Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Firstplus - borrowed £50k/repaid £52k 3yrs later


James31
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4784 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

Just having a flick about tonight and have seen some snippets of info on this but nothing exact so far, so thought I'd post.

 

I borrowed 50k from Firstplus in May 2004 on a 15 year term, secured against my property. Had to remortgage to cover a tax liability this year but Firstplus declined to issue a deed of postponement so I had to increase my mortgage application in order to repay Firstplus.

 

Their settlement letter arrived:

 

Total amount payable under the agreement: £81,423.01

Less our rebate on early settlement: £29,539.59

Plus admin charge: £150.00

Total amount payable by you to settle@ £52,033.42

 

I was shocked, as this more than I borrowed to begin with in May 2004 and had repaid about £17.5k over the previous 33 months.

 

Called them about it but they would not entertain telling me how the final figure was derived, or reduce it.

 

I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has been in a similar situation and managed to claim back a portion of the settlement fig, or if anyone knows whether or not there is a case to fight for some of that money back.

 

By my crude calculations, I think a more realistic settlement fig would have been about £48k?

 

James

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

James31

 

Reidnet and myself have both taken issue with extortionate interest charged by FirstPlus who have been calculating the interest on loans using the recently defunct Rule of 78. Reidnet won his full settlement without taking them to court. I have sent my claim to the Financial Ombudsman - my circumstances are very similar to yours i.e 50K loan over 24 years, settled early and charged £50,600 approx.

 

Will let you know what happens. Inevitably it will take months for the case to be settled but I think it will be worth it.

 

Look at posts by Reidnet re this very issue.

 

Best of luck with everything

 

Rebel1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Total amount payable under the agreement: £81,423.01

Less our rebate on early settlement: £29,539.59

Plus admin charge: £150.00

Total amount payable by you to settle@ £52,033.42

 

I was shocked, as this more than I borrowed to begin with in May 2004 and had repaid about £17.5k over the previous 33 months.

I ran those figures through the OFT's DualCalc program and it comes out at an APR of 14.9% which sounds a bit high for a mortgage but farily reasonable as far as second mortgages go - Picture and Welcome charge nearly 30% APR on a secured loan.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello all

 

Have not visited for a bit, but thought I'd fill you in re FirstPlus.

 

Please, please, please note everyone that if your repayment figure has been calculated using the Rule of 78 (check the back of your agreeement) FirstPlus could be in big trouble. The use of the Rule was outlawed some time ago (I think a couple of years, google to find out). FirstPlus should not being using this formula as it is now illegal.

 

I decided to file my compolaint with the Ombudsman, over 6 months ago now. They have not thrown it out and are looking at the merits of my argument, namely that FirstPlus were fully aware that the Rule of 78 charges the borrower a disproportionate amount of interest and is therefore unfair under contract law.

 

Will keep everyone posted. Please wish me luck. And good luck to all you other 'rebels' out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Steven

 

I will outline my case later this evening - kid commitments at the mo'. However I did find out the date on which the Rule of 78 was outlawed. Any contracts entered into after May 31st 2005 cannot use the Rule of 78 to calculate any redemption figure requested by the borrower.

 

I truly hope this makes it crystal clear to all borrowers who have used FirstPlus and are trying to pay off a loan early. The amount that you pay back should reflect the fact that you have been making payments towards the principal sum and not interest only, therfore you should not have to pay back more than you originally borrowed.

 

Hope this helps some people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was one year too early - I took out my 50k loan with them in April 2004. I knew I'd pay back some silly amount but after three years of repayments of £550 odd, I hadn't bargained on my redemption amount being higher than the original loan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Hi James31(or anyone with advice)

 

I am very interested to see where you get with this, I am in almost an identical situation. Firstplus secured loan taken out in July 2004. The loan amount was £50k over 20yrs @ 8.9%. Over £104k to pay back. Asked for settlement quotation in Dec 2007 and was told......£50263.53 !!!! Have already paid back £21k. I have recently accepted an offer on my property, so will hopefully be moving soon. My position then will be that I should have approx £30k to £34k available. All I wish to do with this is to get rid of the above loan.

