Firstplus Secured Loans

keefy66

I haven't been back on the forum to see the responses until today unfortunately, and wish to thank all that have posted, every point of view is valid and urges caution and realism to the situation. Halifax71 - thank you immensly, your time and effort to pass this invaluable information is very appreciated, I'm sure not just by me. I am in a similar position to yourself and although you are sometimes required to enter into agreements you would normally not due to extreme circumstances, you nievely believe, you won't be further taken advantage of. I agree that it is not fair and although I did sign up to a variuable agrteement, I did assume it woulod work in relation to the effects of the costs to the relative business, not to increase their profits expotentially. However, clearly the world (of Finance) is a dark and murky place. In repsonse to anotheposter, I was not clever enough to not take out the PPI and have in fact claimed against it, I am currently sending my pack to the Ombudsman after the final offer letter to repay the PPI value paid to date with the interest and reduce the overall loan accordingly. I have requested the 8% interest as well and had that refused. Unfortunately this prompted my original post as I now am extremely cynical that my future APR may be increased to take account of the repayment I am claiming, therefore wanting to know if this can be curtailed. Thanks again for the responses they have been invaluable.

halifax71

Not sure what to make of this;

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

They won't make the requirements public - why not? :mad:

opinions4u

halifax71 wrote: »

Not sure what to make of this;

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

They won't make the requirements public - why not? :mad:

Intriguing.

One reason could be that Barclays/FirstPlus have said they would be more helpful if things aren't made public. It could be to the benefit of customers who, if a retrospective reprice has been ordered, will doubtless get letters in the next few months. That, of course, is complete speculation on my part and it could equally be that the OFT want it kept quiet because they feel a bit toothless.

I must admit to being somewhat cynical towards "your" campaign in the past. It does seem, however, that some significant progress has been made.

Just keep an eye on the merger of the Competition Commission with the OFT and ensure your cause doesn't get deprioritised.

ILW

woodbine wrote: »

Lets be realistic here,the banks have been/are in a mess,their first port of call was always going to be existing customers,the moral of the tale is that variable rates are sometimes to be avoided because they always go up and rarely(with the exceptions of most mortgages)come down.

Try telling that to all the people who have jumped at the first chance to get off their fixed rate mortgages onto the lenders SVRs because they are cheaper at the moment.
Were fixed rate secured loans available when these Firstplus loans were taken out?

halifax71

To be honest I still think this will have to go to court.

This is clearly a victory as it has been shown that the OFT agree that Barclays Firstplus' use of the term is not acceptable. Now we need to ascertain what exactly has been agreed so we can decide if it suits our needs.

Anthing less than an agreement to track at the FHBR / BoE Variance as at loan inception and a retrospective realignment then the fight continues. I think this is why there has been no public statement - they financial implications of doing this are huge - £300m + with Firstplus alone.


As it transpires I've had my FOS Ombudsman Review decision this week. Now I was expecting a rejection as it is clear that they are toothless, and the only reason I held out for it was so I could show to the court that i'd exhausted the supposed alternate resolution schemes. However the decision has astonished me. As well as ignoring the majority of my arguments under the UTCCR, Second Charge Lending Guidance etc, the main reason for rejection was: -

'Taking into account the way in which the Interest Rate has been administered with increases broadly following changes in rates' -

HOW THE HELL HAVE RATES DROPPED 80% THEN, AND MY RATE HAS INCREASED?

Clearly my understanding of the English language is not the same as the FOS Ombudsman. :rotfl:

The saga continues - but it was good to get some indication that our arguments are valid.