First Plus interest rates!

halifax71

Hi Cocker. It took the FOS 2 years to finally deal with my case.

Basically they are useless. Their final decision stated that interest rate changes has been inline with interest rate trends. Quite amazing as base rates have reduced 80% but my APR has gone up.

As you're probably aware the OFT formally reprimanded Barclays FirstPlus last month.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer-credit/first-plus.pdf

However they will not disclose what the policies and procedures are that they have to comply with. Reason - it's not in the public interest.

The FOS have said the formal reprimand means nothing as they are not aware of any specific requirements and Firstplus are saying "we have done nothing wrong."

So as the reprimand is under the CCA s33a there is no retrospective action as per CCA s33c(3)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/33C

Specifically "A person shall not be required under section 33A or 33B to compensate, or otherwise to make amends to, another person."

The OFT won't tell anyone, so the FOS are ignoring and Firstplus continue to profiteer.

Isn't this country great. :rotfl:

cocker100

halifax71 wrote: »

Hi Cocker. It took the FOS 2 years to finally deal with my case.

Basically they are useless. Their final decision stated that interest rate changes has been inline with interest rate trends. Quite amazing as base rates have reduced 80% but my APR has gone up.

As you're probably aware the OFT formally reprimanded Barclays FirstPlus last month.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer-credit/first-plus.pdf

However they will not disclose what the policies and procedures are that they have to comply with. Reason - it's not in the public interest.

The FOS have said the formal reprimand means nothing as they are not aware of any specific requirements and Firstplus are saying "we have done nothing wrong."

So as the reprimand is under the CCA s33a there is no retrospective action as per CCA s33c(3)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/33C

Specifically "A person shall not be required under section 33A or 33B to compensate, or otherwise to make amends to, another person."

The OFT won't tell anyone, so the FOS are ignoring and Firstplus continue to profiteer.

Isn't this country great. :rotfl:

Hiya,

So is your case with the FOS finally over then? Can you go no further?

I'm hoping with mine that the fact their sales adviser told me over the phone that the loan would work like my mortgage and was based primarily on interest rates could sway the decision in my favour.

Problem is that FP have "lost" the initial sales call! How convenient???? But it gets better...........

Half way through the initial sales call we lost connection and the phone call was cut off, so FP had to call me back. Funny thing is that they have a second half of the conversation, but not the first half!!!!!!!

They sent the second half to me with my SAR request and when I queried it, they said that there is no record of the first half on their system. Yet it is obvious from the recording that this happened. the sales adviser even apologises for me being cut off!!!

Unreal!!!!!

Cocker:)

halifax71

I'm now done with the FOS. I've rejected their decision but will be using it to question their ongoing role via my MP.

They know about the reprimand but not the specifics reason for it. As such they say they are not aware of anything indicating a breach :eek:. They are joke.

I've sought disclosure from the OFT under s241a of the Enterprise Act which has been refused on the basis that it is not in the public interest. Really? Even though I couldn't disclose the details so it wouldn't enter the public arena? I'm appealing but have started to look into seeking a court order - the Norwich Pharmacal principle jumps out at me if you want to look into that as it infers that legal redress outweighs confidentiality.

cocker100

halifax71 wrote: »

I'm now done with the FOS. I've rejected their decision but will be using it to question their ongoing role via my MP.

They know about the reprimand but not the specifics reason for it. As such they say they are not aware of anything indicating a breach :eek:. They are joke.

I've sought disclosure from the OFT under s241a of the Enterprise Act which has been refused on the basis that it is not in the public interest. Really? Even though I couldn't disclose the details so it wouldn't enter the public arena? I'm appealing but have started to look into seeking a court order - the Norwich Pharmacal principle jumps out at me if you want to look into that as it infers that legal redress outweighs confidentiality.

Good luck with your case. Please post back if anything developes further.

cocker100

Does anyone think the recent ruling resulting in Halifax being ordered to pay 500m compensation to it's customers for "confusing" mortgage offers have any influence in the many cases against First Plus?

I know the case is slighty different, but it does refer to mortgage rate caps and the wording in the terms of the agreement surrounding them?

Just thought I'd mention it!

Cocker:)

cocker100

UPDATE

Phone call from FOS yesterday confirming case finally been passed to an adjudicator.

The adjudicator outlined the case to me and asked me to comment further on various aspects.

She went on to say that there had been many other similar cases against First Plus, but none had been upheld due to the specific term in the conditions relating to FP being allowed to set the interest rate for reasons of prudent business!!!:mad::mad::mad:

She also stated that a recent investigation by the OFT into FP business practices, resulted in them accepting this reason for the high interest rates so that they did not go bust, and that the FOS were backing this up. What a joke eh? Thought it might be a wind up for Comic Refief!!!:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

However, she said that there was a slight difference in our complaint to the many others which she never went into. Only to say that she was looking into it in more detail and would come to a decision by the end of the month.

I will post back with the decision, but not holding out much hope though!:(

Cocker:)

cocker100

Sorry about the delay.........


All has gone quiet until this week. Not heard anything from FOS, so decided to email them to see what had happened. Finally got a response this week.

Apparently the original adjudicator has gone on long term sick leave and they dont know when she will be back, so they have now passed on all her cases (including ours) to other adjudicators.

Have now been contacted by new adjudicator who says she will make a decision once she has genned up on the case!

The wait goes on.............

Cocker:)

halifax71

My fight goes on.

I sought disclosure from the OFT of the reasons behind the CCA S33a reprimand. Their final stance from the General Counsel was that their continued ability to deal with businesses confidentially outweighed the public interest in disclosure. This is despite section 241a of the Enterprise Act restricting wider disclosure.

I've now referred it to the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman accusing the OFT of bias.

That aside the 2010 accounts have recently been published. These reaffirm what we already know in that the loss of £100m p/a in fees and commisssions has had no impact on their balance sheet. It's nice to know that we're keeping them afloat. They've also repaid 27% of their overdraft (their funding stream) in the last 2 years. This is 4 times more than they have done historically.

This issue is expected to be given some media exposure in the very near future as it links in nicely with the PPI aftermath in that customers are going to foot the bill via increased interest.

I'll update after the event.

halifax71

There was a segment on the Politics Show (Leeds version)yesterday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011f26t

38 mins to 48 mins.

This is first of many we hope,finally bringing to the publics attention the unethical, and in our opinion unfair, activities of banks.

cocker100

halifax71 wrote: »

There was a segment on the Politics Show (Leeds version)yesterday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011f26t

38 mins to 48 mins.

This is first of many we hope,finally bringing to the publics attention the unethical, and in our opinion unfair, activities of banks.

Thanks for this. I'll have a watch later.