copy (I have tried the OFT archives, but could only go back to 2011)

 

Many thanks everyone

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this is a long shot, but on 14 Dec 2010.....a report about MBNA debt collection restrictions imposed by the OFT I have tried to find the report, but can only find press stories..........

 

 

Up2

 

 

this one?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2010/136-10

 

archive

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/;jsessionid=EC1604087E112B7FFD4F086D24BB424F?s=2010

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening guys,

 

I am getting my stuff ready for court and just after any advice of stuff I need to take that I may have forgotten.

 

I have:

Particulars of claim

My witness statement and exhibit (including originals where possible)

Their Defence

Their witness statement and exhibit

Details of the hearing

Other letters not used in my exhibit - for example Links default notice

My 'prompt'

A list of OFT guidelines that MBNA breached

OFT report on the restrictions imposed on MBNA

DISP 3.9.2

Printed pages from whocallsme exampling the type of calls received by MBNA and Link

 

Is there anything else I should be taking?

 

Thank you :madgrin:

 

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites
:kiss::hug: Thank you Ford, I have been looking ages for that

 

 

yr welcome :)

 

if poss, a case summary on top cld be good.

 

mike though will hopefully advise.

 

ps, if required have you filed yr bundle?

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening all,

 

I know t is very late but I checked my email at about 9pm and found an email from MBNA timed 18:19 and attached was a skeleton argument, I assume it has been filed with the court about the same time?

 

Slick has suggested I can ask the court to ignore it as it was submitted out of time in accordance with the courts directions and deadline. If you could let me have your thoughts please. The hearing is tomorrow afternoon.

 

I have attached it for any advice - again sorry its late

 

Many thanks everyone. (and thanks Slick)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon guys,

 

Well not a good day in court for me, although it wasn't all bad, as my hearing proves that section 32 does work in relation to charges claims because of mis-sold PPI.

 

My claim was disallowed primarily because I have an outstanding balance, and couldn't show that I had made any payments toward the charges. My argument of them not being the owner of the claim and so not allowing them to set-off did not persuade the judge, and I see that as fair enough.

 

The judge allowed the skeleton to be used, but I don't think he agreed with many of the points it raised that the charges were statute barred, as he said that although he is not prepared to award me any of my claim, if they tried to issue any court action in relation to my outstanding balance, the charges would form a good defence. And when he summarised, the judge said that he agrees that I didn't become diligently aware of being able to claim the charges until I received the breakdown of PPI (Last year) showing that the charges had been applied by mistake.

 

The twelve year old counsel who I think had just won his first case judging by his excitement, sent the little lady he had with him out of the court room as the judge was finishing off his talk (most prob to spread the good news). And then pointed out the judge to the without prejudice letter I accidentally submitted with my exhibit to show that MBNA refused to provide a breakdown of its costs in relation to the charges (I totally misunderstood the meaning of WP) and he requested I pay costs for his time in court and travelling time for him and his companion, he was prepared to waive his costs preparing the skeleton (probably because it took him all of a minute at the 11th hour)

 

He was excited that the Judge had 'The big white book' and directed him to some section about a motor company I think. The Judge explained what the counsel was doing, and why he was asking for costs - unfortunately, this bit I didn't really hear as I felt like I watching from a distance and it was a bit surreal.

 

Anyway, The Judge told Counsel that he believed I had genuinely misunderstood what I was claiming for and that I believed I had a serious chance of winning, and that my claim wasn't made under something beginning with P I think it was (sorry been up most of the night, have a killer headache and totally forgotten) and so awarded no costs whatsoever to the other side.

 

So although I didn't win my claim, I didn't get hit with costs, it proves that s.32 is a valid argument and that if they do try to sue for the balance, I have a very good chance of defending it because of the unlawful charges.

 

I would just like to thank everyone who took the time in helping me with this. Especially Mike Hawk and Slick, who provided a lot for me. I'm sorry your time was wasted :sad:

 

Anyway thanks again and if you are going after default charges good luck - and in particular if your going after MBNA, give them a kick from me :madgrin:

 

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey you gave it your best shot

well done.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You gave it a go and whilst the result is disappointing, its good to see the DJ agreeing with the PPI reconstruction date moving the bar.

 

I think he had a fair point in proving the loss, your original particulars pressed for what was in effect a setting off... with the other side having no balance post PPI redress and you (inherently) having no documentary evidence of payments to it post 2012 he couldn't really find in your favour. As far as I can gather from your post, he appeared to view each charge as a new event post PPI, ergo without payment toward each there was no evidence of loss. Definitely a lesson learned for everyone who benefits from reading your thread in the future. I can't imagine every DJ in every case will interpret the facts as yours did today but its certainly going to be a useful to many.

 

Anyway, onwards and upwards.... this may seem nonsensical at the moment but please do file a complaint with the fos regarding its calcs for PPI redress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hey you gave it your best shot

well done.

 

dx

 

Thanks DX, Although disappointing because I was hoping it would be some compensation for the way they terrorised me when I was ill, I am looking at the positive, in that other caggers may benefit from my case - That's the thing that kept my head held high yesterday when I had to walk past MBNAs smug counsel.

 

 

You gave it a go and whilst the result is disappointing, its good to see the DJ agreeing with the PPI reconstruction date moving the bar.

 

I think he had a fair point in proving the loss, your original particulars pressed for what was in effect a setting off... with the other side having no balance post PPI redress and you (inherently) having no documentary evidence of payments to it post 2012 he couldn't really find in your favour. As far as I can gather from your post, he appeared to view each charge as a new event post PPI, ergo without payment toward each there was no evidence of loss. Definitely a lesson learned for everyone who benefits from reading your thread in the future. I can't imagine every DJ in every case will interpret the facts as yours did today but its certainly going to be a useful to many.

 

Anyway, onwards and upwards.... this may seem nonsensical at the moment but please do file a complaint with the fos regarding its calcs for PPI redress.

 

Yes Mike, I will defo file a complaint with the FoS, despite my result, MBNA do need to be knocked off their high horse.

 

Again thanks for all your time with this. You and the others gave me the confidence to stand up and do this, where as a couple of years ago I wouldn't have had the courage

 

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Up2 and I'm sorry to hear how this ended.

 

You should be very proud of how you have seen this through to the end and represented yourself in court. Also, it's good that costs weren't made against you.

 

As Mike says, onwards and upwards ...............

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...