FAO anyone with a Firstplus secured loan.

[andrew1]

Just spotted your addition Halifax in response to your FOIA request etc....

 

They tell you nothing, it makes a complete mockery of the whole regulatory responsibility because how can the public know their observations are being dealt with when secrecy exists under the cover of the Enterprise Act? We had this, we showered the OFT with so much information thinking they would do something, but nothing was done and Swift laughed all the way to the bank and repossessions continued as Swift care about nothing but their business model - repossession, repossession, repossession!

 

Will the FCA be any different? I don't think so.

 

Okay, back on subject..sorry for the digression..

 

A1

[Halifax71]

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.

[Halifax71]

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.

[citizenB]

And have you spoken to the FCA (previously the FSA) ? Although they don't take over from the OFT until April 2014, I would have thought they would have shown a spark of interest ?

[Halifax71]

The FCA don't want to know, they just say it's not their responsibility.

[citizenB]

The FCA don't want to know, they just say it's not their responsibility.

 

I am very disappointed indeed to hear this from them. They had given the impression that they were much more user friendly and were keen to bring the financial industry into line.

 

This does not appear to be so

[Surfer01]

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.

 

 

I was always my understanding that they should be acting on behalf of the consumer and not the bank?

[citizenB]

I was always my understanding that they should be acting on behalf of the consumer and not the bank?

 

An illusion most consumers have believed for some while, surfer !

[Halifax71]

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.

[andrew1]

Sadly, what has been discussed and experienced by Halifax is exactly what we experienced with our complaints to the OFT re Swift. The OFT sit in a prime location office just off Fleet st in central London next to KPMG in Salisbury Square....the rents must be enormous and they do sweet fanny adams for anyone. They'll be disbanded, talked about for ages as a useless organisation whilst everyone pitches their hopes in the FCA and waits to see what they do, in the meantime, people like you and me will suffer grave injustices and companies such as Firstplus and Swift continue taking people's homes....Totally, utterly - USELESS !!!!! They couldn't regulate the salt in an egg timer.

 

A1

[malamute2013]

Hi there - i sent the emails and surprisingly had a very quick response from Barclays FP - although standard response as it was assigned and responded to within 24 hours.

Letter states that the court case doesnt bind other judges and applicable to facts of that case. "not appropriate to go into the details opf the case you refer to: but the ultimate decision was that Firstplus had not breached regulations or the clause found to be unfair and the case was dismissed"

they state they do not have a tracker style rate or bound by change in Base rate, and the costs of impairment if i was default plus they say they must be comparable to other second charge lenders. They argue that my rate is great comparable to Nemo, shawbrook who are 14.0.

 

It was my final response and its been closed now.

 

I imagine i wait to hear from the FCA and others now.....

Edited January 30, 2014 by malamute2013

[andrew1]

Hi there - i sent the emails and surprisingly had a very quick response from Barclays FP - although standard response as it was assigned and responded to within 24 hours.

Letter states that the court case does bind other judges and applicable to facts of that case. "not appropriate to go into the details opf the case you refer to: but the ultimate decision was that Firstplus had not breached regulations or the clause found to be unfair and the case was dismissed"

they state they do not have a tracker style rate or bound by change in Base rate, and the costs of impairment if i was default plus they say they must be comparable to other second charge lenders. They argue that my rate is great comparable to Nemo, shawbrook who are 14.0.

 

It was my final response and its been closed now.

 

I imagine i wait to hear from the FCA and others now.....

 

Unbelievable!

[malamute2013]

Unbelievable!

 

Agreed! I certainly detected a "tone" in the letter - n.b. I've not included it in its entirey above but I can can and post should it be useful to others.

 

In terms of next steps I do not know if a rebuttable would be necessary or the best course of action as it is their "final response" however - being told that my rate is lower than another lender is hardly a valid argument as they aren't giving out new loans so why would they need a competitive argument? also - why should the risk of default be factored into my loan rate - if it interest was lower and as such monthly payments lower it would be more affordable and as such less chance of default surely?!

 

anyone else had a response from FP?

[andrew1]

Would the OFT respond to a Freedom of Information request regarding the decision?

 

Maybe, but they always say they are covered by the Enterprise Act and do not have to supply most information....

[Halifax71]

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.

[Halifax71]

Maybe, but they always say they are covered by the Enterprise Act and do not have to supply most information....

 

 

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.

[andrew1]

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.

 

Firstly, do you realise your name and reference number is on this Halifax?

 

Secondly, this is typical of our regulators - they always sit on the fence with not one of them putting their heads above the parapet to take issue although I can agree they are not a court.

 

I went through all this over a grave injustice of a Barrister turning up late (56 minutes) giving me 4 minutes to brief him because his electric motorbike needed charging so he went looking for a suitable car park rather than come for his agreed briefing of an hour before the hearing despite there being a car park right next to the court but without a charger. I won't go into my losses but they stretched over 6 figures - taking it to the Legal Ombudsman and all that goes with it, they came back and told me they had decided to treat him harshly and awarded me £500 - I paid the git £900 fee as it was!! My losses didn't come into it!!!!

 

These organisations are not there for us.

 

A1

[Surfer01]

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.

Are you referring to a class action? After selling our home we still had an outstanding balance of £5777 in Feb 2006. We still owe them £4000 even though we have been paying £70 per month ever since. As the rate increase happened after the part settlement and only on the £5777, I am wondering if I can pursue it in the small claims court as the amount is under £6000?

Also as people are looking for the difference between the rates to be paid back on the second mortgage maybe they could use the small claims court to claim the difference as the amount may be under £10,000. Works out a hell of a lot cheaper!

[Halifax71]

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.

[Halifax71]

Are you referring to a class action? After selling our home we still had an outstanding balance of £5777 in Feb 2006. We still owe them £4000 even though we have been paying £70 per month ever since. As the rate increase happened after the part settlement and only on the £5777, I am wondering if I can pursue it in the small claims court as the amount is under £6000?

Also as people are looking for the difference between the rates to be paid back on the second mortgage maybe they could use the small claims court to claim the difference as the amount may be under £10,000. Works out a hell of a lot cheaper!

 

 

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.

[makkapakka69]

Any updates on this matter???

 

In the same boat as the others - Been paying 1st Plus since 2005!

[Halifax71]

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.

Edited June 3, 2015 by citizenB
removed link

[ih8modem]

Carry on fighting Halifax71! Will continue to monitor this thread - over the span of months and years you have brought a glimmer of hope to many people.

[Becks75]

So what's the status? I have a firstplus loan, too. Went up in interest rates, but never down...

[ih8modem]

So what's the status? I have a firstplus loan, too. Went up in interest rates, but never down...

 

Dunno but I got a few letters over the past weeks to say my loan had been sold/transferred to a company called ELDERBRIDGE. I have to wonder if this is a way for Barclays to dodge this ...