Firstplus=fraudsters

_Andy_ wrote: »

My point isn't that the OP is wrong, just that their opening post doesn't really give anyone much information other than unneccesarily listing a defintion for 'fraud'

I also got the impression he may have a small problem with First Plus..?

And is rather irate (so much so that abbreviation goes right out the window)

MoneysavingHound16 wrote: »

And therefore Reddh Legend, Shafted FPC, Halifax71 you are totally right in raising awareness of this!.

Angry emo screaming of the kind demonstrated by the OP's first couple of posts isn't "raising awareness" of anything. It's just meaningless angry emo screaming. And it signifies nothing.

Tell me precisely how someone without any previous knowledge of the situation could possibly "raise" their "awareness" of anything other than wikipedia's current definition of the word "fraud" from the opening post.

The reality is that the FP business model, along with many secured lenders, was formulated in the mid - late 90s when the boom bust scenario was deemed a thing of the past. The intention will also have been to have customers sign up over a longer term but in truth see a natural churn over a 5 - 7 yr period - house prices rises, job security, increase income and remortgage cycle. The plan though lacked a flaw or two and that included the lack of foresight to the bursting of the PPI bubble, downturn in economy and mass removal of many mortgage products. The accounts also show an increasing arrears problem with the FP book that creates bad and doubtful debt issues within a lender.

You now can no longer rely on the "churn" , you have customers locked in and you have a captive audience with which you can use to put your wrongs right. Their terms allow this, they have committed to writing to say they can essentially do as they please in the application of their "commercial judgment". They refused to comment when the BBC Legal team reviewed the argument and deemed their document and actions "unfair" and potentially unenforceable. The accounts tell us they are now a going concern and have only survived with the written formal support and £9m handout from Barclays to maintain solvency. They have changed the nature of the bargain to protect their bottom line but by doing this to a contracted and tied in audience, with whom you refuse to disclose how, then you do so against the rules set down under UTCCR and hope no-one will stand up to you. They know the FLA, FOS and FSA won't help, this does not fall under their remit and they know it would take consumers a long time to journey down that route, which I have. It has though lead me to the OFT who have a keen interest in the actions of FP, the secured loan market as a whole and are now looking at detail at the complaint.

The evidence levied against the lender includes previous advertising literature that referred to "following interest rate trends", "quoted links to FHBR" that negate the lenders comments that it does not follow interest rates. We have all produced graphs that dispute this also tracking our own loans. They track until rates started to fall!! The evidence in the accounts is also damning and something from which there is no hiding place.

My issue is not just for where we are now but for where the future takes us as we are at the bottom of teh interest rate cycle. Now FP have created in the gap between income and expenditure to cover their costs they must maintain it going forward, so increases in their funding costs (ie increases in bank base) will be followed by increases in customer rates, it is unavoidable. I face the prospect of a loan that started at 9% APR, increasing to 18% APR a doubling of my repayment from £350 to £700 and the irony will be that at that point, the underlying interest rate FP pays to Barclays for its money, will be the same as it was day one. NO amount of scrutiny of the ts and cs would predict that. I defy anyone out there to see this as fair.

We do though have a product that is not one you talk about down the pub, one that is somehow perceived as shameful to have, so spreading the word needs forums like this to hope confused or unaware customers stumble across it.

The downside is you do risk losing your home and unless we win our battle for fairness, it is likely many, including myself will. Rational, factual and logical argument, respect for other posters is imperative but pressure can also invoke passionate outcries, you want to be heard, you want action, you want results. It has been a year already and good progress has been made but we are dealing with bureaucratic organisations and a resistant lender and we will press our point home in the end.

Don't bother replying to this idiotic thread - just look at the OP's "other posts"