First plus ripoff

shafted_fpc

You have every right to be opinionated don't get me wrong, however without seeing the clause, in the knowledge that it is being interpreted in a non symmetrical manner then any reasonable person would assume a link.
Now the fact that this is in a contract aimed at non status lending assumes a degree of naivety among the borrowers and puts a greater emphasis on clarity, that said even intelligent and sophisticated people would interpret it as a link.

Looking at the arguments above and having listened to the link (money box) it is my opinion that the term is misleading and deliberately so, that there is recourse in law on this and that a persistent campaign of complaint to the OFT will get it changed.
The Q should be addressed from a different angle that is
If you are lending in to the non status lending market under English/scotish law then shouldnt you make sure that the terms comply with the statutory provisions in such a way as to prevent this sort of challenge.

PiquedOff

Very new here - my first post, but just wanted to add my voice to the list of Firstplus customers appalled by the letter this week increasing the interest rate on our loan. In our case, it's gone up by a full 1%.

What does surprise me is that the number of signatories to the various petitions is currently so small. I would have imagined that every Firstplus customer would be up in arms about this unjustifiable rate increase. Where are they all?

I've also written to BBC's Watchdog programme, although don't suppose it will do much good unless lots of others contact them as well.

shafted_fpc

PiquedOff wrote: »

Very new here - my first post, but just wanted to add my voice to the list of Firstplus customers appalled by the letter this week increasing the interest rate on our loan. In our case, it's gone up by a full 1%.

What does surprise me is that the number of signatories to the various petitions is currently so small. I would have imagined that every Firstplus customer would be up in arms about this unjustifiable rate increase. Where are they all?

I've also written to BBC's Watchdog programme, although don't suppose it will do much good unless lots of others contact them as well.

have you visited/ joined firstplus complaints it was one of the founders who did the moneybox interview, also one of the members who started the pettition at no 10 and they have put in a supercomplaint to the regulators that covers this.
#
Alternativly you could take BFP to court, mind you as they have deeper pockets than you this might not be a good idea, just look at the bank charges thing they would fight it all the way and some.

cashdesk

ILW wrote: »

And the lesson for today is-
Never agree to, or sign anything unless you have read and understand what you are agreeing to.

ILW,
imagine you are a half-decent darts player.
I then challenge you to a game for £1,000,000. I win, I get your house. You win, you get £1M (One million pounds sterling) from me. For every dart you throw I will double the score, if you hit a 20 it scores 40, etc. I will start at 500,001 and you start at 501. Normal rules, bull or double to finish.
Be honest, Would you sign that agreement? (Don't worry, your answer will not be legally binding)

shafted_fpc

Going back a bit I wrote

Firstplus loans

let me put is simply Barclays Firstplus are a bunch of liars, and fraudsters, this is not opinion it is fact and it is stated as fact in the full and certain knowledge of its truth. Further more it is stated as such in knowledge of all disclaimers on this Website re liability, and that if BFP were to sue it would be me they sued.

I can say this with absolute confidence that there will be no effective action against me.

Why because I know they lied

for example in the Key facts doc they supplied with the loan re PPI they said “ no fee”
yet they took 70% commission, how do I know this because they had to pay the Taxman after first using an Eire based company to handle the sale of PPI in order to pay less tax.

The sale of insurance is meant to be done in utmost good faith they didn't sell in good faith and therefore apart from any claim re misrepresentation act 1967 in common law this is Fraud

They mis sold polices and 99% of complaints are upheld,

The contract terms where written in such a way as to maximise their earnings and hide the true cost to the customer, that is clause 12 re further advances, the use of rule of 78, and clause 7 re interest rates.

At the same time the loan was sold as affordable, reducing monthly payments etc, at best this was a half truth the clause re interest rates was always designed to ratchet up interest rates over the life of the loan, the use of rule 78n was always there to trap people in and the further advance clause was always there to rip people of on further lending which they would market to people, to the extent of doing it within the loan agreement.

Now I stand by this as fact

I would go further in saying they are a bunch of Hippocratic swindlers but that would only be my opinion, so I will say that in my opinion they are Hippocratic swindlers, as an example they go on about prudent running of the business, yet they lent the money with such inadequate credit cheeks and with such a high LTV that they have ended up with one in five (approx)customers in arrears as of the accounts ending dec 08, no doubt that fig has increased by now. Further they sold or aimed to sale the PPI on near enough every loan and this has meant that they are now having to pay bake millions in Mis selling. This wasn't very prudent was it?

I am embittered about BFP and wont hide that, however I do think that I am justified in that.

There is however the likelihood that there are many more out there that have more cause to be bitter towards BFP, they may now be struggling with the repayments due to BFP's business practices, and simply saying well look at the impairment charge, this kind of loan always going to have high rates, get a lawyer is just adding to their problems and doing nothing to help.

The regulators are their to regulate and if they are not and have not done the job well it is up to people to stop giving excuses to the Liars and fraudsters at Barclays Firstplus and bring the regulators to task

shafted_fpc

moving on then was thinking of complaining to BFP with something like this Dear lying fraudulent Hippocratic sods


having reviewed the interest rate clause I am alarmed that I have recieved no reduction in my interest rate it is stoubernly set at 10%, further I note that at inception the FHBR was 5.5% it is currrently 1% also I note that it at one time rose to 6.5% and this increase was passed onto me.


My alarm is this that the term infers a link to the FHBR that the term is ambiguous and vague and that you are using it in such a way as to be of detriment to me, the consumer, now under the UTCCR it is apparent that any ambiguous term should be applied in the way most favourable to the customer, the most logical thing would be therefore to reduce my interest rate by -5.5% that would be to 4.5%. However seeing as the reg states most favourable to the customer I would ask that you dissaplly the interest rate rises on my account totally 1% and reduce the interest rate on my account by an amount equal to twice the difference in the FHBR that is -11%. This would make my current loan interest rate -3%


As a gesture of good will and in keeping with the caveat about prudence and efficiency I am happy for you to apply any current and future overpayments directly to the loan, provided that of course the loan was converted into an interest only loan

ILW

cashdesk wrote: »

ILW,
imagine you are a half-decent darts player.
I then challenge you to a game for £1,000,000. I win, I get your house. You win, you get £1M (One million pounds sterling) from me. For every dart you throw I will double the score, if you hit a 20 it scores 40, etc. I will start at 500,001 and you start at 501. Normal rules, bull or double to finish.
Be honest, Would you sign that agreement? (Don't worry, your answer will not be legally binding)

On initial reading I could not figure out whether this was a good deal or not. So the answer is No, I would not sign it without taking further time and advice. Why would I?

ILW

ILW wrote: »

On initial reading I could not figure out whether this was a good deal or not. So the answer is No, I would not sign it without taking further time and advice. Why would I?

I have taken a little more time to work through your offer on the darts game, and have figured out I have no chance of winning (due to the odd 1).
This proves my point that signing an agreement you do not fully understand is sheer folly.

cashdesk

So you read the contract and saw that the conditions made it a one sided bargain because it was worded to let you know how the scoring would be done and you had no chance of winning.

What if the contract had stated:

"I will award you extra points for every dart you throw"

rather than

"For every dart you throw I will double the score, if you hit a 20 it scores 40, etc".

That would give me the option to award extra points, but I do not state that some will be odd and some will be even, do I? I can state that you signed the contract knowing that extra points would be awarded, but that I had no obligation to award odd extra points, such as 1, 3, 5, etc.

Would you then think that fair, or would you say "but as the aim of the game is to finish on a double, it would be unfair to add only even numbers. I was under the impression that as you had mentioned the fact that the game must finish on a double that I would be able to finish"?

The whole point of this exercise is to show that the way a contract is written and executed should be fair to the consumer. If a term suggests that an indicator will be followed, then the average member of public would think that as rates rise, their interest rises. As rates fall, so does their interest rate.

Having a clause in the above contract that says "I will award you extra points for every dart you throw" is as ambiguous as the one in our contract that says they can vary the interest rate "to ensure their business is run prudently, efficiently and competitively". Both of these terms allow the contract to be executed in a way that benefits one party to the detriment of the other.

When dealing with someone you have never met (me), you will obviously read the agreement again and again before signing. When dealing with a "reputable" financial institution you expect everything to be fair and above board.

ILW

cashdesk wrote: »

So you read the contract and saw that the conditions made it a one sided bargain because it was worded to let you know how the scoring would be done and you had no chance of winning.

What if the contract had stated:

"I will award you extra points for every dart you throw"

rather than

"For every dart you throw I will double the score, if you hit a 20 it scores 40, etc".

That would give me the option to award extra points, but I do not state that some will be odd and some will be even, do I? I can state that you signed the contract knowing that extra points would be awarded, but that I had no obligation to award odd extra points, such as 1, 3, 5, etc.

Would you then think that fair, or would you say "but as the aim of the game is to finish on a double, it would be unfair to add only even numbers. I was under the impression that as you had mentioned the fact that the game must finish on a double that I would be able to finish"?

The whole point of this exercise is to show that the way a contract is written and executed should be fair to the consumer. If a term suggests that an indicator will be followed, then the average member of public would think that as rates rise, their interest rises. As rates fall, so does their interest rate.

Having a clause in the above contract that says "I will award you extra points for every dart you throw" is as ambiguous as the one in our contract that says they can vary the interest rate "to ensure their business is run prudently, efficiently and competitively". Both of these terms allow the contract to be executed in a way that benefits one party to the detriment of the other.

When dealing with someone you have never met (me), you will obviously read the agreement again and again before signing. When dealing with a "reputable" financial institution you expect everything to be fair and above board.

In the above example I would ask for a definition of of any statement such as "extra points" as it is not clear what it actualy means. On your other point of would I just sign if it was offered by a financial institution, again not until I was satisfied with the contract I was signing. If I did not feel confident that I understood and agreed with all clauses I would seek furter advice or walk away. Sure I am not the only one who does not sign things I don,t understand.