Firstplus=fraudsters

shafted_fpc

ok so this seems as good a place to start as any Since the dawn of this site Barclays Firstplus has been criticised over its PPI I qoute from 2004


n March last year we moved into an old house that we found out needed more work doing on it than first thought. We were told by our mortgage advisor to go for a certain mortgage with a large lender and to put down as much of a deposit as possible. He told us that once we were in then we could apply to the lender and get more money for renovations etc.

The lender would not give us anything untill we had the work done so we had to take a secured loan out for 20K over 15 yrs to cover a lot of the work.
The company advertises on Sat TV with a well known intelligent female presenter fronting the advert.

We asked if there were any redemption fees or early penalty clauses and the chap on the phone said no as he knew that we were to pay it off as and when we were to remortgage. As it was a considerable sum we opted for the payment protection but we didn't actually have to take this cover out.This was to cover us for the first five years at a fee of £4500. A lot I know but after the end of the five years you get your fee back (in theory).

We have come to remortgage and want to pay the loan off. We asked them for a final figure.
Bear in mind we have paid almost £3000 in 15 months the total repayable is £24500 pounds including £150 "admin" fee!!!!

It turns out that they buy the insurance cover for the five years to cover us ( we do not own the policy)and lump this straight onto your loan so the loan we took out was actually for £24500 NOT £20000.
We did see this on the contract but it also said that early repayment will be subject to a rebate although not for the full unused cover. I suspect this is just the interest refunded.

I have to pay this for the cover as it is also secured on the property as part of the loan so cannot remortgage until it is all paid off even though we are in dispute.

If I pay this will I still be entitled to the cover and the refund after 5 years as I have bought it ?

My own bank cannot believe the "scam" and have never heard of any insurance like this before. I have cancelled insurance policies in the past and stopped paying them straight away or have recieved refunds on the unused cover.

I suspect when I pay it off then the lender will cash this policy in and win a second time.


In effect for 20K over 15 months it has cost me 8K. The annoying thing is that you think you are doing the right thing getting this cover and the point of contact at the lenders knew exactly what we were going to do....

Is there anything I can do to get refunded on the unused cover? It makes me sick that we've fallen for this....being mugged on the street is more honest.

Thanks in advance,

Hevs Dad.


This is obviously referring to BFP, since then no doubt hundreds of people using this site have tried reclaiming PPI from BFP, some (not many) succeeding by a simple complaint, others going through the ombudsman scheme have succeed, indeed 99% of people who have done this succeeded in the recent published figs. Of the other 1% some would have complained again about the brokered sale and succeeded, an example of this would people who used HFS which was taken over by Capital One whos stats were I believe 98% upheld.


Now this would have been for a number of contingent reasons, all of which are relevant to individual cases. Common to all however is the expense of the policy, the payment over the entire term and the therefore hidden cost. The reason for the cost was not some super risk, was not some ultra cover, no it was BFP earning a whooping great “secret commission” to the detriment of the consumer.


This is Fraud


it can be addressed in Common law for example re fraudulent representation, Hurstanger, breach of “utmost good faith” etc.


it can be addressed through Codified statutory provisions of the Fraud act or some other


Also the regulatory bodies and codes of conduct that reflect the Law also come in to play



what area would you like enlightenment on?

shafted_fpc

Reading through the thread
I posted that Firstplus are fraudters this is true.

There were then a number of responses that I found reminded me of when I got a question right in school and people took the mickey out of the way I spook these were by, chrissyg, ilw, andy, wutang, rebertomoir, moonrakerz, there were also some questions possed by leesoutheast, and rafter, some detail added by reddh legend, halifax, and moneysavinghound16, amongst all this there was only one post which actually in anyway contradicted the fact that firstplus are fraudsters, I take it that, chrissyg, ilw, andy, wutang, rebertomoir, moonrakerz, are just like the children from my childhood taking the P!!! without having a valid contribution to make.

Wutang_2

shafted_fpc wrote: »

Reading through the thread
I posted that Firstplus are fraudters this is true.

There were then a number of responses that I found reminded me of when I got a question right in school and people took the mickey out of the way I spook these were by, chrissyg, ilw, andy, wutang, rebertomoir, moonrakerz, there were also some questions possed by leesoutheast, and rafter, some detail added by reddh legend, halifax, and moneysavinghound16, amongst all this there was only one post which actually in anyway contradicted the fact that firstplus are fraudsters, I take it that, chrissyg, ilw, andy, wutang, rebertomoir, moonrakerz, are just like the children from my childhood taking the P!!! without having a valid contribution to make.

Sorry - can you go on about this subject a little more please, I don't think you have said enough on it yet?

Thanks

~Brock~

Wutang wrote: »

Sorry - can you go on about this subject a little more please, I don't think you have said enough on it yet?

Thanks

Lol!!

If FP had anything to hide they would probably be asking Martin to remove this frankly libellous thread.

Reality is that, along with most other businesses operating in an industry that brings out the worst in people's emotions, they have probably heard it all before........

halifax71

~Brock~ wrote: »

Lol!!

If FP had anything to hide they would probably be asking Martin to remove this frankly libellous thread.

Reality is that, along with most other businesses operating in an industry that brings out the worst in people's emotions, they have probably heard it all before........

Unbelievable Brock - why post this? Clearly another poster intent on causing an argument.

There is nothing libellous here. For it to be libel it'd have to be untrue.

And Wutang - the purpose of these forum are to discuss issues and to raise awareness of issues that impact on fellow posters / readers. This is a loan forum and issues are being raised that impact on the secured loan arena.

If this doesn't affect you why not ignore it?

shafted_fpc

Libel that would require the statement to be untrue, it is not.

Fraud can mean mean things I started this thread of re PPI and it being fraudulently sold this is true.

I used a broad and simplistic definition that, equates to an ordinary lay persons view, there are other definitions of fraud, the first thing they do is divide fraud into civil and criminal.

Re civil fraud as they said “no FEE” in the key facts documentation and took between 40-80% commission in there response to the CC then they did commit fraud.

In other issues re PPI I will not comment on as they are matter of legal proceedings they did act fraudulently. Other posters have shown areas of concern here.

In regard to criminal fraud it is my opinion that they did commit criminal fraud. Below is an extract from the 2006 fraud act. It reads easily and is clear as to what fraud is, my opinion is that they are guilty of crinal fraud in respect of 2,section 2 and 2 section3




Fraud
1 Fraud
(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed in
subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).
(2) The sections are—
(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12
months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
10 years or to a fine (or to both).
(4) Subsection (3)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12
months were a reference to 6 months.
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35)
2
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it
(or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device
designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without
human intervention).
3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is
under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act
against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his
conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.
5 “Gain” and “loss”
(1) The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance
with this section.
(2) “Gain” and “loss”—
(a) extend only to gain or loss in money or other property;
(b) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent;
and “property” means any property whether real or personal (including things
in action and other intangible property).
“Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting
(3)
what one does not have.

(4) “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by
parting with what one has.

~Brock~

halifax71 wrote: »

Unbelievable Brock - why post this? Clearly another poster intent on causing an argument.

There is nothing libellous here. For it to be libel it'd have to be untrue.

It may well be untrue, because the OP so far hasn't proved beyond all doubt, to this reader at least, that what he alleges is true.

As RobertMoir so concisely put it in Post #17, the OP is coming across as nothing more than a Mr Angry 'I know my rights' consumer and posting reasons to back up his allegations that come across as having being pasted from other places as opposed to his own learned opinion.

For example, the casual reader may doubt that the OP really understands what a fiduciary duty really is when he can't even spell the bloody word !

If there are real issues that should be in the public domain - and I have no opinion as to whether there are or not - then mouthing off on a public internet forum with the type of posts made so far is unlikely to attract any serious attention.

Not an argument my friend, just an opinion. Can you handle that concept?

dzug1

~Brock~ wrote: »

It may well be untrue, because the OP so far hasn't proved beyond all doubt, to this reader at least, that what he alleges is true.

Well his main argument (insofar as I follow it) seems to be saying that a FEE and COMMISSION are one and the same which ain't necessarily true.

An Independent Financial Advisor will for certain products charge you no fee for advising you. He will receive a commission from the provider of the product he sells you. That doesn't make him a fraudster.


Now the size of that commission in PPI may be an issue - but not its existence.

shafted_fpc

dzug
In this context fee=commission

a rose by any other name... would apply
I grant that if the fee was consistant with a payment for work done then it would be somewhat different thefore your point is correct re the size being an issue please see post no 12.

the issue is indeed the size of commission, the fact that it was secret , that it equates to "a fee" in one argument, "a charge for credit" in another a "secret commission in another".
the argument re fee is one route to Fraud as is the argument ree secret commiss as outlined by reddh legend

shafted_fpc

~Brock~ wrote: »

It may well be untrue, because the OP so far hasn't proved beyond all doubt, to this reader at least, that what he alleges is true.

As RobertMoir so concisely put it in Post #17, the OP is coming across as nothing more than a Mr Angry 'I know my rights' consumer and posting reasons to back up his allegations that come across as having being pasted from other places as opposed to his own learned opinion.

For example, the casual reader may doubt that the OP really understands what a fiduciary duty really is when he can't even spell the bloody word !

If there are real issues that should be in the public domain - and I have no opinion as to whether there are or not - then mouthing off on a public internet forum with the type of posts made so far is unlikely to attract any serious attention.

Not an argument my friend, just an opinion. Can you handle that concept?

not having mentioned fiduciary duty although have eledud to it by mentioning hurstanger I am a wee bit baffled by this post, tis also somewhat inacurate as it comes across as a chidish putdown, never mind, am sure on other matters you have been of great help to people on this site.