First plus ripoff

cashdesk

ILW wrote: »

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.

So if you asked me what "extra points" entailed and I said "I will add anything from 1 to 20 points for every dart thrown", would you not assume that some would be odd and some would be even? If you asked for an example and I said "if you throw a 10 I might give you 1, 12 or 23 extra points", would you then infer that sometimes the amount would be odd and sometimes even? Don't forget that in this newly worded contract I have not mentioned that I will double the score, only award extra points, and I have also inferred that some may be odd and some even.

I must reiterate the fact that our argument is that they are using their terms to their benefit and to our detriment, and any clarification they send can be interpreted in more than one way, to their advantage.

Don't forget, they hae a bunch of legals working for them, and the average second charge borrower is not the most sophisticated person on the planet.

I commend you for questioning everything and not entering into a contract without having everything in black and white. Is this something you have done from birth, or, as is the case with 99.99999999% of the people on this planet, something you learned to do from a previous bad experience after being royally shafted? If the latter, welcome to the human race. If the former, welcome to the human race.

shafted_fpc

YAAAAWNNNN this is boring

its a trick same as the clause, the law says you are not allowed to do these tricks and if you do then the interpretation best for the consumer prevails so what is wrong with this?

shafted_fpc wrote: »

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

WAS tongue in cheek but now think well they knew the law when they wrote the contract.

amersall

ILW wrote: »

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.

i have always wondered what it was like to be perfect, thank you . now i know

russt2000

oh ,if only we all had such clarity of foresight.!
well I kept hearing there were these pefect specimens on mse ,would rather see banks ond others get away with years of fleecing the ordinary folk ,who if had this clarity might have forseen their job going up in smoke ,would have known that while trying to maintain their payments to all creditors this was a good possibilty at the time , as like trusting fools one of the biggest banks in existance wouldnt want to fu** you over by underhand terms andconditions, itwas a shame that the same creditors you were busting your heart trying to maintain payments too ,even thought your lost nearly 30 % of your income ,because you could only get a lower paying job quickly ,so as to stave off repossession and then your little bit of respite when it comes turns south because your lender just ups and ups your "affordable loan", and you think weel I should have knowmn better ,Ionly I had such clarity ogf thought as some on here, it was a bit clouded at the time by trying to survive .
In a perfect world with no outside pressures , high paying job , no job, it can quickly very quickly all fall around you ,one minute you are fine ,yes you have debts ,they are perfectly manageable , until out of the blue it isnt .

Iknow what you lot will come back with your so transparent ,so go ahead !! just dont worry if the more imperfect of us decide to talk among ourselves .

halifax71

ILW is just upset that he's not making much on his savings and he thinks people with loans should pay more just to compensate him.

Well shove that where the sun doesn't shine.

shafted_fpc

that would be an idea out of the ark
what happens is the bankers lend high and pay low on investments they then spend the money on expensive cars, expensive kitchens expensive wine, expensive everything and tell us we have to live on bean on toast, not beans one bean on toast, so that they can bath in Bollinger or whatever takes their fancy.
This isnt the Seventies the Building societies are gone we have securitized loans with rip of commissions, complicated financial devices and lenders hell bent on profit and bonuses

purpleparrotuk

Well I was given a reference number when I made the complaint so I will call them tonight and find out if anything has come of it. But I doubt it very much. :rolleyes:

never-in-doubt

CHR15 wrote: »

And to give them an extra wedge to cover all those borrowers looking for unenforceability.

The good and honest guys always lose.

LOL, its actually amusing if not utter nonsense! Of course it has nothing to do with those that utilise unenforceability. This is a misconception believed by those with little or no financial savvy

ILW wrote: »

It's to cover themselves from all the high risks borrowers they took on a few years ago

Can you post proof of this statement? :rotfl:

shafted_fpc

well maybe I will but tis a bit unnecasery, the business model of this company was to be competative by ripping people of on PPI, they that is BFP aimed at a certain section of the market, that you guys call high risk, they that is BFP then lent into that section of the market, they BFP included terms that were delibratly misleading, they BFP want to stick to "buyer beware" They BFP would have been aware of the UTCCR when they wrote the contract, they BFP chose to ignore the doctrine of "good faith" and they BFP will be brought to account for their deciet and fraudualant activities, They Barclays Firstplus are I repeat a bunch of lying fraudulent Hippocratic sods

shafted_fpc

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)

I think I remember someone doing this trick in the spotted dog Nesden about twenty year ago and them leaving with less teeth
:rotfl: