Firstplus=fraudsters

~Brock~

shafted_fpc wrote: »

not having mentioned fiduciary duty although have eledud to it by mentioning hurstanger I am a wee bit baffled by this post,

OK, so did someone else with an identical name type Post #15 ?

shafted_fpc wrote: »

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.

Call it a childish putdown if you like, I'm really not interested, however having slept on it you may realise that I am actually trying to be helpful by pointing out that your obvious issues with FP are not being helped by the incoherent manner in which you have posted on this thread.

shafted_fpc

Opps about that but never mind, guess you must know what I mean to come up with the right spelling and to quote me means you haver read it, now if only you and others would focus on the issue instead of going look that kids got ginger hair, or he has exzma, or he is dyslexic or he is whatever then we might get somewhere.

Feducery duty however you spell the bloody word, is a duty owed by an agent to a person, such as a solicitor to a client, a breach of this duty is fraud.

In the case of a secret commission being taken the breach is obvious the fiducary has put the interest of the person receiving the commission above there clients.

Simples

the sale of the PPI was advised and therefore the person who advised had this feducery duty to the customer, would be the route of the argument re fiduciary duty

~Brock~

shafted_fpc wrote: »

Opps about that but never mind, guess you must know what I mean to come up with the right spelling and to quote me means you haver read it, now if only you and others would focus on the issue instead of going look that kids got ginger hair, or he has exzma, or he is dyslexic or he is whatever then we might get somewhere.

Feducery duty however you spell the bloody word, is a duty owed by an agent to a person, such as a solicitor to a client, a breach of this duty is fraud.

In the case of a secret commission being taken the breach is obvious the fiducary has put the interest of the person receiving the commission above there clients.

Simples

the sale of the PPI was advised and therefore the person who advised had this feducery duty to the customer, would be the route of the argument re fiduciary duty

Right, now we're getting somewhere, however can you explain how FP were the 'agent' of the customer?

It's not quite as simples as you seem to think it is!

Even in the recent PPI case of MBNA v Thorious the argument about breach of fiduciary duty was thrown out as not applicable, even though the customer won her case based on other arguments.

shafted_fpc

The answer is to say yes they are fiducary, personally it is my opinion they are, they advised that the policy was suitable, and sold it as such, now havnt read the case you reffered to, but have previously thought well does it matter if they are fid or not and dont really think it does as a seller of insurance they are bound by the duty of utmost goodfaith and they really have rode roughshod over this as is in many cases, this is evidanced by the figs for mis selling and indeed by statments in there accounts as well as the obscene levels of commission on the PPI. this could be classed as fraud
Also as the code of conduct has the force of law behind it they can be held negligant for the sale.

the case you mentioned was it the unfair relationship one?

although this may or may not be fraud it is kind of irrelevant in the case of BFP where they have actually sort to mis lead, conceal and lie about the commission taken as this then is a clear fraud and not fraud by breach of duty, if yoiu get me.

shafted_fpc

~Brock~ wrote: »

It's not quite as simples as you seem to think it is!

on reflection a tad more is required.

Fid duty is not so simple, however would incline more to single PPI on a non status mortgage than pay as you go insurance, the relationship being different due to the nature of the product being different, if you like we can discuss this.

Of relevance is the Hurstanger case, specifaclly of may be the reasoning of the judge in citeing the non status mortgage guidlines.

Another thing here is I know they committed fraud from the no fee/ commission argument, however it is more likely that unfair relationship will be what people chose to fight on if they do, this may be an easier route however it does kind of let them BFP of the hook on the issue of fraud.

shafted_fpc

BFP
key facts

4.what will you have to pay us for our services
no fee

Loan
clause 11 we will send the PPI premium to BID and BAD who will advise you if your application is successful....no mention of any commission or fee

now they clearly said no fee, took one this is fraud because they lied and mislead.

Now if I sound a touch upset , if my stiff upper lip dissipates, if I don't say oh well that ain't cricket is it old boy and have a bit of a rant about the cheating sods, that would be coz the appropriate response to the outrageous is eeerrrr outrage.

MrsTinks

Fraud? Ok I disgree with that...

"Illigal" - again not sure...

Mis-sold? almost certainly. But this is ancient news! I'm not sure what warrents a new thread to point this out? You don't want help with it? You just want to rant about the mis-selling of PPI really from what I can gather (and I'm afraid I had to give up less than half way through your posts... they are to say the least difficult to follow...) - if you are a "victim" of mis-sold PPI then we have a WHOLE board here specialising in PPI mis-selling

shafted_fpc

The point is that they didn't just get it wrong and mis sell, they didn't just get the system wrong and systemically mis sell, they actually sought to mis lead and lied in the documentation, this is fraud.

Now they have not had to and will not have to face up to this unless the issue is raised, yes I have action I am taking re PPI with them and will be successful with that but the situation remains that part of Barclays actually committed fraud on its customers and I find this outrages.

MrsTinks

I think you'll have a fun time trying to prove fraud... misselling yes - fraud? I'm sorry but I don't see the case for it... then again I'm no solicitor. If you are ademant they committed fraud I would recommend you pay to see a specilalist solicitor to get advice before they reply with a libel case...

redNwelsh

i searched first plus credit recovery in google and found this forum,..

a message was sent on facebook by someone i shall not name, stating...

that i, owe £2000 to first plus credit recovery and i should contact them straight away or risk court.... original message has vanished from my inbox,

when reseaching this company i found out that their loans are only for home owners for it is secuired against morgage.

i dont own my own home or ever had a morgage... so how can i be in debt to them, and i've never heard of them till now