Firstplus=fraudsters

shafted_fpc

firstplus=fraudsters

what I am saying is Barclays firstplus committed fraud on me and others when they sold PPI as having “no fee” when it did have a fee, they lied, the evidance is out there in the public domain for all to see if they look.

Fraud is
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science.

This is very basic but will suffice for the time being.

So if they want to sue let them think I could defend this without a brief.

LeeSouthEast

Any specifics to go with this rant?

shafted_fpc

key facts "NO FEE"
respondents to competition commission gave commission on sale of PPI = 40%-80% firstplus were one
They had to pay tax on it
for 2008 is shown on the accounts

infomation they have suplied to me in error
various newspaper articles.

do not have attachment post privalages but if you are genuinly interested and not just wanting to say stop ranting will get a detailed explanation up qouting the relevant sections and refrences.

System

take a tablet + a deep breath then remember they didnt hold you to ransom to take their money.

shafted_fpc

So that would be the answer would it just let people rip you of ?
they commited fraud, they not only mis sold, but they fraudulantly mis sold, its ok I will just take a tablet that will make it better, NOT.

must be of now got to put my head in some sand.
then of to write to the FOS , FSA, OFT, Compettition Comission et al that they shouldnt give any refunds or take action on PPI as they didnt put guns against peoples head, maybe they should reverse all the complaints they upheld and while at it do the same re all the compo ever given for whatever reason say on endowment policies etc.

ILW

Calm down dear, it's only money.

_Andy_

shafted_fpc wrote: »

firstplus=fraudsters

what I am saying is Barclays firstplus committed fraud on me and others when they sold PPI as having “no fee” when it did have a fee, they lied, the evidance is out there in the public domain for all to see if they look.

Fraud is
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not technically frauds. Defrauding people of money is presumably the most common type of fraud, but there have also been many fraudulent "discoveries" in art, archaeology, and science.

This is very basic but will suffice for the time being.

So if they want to sue let them think I could defend this without a brief.

A singularly uninformative post.

Reddh_Legend

No-one forced anyone to take a loan you are right. No-one also thought that what was provided would turn out to be something far more damaging than the situation it was there to clear up.

Unfortunately in First Plus you have a company that has had its PPI Cash Cow turned off, has had to stop lending new money so has no new income streams, has lost over £50m in the last 2 trading years and is manipulating the interest rate clause in its current agreements to help stem its losses by not reducing customer rates when its own rates (it borrows its money £ for £ from Barclays linked to bank base rate) have come down. In my case for example I was lending from them at 4 -5 over base, this is now 12 over base.

For all those in the land of smug and never in debt, I trust you are all mortgage free. MOrtage contracts that are worded the same as FPs have been deemed unfair by the FSA but as this market falls under different rules, it is in the hands of the OFT to regulate and rule, which they currently are.

There are areas within which we know FP are fearful:

Multiple agreement regulations loans with PPI potentially have the PPI misdocumented so that element could be deemed unenforceable

Fiduciary duty there is litigation under way about the duty of care the lender had and has not complied with by the non disclosure of the commission income it received from the sale of PPI policies

Secret Commissions brokers were heavily involved in this market and were complicit in the misselling of PPI, mainly due to the impact on earnings it had for them. 3% without PPI or 10% with PPI based on the advance of the loan. This income should also have been disclosed to customers and was not as the accounts show customers pay for it over the life of the loan, thus are paying for tehir own commission and are thus paying more for the privelege.

Interest rate policy the loans used to follow interest rate trends until recently where the falling markets enabled FP to try and recoup its losses thru its interest rate policy. Yes its ts and cs allow it to, unfortunately the Unfair Terms Clauses in COntracts Regs do not allow this to happen when a supplier is "using the terms in a one sided bargain to protect his profits". The OFT are now in possession of FP accounts that clearly demonstrate this.

Escape many are unable to escape due to the constraints of teh current lending markets, the economic climate, uncertain house prices and significantly the application of FP of the Rule of 78 which is a penal method used to calculate settlement figures and one that sees many still owing more than they started with many years down the line.

I could go on but there is no need. For those "savers" that frown on borrowers, the FSA has also had to intervene on lender favouring clauses in investment policies where savers have complained. No-one made them put their money there but when they found out there was a fault with the product that breached regulations then they complained to the lenders (who of course ignored or denied) and then to the FSA who investigated and upheld.

The common problem is the greed of the entity when dealing with the need of the consumer. Whether that consumer be savvy or not, be wealthy or not, be impulsive or not the modus operandi is no different, I have worked for one of the "Big 4" I have seen the targetting, I have seen the pressure people are subjected to, I have seen the sales techniques and the bottom line was "get them to sign" - pension, loan, ISA, mortgage - high pressure sales with behaviours driven by incentive scheme and the corporate bottom line for that year the only real concern.

In the same way I don't judge a saver, don't throw cheap shots out at the likes of Shafted. He, like me, is simply a consumer tied into a contract that now appears to have many flaws and as such is rightly being challenged.

Rafter

Are you sure firstplus ever advertised their insurance as 'fee free'?

I believe they had a scheme whereby they would refund your premium if you didn't claim within 5 years. What they failed to be transparent about was that they charged interest on the premium from day 1 though.

If you were missold insurance, get it refunded. Otherwise you will just have to console yourself that you have kept carol vorderman in nice dresses and barclays shareholders with nice dividends while the PPI party was going on.

R.

halifax71

_Andy_ wrote: »

A singularly uninformative post.

Is it – why exactly?

Firstplus have thousands of customers who are clearly unaware of the despicable activities undertaken by this disgrace of a company. Their dishonesty, their conniving, their downright thievery needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

Shysters such as this cannot be allowed to dig themselves out of the cesspit they built at the expense of their customers.

Captive borrowers are clearly perceived as an easy target and pathetic comments like “pay up or move the debt” are clearly misguided at best but in my opinion bordering on intentionally argumentative with the sole intent of belittling the poster.

All FirstPlus customers that I have been contact with are in no way attempting to avoid paying the debt, just seeking fairness in the application of the contract.

I and my fellow campaigners will continue to vilify Barclays FirstPlus on message boards such as this in an effort to spread the word. It is working. Our own forum has nearly 1000 members now, all seeking advice and guidance on how to complain to the regulatory bodies. Most members were directed to us by forums such as MSE and MSM – and I’m sure Martin does not mind one jot that we have taken our specific discussion elsewhere but continue to update his members. MSE – please correct me if I’m wrong.

Anyhow- this is a major issue to many (upto 100,000) customers. I for one am paying nearly £200 a month more than I should be. Multiply that by the 100,000 customers and you see the magnitude of the issue. The major issue is what will happen when base rates increase in the future. Failure to pass on any base rate reductions will not prevent them from passing on rate increases – result, repossession for many.

Please don’t post disparaging post about our cause – we are simply attempting to spread the word.

_Andy_

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'