BBC take on Barclays FirstPlus

halifax71

It bet that brought you back in line with your rate of 12 months previous?

They had to do that as the FHBR reduced so they had to bring everyone back in line with the rate of a year ago. See point 1 below.

In my case it's clause 7 - you maybe different. We think we have worked out rate variances.

Then there are ONLY 3 possible cases:

(1) If FHBR falls with respect to one year ago, then if my First Plus rate is lower than it was one year ago, First Plus will not change it. If my First Plus rate is higher than one year ago, First Plus will reduce it to its level of one year ago.

(2) If FHBR is the same as one year ago, then if my First Plus rate is lower than it was one year ago, First Plus will rise it to its level of one year ago. If my First Plus rate is higher than it was one year ago, then First Plus will reduce it to its level of one year ago.

(3) If FHBR rises with respect to one year ago, then it doesn’t matter whether my First Plus rate is lower or higher than one year ago, First Plus will increase it, by up to twice the FHBR increase from one year ago.

In particular, if the FHBR rises but it still remains below its level of one year ago, then First Plus will always move you to your First Plus rate of one year ago, which can be higher or lower.

You may ask where is the unfairness in this?

Firstly, my concern as to the fairness of this clause is brought about by applying the above methodology to the future, when FHBR will start to climb again.

Secondly, it is a mechanism asymmetrically applied: First Plus always increases its rate in case 3, so it could and should also always decrease in case 1, but it doesn’t.

Thirdly, especially when you look at case 2, the arbitrariness is clear. It doesn’t really matter what FHBR does from month to month, they just apply a formula that makes sure that their rates stay on an INCREASING TREND, by pegging my current rate to what it was one year ago.

MS_Dolphin

I think its time I become more familiar with my First Plus paperwork.

So should I be looking for any points in particular?

Thanks,

MS D.

petermb_2

MS_Dolphin wrote: »

Thanks Peter, I guess the answer is already in your reply, but as this is a secured loan, its not covered by the CC Act, but other than being unethical, where exactly is there cause for legal challenge?

Thanks,

Many will not be regulated by CCA as they are in excess of £25,000. Unfair contract terms are not limited to CCA agreements so they can be challenged under common law as can the undisclosed commissions, which lenders are very busily trying to bury. I know FP, in particular are busying themselves with gagging orders on major brokers and insurers.

FP are also very concerned about Fiduciary duty from arranging PPI. This is clear in official company documents I have seen so there are now a number of legal arguments building up against many of the lenders. This is not limited to just FP and will allow successful legal challenges rather than simply complaining to FOS, FSA or OFT.

MS_Dolphin

petermb wrote: »

Many will not be regulated by CCA as they are in excess of £25,000. Unfair contract terms are not limited to CCA agreements so they can be challenged under common law as can the undisclosed commissions, which lenders are very busily trying to bury. I know FP, in particular are busying themselves with gagging orders on major brokers and insurers.

FP are also very concerned about Fiduciary duty from arranging PPI. This is clear in official company documents I have seen so there are now a number of legal arguments building up against many of the lenders. This is not limited to just FP and will allow successful legal challenges rather than simply complaining to FOS, FSA or OFT.

So I guess, it's a case of 'watch this space' at the moment, until at least someone takes it to the next stage of challenging in court or at least becomes more vocal in the media.

petermb_2

MS_Dolphin wrote: »

So I guess, it's a case of 'watch this space' at the moment, until at least someone takes it to the next stage of challenging in court or at least becomes more vocal in the media.

We are looking to do that. The Barristers will be looking at it this week after listening to the programme and reading the company documentation that has been sent to the solicitors.

halifax71

MS_Dolphin wrote: »

So I guess, it's a case of 'watch this space' at the moment, until at least someone takes it to the next stage of challenging in court or at least becomes more vocal in the media.

Depends what your complaint is.

If you have PPI, reclaim it as it was mis-sold. Complain to FirstPlus and then the Financial Ombudsman.

If you were referred to FirstPlus via a broker then the broker would have been paid a fee (commission). If they did not get your express permission as to the actual amount then you have a claim under case law to reclaim the commission under Agency Law. Ask FirstPlus and your broker. They will refuse to disclose. Go to the Information Commissioners Office to force the issue.

If you had PPI the broker would have received a commission and FirstPlus would have received a commission from the insurers. Again if they did not get your express permission as to the actual amount then you have a claim under case law to reclaim the commission under Agency Law. Ask FirstPlus and your broker. They will refuse to disclose. Go to the Information Commissioners Office to force the issue.

Either way, the primary issue (unless you’re still happily paying the PPI), is the interest rates. You need to complain to Firstplus and once they send you away with a flea in your ear (“this is our final response etc”) then you need to complain to the Ombudsman and the OFT. People on the FirstPlus Complaints site will help you.

Sorry, but it’s not sufficient for people to sit back and await the outcome. We need all affected customers to complain. Only by doing this will the regulatory authorities appreciate the impact. It doesn’t matter if you’re not good with letters. There are people who can help with that and at the end of the day you just need to outline your concerns, i.e. “I don’t understand why my rate hasn’t come down, please explain?” The vast majority of people affected by this are Joe Public, we knew very little at the outset. It’s only by discussing with like minded people that we have managed to open up the hornets nest of issues with this disgrace of a company. This is Barclays for goodness sake, supposedly a beacon of the banking industry.

Anyhow, if you haven’t already, get some letters written, even if it’s just “I don’t understand why my rate hasn’t come down, please explain?” That will do, they will have to respond. Once they do, and they try to appease you with House Price decreases, increased risk, competitiveness (they no longer trade by the way), ask the same question of the Ombudsman

MS_Dolphin

Ok, you've got my vote.

My real complaint is also the interest rate. I have no (personal) issue with the PPI or commission, although I understand and support those that have.

I didn't mean literally sit back, but can see how it reads. I've actually already written to my MP - after coming across this thread earlier today - asking what he and the government are doing to protect customers.

I've also looked at the 'firstpluscomplaints' site and will add my snowflake to the growing snowball.

Thanks again for the reply - and for taking action.

halifax71

And the Mail get in on the act.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/art...n-company.html

mparter

I've got a secured loan with Paragon and have the same issue. When I took out the loan, the BoE base rate was 5.5% and my loan was at 9%. Since then the BoE base rate has dropped to 0.5% but my loan has dropped to 8%.

When I called they claimed it was because they use the LIBOR rate :rolleyes:. Even then, this is around 1%. Is there anything I can do?

halifax71

Look at your terms & conditions. If it basically says they can do what they want, complain. Then off to the ombudsman / OFT re Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract regulations. See Red post above.

These !!!!!!!s are shafting you. Don't let them get away with it.