First Plus interest rates!

halifax71

Good luck - 20 months and counting with me

cocker100

halifax71 wrote: »

Good luck - 20 months and counting with me

Cheers!!!:beer:

Have they explained why it has taken so long? Are you still waiting for an adjudicator to look at the case or have they started any sort of investigation?

Have you heard anything or just the standard 2 monthly template letter?

Cocker:)

halifax71

I had my adjudication 12 months ago. It was rejected on the basis that my terms allow BFP to act this way.

My Ombudsman submission ripped this to shreads using the UTCCR and other regulatory guidance that the adjudicator chose to ignore.

They have recently written to BFP (for the third time) querying my APR variances / explanations provided. This is despite them having all these details and copies of all the explanations provided.

They must now know that this behaviour breaches regulatory guidance as the evidence i've submitted proves it, but I am now wondering what they do.

I'm not overstating the impact here when I say that BFP will be insolvent if this ruling goes against them. They have made £300m extra income in just over 2 years (and still posted a loss due to PPI refunds).

I just hope that Barclays (the parent) provides an undertaking to support it.

It's important here to reiterate that no one here is trying to avoid paying the debt. I owe this and will repay - but I wil not pay 3 times as much as I should be.

cocker100

halifax71 wrote: »

I had my adjudication 12 months ago. It was rejected on the basis that my terms allow BFP to act this way.

My Ombudsman submission ripped this to shreads using the UTCCR and other regulatory guidance that the adjudicator chose to ignore.

They have recently written to BFP (for the third time) querying my APR variances / explanations provided. This is despite them having all these details and copies of all the explanations provided.

They must now know that this behaviour breaches regulatory guidance as the evidence i've submitted proves it, but I am now wondering what they do.

I'm not overstating the impact here when I say that BFP will be insolvent if this ruling goes against them. They have made £300m extra income in just over 2 years (and still posted a loss due to PPI refunds).

I just hope that Barclays (the parent) provides an undertaking to support it.

It's important here to reiterate that no one here is trying to avoid paying the debt. I owe this and will repay - but I wil not pay 3 times as much as I should be.

Surely they must realise that it isn't just someone "trying their luck" to wipe out a debt when there are countless people making the same accusations aginst FP!!!

I take it you appealed to an actual ombudsman when you got rejected?

I've also heard the rumours regarding FP's finances! Are they still owned by Barclays? Surely they wouldn't be allowed to let the business fold given the amonut of profit Barclays makes?????

Would the Government let them given the amount of people it would involve?

I too just want to repay the debt that I thought I was signing up to, but after 5 years of repayments totalling close to £35,000, the fact I have only repaid £3,000 in capital off a £57,000 loan is so wrong!

halifax71

Yes they are owned by Barclays and yes i've complained to the Ombudsman. Their 2009 accounts were rather enlightening.

Key points of interest are: -


2009 (£m) 2008 (£m) Shift (%)
Interest Income 249 276 10% decrease
Interest Expense 28 175 84% decrease
Net Interest Income 220 102 116% increase


The interest income has decreased by 10% in line with a 15% reduction in the loans & receivables (£3,758m in 2008 to £3,199m in 2009), which infers to me that Interest Income has increased on a customer by customer basis. This will be correct assuming all customers APR’s have increased as mine has.

Everything else is irrelevant. The Accounts state “The main driver for the increase in total income, net is due to reduced Bank of England base rates resulting in lower borrowing costs provided by the parent”.

Despite this £220m excess of interest income over expense, Barclays FirstPlus still managed to make a loss. This proves that the company must now maintain / increase the “gap” between interest income and expense, i.e. they must raise APR’s when base rates / FHBR recover. They cannot remain solvent without doing so.

Common sense would dictate that a 15% reduction in their loan book would result in a 15% reduction in Net Interest Income, e.g. £102m down to £87m. In actuality instead of this expected 15% reduction there had been a 116% increase. This is an extra £133m of income/profit than could be reasonably expected.

There's an interesting increase in credit losses. £162m - explained on page 3 as "High unemployment has made it difficult for customers in certain segments to meet their payments and falling house prices has reduced collateral available for distribution on default causing a higher impairment provisioning rate"

The thing is the breakdown of the £162m impairment is as follows: - .

Amounts written off = £54m
Recoveries on amounts (previously) written off = minus £2m
Other amounts charged against profit = £110m

I've never seen an entry like this. Suppose you had a business that made £100m profit but you simply said in your accounts that it was all spent under "other amounts.. etc".

Now I could vaguely understand if they had said "increase in provision for doubtful debt" - maybe that is what it is.

Basically the business model has failed and they're expecting me to pay for it. :mad:

cocker100

Quick Update:

Received letter from FOS confirming safe receipt of complaint. It goes on to mention their heavy workload and that it may take a while to be dealt with!:doh:

Never mind though, at least we now have a case reference.:T

Cocker:)

opinions4u

halifax71 wrote: »

Yes they are owned by Barclays and yes i've complained to the Ombudsman. Their 2009 accounts were rather enlightening.

Key points of interest are: -


2009 (£m) 2008 (£m) Shift (%)
Interest Income 249 276 10% decrease
Interest Expense 28 175 84% decrease
Net Interest Income 220 102 116% increase


The interest income has decreased by 10% in line with a 15% reduction in the loans & receivables (£3,758m in 2008 to £3,199m in 2009), which infers to me that Interest Income has increased on a customer by customer basis. This will be correct assuming all customers APR’s have increased as mine has.

Everything else is irrelevant. The Accounts state “The main driver for the increase in total income, net is due to reduced Bank of England base rates resulting in lower borrowing costs provided by the parent”.

Despite this £220m excess of interest income over expense, Barclays FirstPlus still managed to make a loss. This proves that the company must now maintain / increase the “gap” between interest income and expense, i.e. they must raise APR’s when base rates / FHBR recover. They cannot remain solvent without doing so.

Common sense would dictate that a 15% reduction in their loan book would result in a 15% reduction in Net Interest Income, e.g. £102m down to £87m. In actuality instead of this expected 15% reduction there had been a 116% increase. This is an extra £133m of income/profit than could be reasonably expected.

There's an interesting increase in credit losses. £162m - explained on page 3 as "High unemployment has made it difficult for customers in certain segments to meet their payments and falling house prices has reduced collateral available for distribution on default causing a higher impairment provisioning rate"

The thing is the breakdown of the £162m impairment is as follows: - .

Amounts written off = £54m
Recoveries on amounts (previously) written off = minus £2m
Other amounts charged against profit = £110m

I've never seen an entry like this. Suppose you had a business that made £100m profit but you simply said in your accounts that it was all spent under "other amounts.. etc".

Now I could vaguely understand if they had said "increase in provision for doubtful debt" - maybe that is what it is.

Basically the business model has failed and they're expecting me to pay for it. :mad:

So in summary:

Net interest up £118m
Losses up £162m

Profits down £44m

Net interest income is not profit.

halifax71

In this case Firstplus' business is/was selling loans.

They borrow at X% and sell at Y.

Income from Y less cost of X = Gross Profit.

The impairments are an expense driven primarily from the PPI scandal. These cannot be used to mask the truth of a 116% increase in Gross Profit.

cocker100

Just a quick update:

Received another letter from FOS stating that they were now going to contact FP to get their side of the story and that they would reply further within 2 months!

Also included was a template printout of how the complaints procedure works.

Cocker:)

cocker100

Another Update.....

Well, not really an update as there is nothing new to report.

Received another routine letter from the FOS apologising for the delay, but due to busy workload they still haven't passed to an adjudicator.

Again, they will reply further within 2 month!

Cocker:)