 

I am not sure what to do yet. Hope you keep updating.

 

Gatz

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
James31

 

Reidnet and myself have both taken issue with extortionate interest charged by FirstPlus who have been calculating the interest on loans using the recently defunct Rule of 78. Reidnet won his full settlement without taking them to court. I have sent my claim to the Financial Ombudsman - my circumstances are very similar to yours i.e 50K loan over 24 years, settled early and charged £50,600 approx.

 

Will let you know what happens. Inevitably it will take months for the case to be settled but I think it will be worth it.

 

Look at posts by Reidnet re this very issue.

 

Best of luck with everything

 

Rebel1

 

 

If rule 78 was found to be unfair then surely it should mean that anyone having a loan settlement figure based on rule 78 have been treated unfairly and as such are entitled to compensation. If its unfair then its unfair????????

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I have loan with firstplus, 20k in 2006 then advance totalling 34k,can i check that my agreement is enforceable,even though i am over the 25k limit before it can be deemed unenforceable? I had a company tell me that they cant pursue this as it is over 25k??

 

Gaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Just coming back to this thread after 2 years and I see that settlements paid where rule 78 was used to calculate that settlement on unregulated loans (i.e. over 25k) is open to challenge.

 

Has anybody tried and succeeded in claiming back the interest portion of their settlement to firstplus for a loan over 25k?

 

If so, what is the correct/fair method for calculating the settlement figure?

 

To recap, I borrowed 50k in May 2004 and repaid 52k in March 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm

 

So given that my loan was taken out in 2000 and repaid in 2006, will I not be covered by this?

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting some facts and figures now. Took out loan of £45000 in

September2004 and consolidated it into another loan in June 2007.

Payments made were £12,115 and settlement figure was £42,948, so only

£2000 (approx) was deducted from original loan.

Any advice?

Don\'t let the B**tards grind you down

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps yours was calculated fairly already? (i.e. not rule 78 ).

 

Without working it all out properly, I borrowed a similar amount to you and spent almost exactly the same period paying it back before I settled.

 

However, unlike yours, my settlement figure was over £2,000 more than I borrowed - whereas yours was over £2,000 less.

 

I calculated the difference to be over £5k on mine between acturial and rule 78 methods, with interest at 8% which takes it to around £7k.

 

I could be wrong, but on the face of it, doesn't it seem like you had a fair settlement? (However unfair a front-loaded loan seems!)

 

James

Link to post
Share on other sites

Response rec'd from FirstPlus. They dispute my claim, saying Rule of 78 usage was fair as it applies to regulated loans so why not unregulated ones. This is nonsense.

 

I have sent letter before action today.

 

Here is a snippet from the most important part of my LBA:

 

"Section 58 of the OFT document “Non status lending guidelines for lenders and brokers” states that use of the rule of 78 in unregulated loans is liable to challenge under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (July 1995). Schedule 3 of those regulations shows by example the use of the rule of 78 in settlement of an unregulated loan which results in a disproportionately high figure. A term to which the regulations apply shall not be binding on the consumer if it is unfair.

In addition, regulation 6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations provides that a written term of a contract must be expressed in plain, intelligible language. The OFT have not encountered any contract term which describes the operation of the Rule of 78 in a way which is likely to enable the consumer to understand it and appreciate its significance."

Link to post
Share on other sites

James31 that is very interesting as they used rule of 78 to calculate our settlement which then left us with a deficit of £5700 which we are still paying off.

I am not exactly clued up on this but are you saying that a secured loan is an unregulated loan and that the settlement figure can be challenged?

I think I need to dig up the figures they supplied because if we can get the £5800 wiped out we would be grateful. After 4 years of paying £70 per month we still owe £5600 with 9 years left on the contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...