First Plus Update

Hanky_Panky

Reddh_Legend wrote: »

The good customers they have will be able to or have been able to mortgage away, leaving a loan book of diminishing value and quality that by definition will have far greater risk.

Which seems like an excellent reason to keep rates high to cover that risk - this type of 'pricing for risk' is normal practise. The same rule applies to people who apply for a loan advertised at an eye catching rate and are subsequently offered a loan at a higher rate because they represent a higher risk.

halifax71

You thought of applying for a job at the OFT Hanky

Hanky_Panky

halifax71 wrote: »

You thought of applying for a job at the OFT Hanky

Does it require common sense

iolanthe07

last month, a fellow First Plus customer had a court rule that their interest rate variation clause is unfair under 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

Was that a County Court ruling? IIRC County Court rulings do not set precedents in cases like this, so it may have to go to a higher court. It is significant that FP did not appeal. These variable rate secured loans always were a rip off - the rate only ever seemed to vary upwards; good luck with your struggle for a fair deal.

halifax71

Yep, County Court.

As I said, it isn't precedent setting, but I would hope that those charged with supposedly safeguarding consumers, I.e. the OFT / FCA, will do something about it.

But then again the OFT have already identified something wrong and are hiding it (the 2010 reprimand), so i'm not holding my breath.

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

[Deleted User]

infamy infamy they`ve all got it infamy

halifax71

woodbine wrote: »

infamy infamy they`ve all got it infamy

Jeeze :wall:

Reddh_Legend

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Which seems like an excellent reason to keep rates high to cover that risk - this type of 'pricing for risk' is normal practise. The same rule applies to people who apply for a loan advertised at an eye catching rate and are subsequently offered a loan at a higher rate because they represent a higher risk.

On one hand you are correct, in that pricing for risk is important however that is the decision made day one to set the inception rate that the customer accepts or does not. Beyond that date you are in the hands of the variation clause and that clause has now been judged unfair. UTCCR is clear about fairness and where ( or not) an imbalance exists to the benefit of one party and reading it would do you know harm.

As such, your point would appear to have some sense but only applies at inception and can not be allowable as a goalpost changer once you are contracted in and the lender falls victim to massive commercial mistakes of its own making, primarily driven by greed.

Firstpluschamp

Hello all,

I have only joined this site as I see Halifax and Red are here doing a lot of work.

It was MY case that was heard in court and the judge made the decsion that the term (clause 7 of the contract) was unfair.

When I took this loan I was led to believe that the interest rate was variable (i.e it goes up or down in accordance with some kind of base rate). This is NOT what happened, it went up at first in line with increases in the BOE rate and then when the BOE fell, FP's interest rate continued to increase. FP deny that their rate ws ever linked to the BOE rate.

But have a look at their old website from 2006 for yourself (Google wayback machine and choose Aug 2006) under the FAQ for new customers and heading "How does the variable interest rate affect my loan?" it says "From time-to-time, your monthly repayments may go up or down in accordance with the Bank of England interest rate movements."

Now you tell me that FP customers have not clearly been misled!

Now I have seen a few people on this thread and this site who are being a bit high and mighty, believe me, I could really have done without the stress of these people for the last 7 years and a court case!! If I had known how they were going to treat me I would never have taken this loan.

I realise that some here think that they are perfect and have never made mistakes, well good for you! All we want is to be treated fairly!

Also I never took PPI, so how is it fair that they increase my rate to pay compensation to other customers that did take the PPI?? (to be clear - i;m not having a go at those who did take it - just a question :-))

The funny thing is they lost this part in court and were ordered to remove this clause from my contract and recalculate my loan within 28 days.

On the deadline day they sent me awful screen prints of their system with no explanation of any of the figures that appear on it and said a statement of account will take 10 to 14 days to provide. and even 14 days later this statement of account has not appeared.

So now I am probably going to have to apply to court to have their claim struck out! They lost and they are still messing me about!

halifax71

Well said champ, you've done your bit, now it's up to the rest of us to put as much pressure as possible on the regulators TO DO THEIR JOB.

This has never been about trying to avoid paying, this is about fairness.

I asked the OFT a while back to explain to me why I should be repaying £8,000 more than I was due to as at loan inception. What's changed?

They said they couldn't answer the question as it would harm Firstplus' commercial interests if they told me :shocked: I have that in writing from their Head of Secured Lending.

I know what's changed, their accounts are clear, they need to repay their PPI liability. Excuse the term but we just need the regulator to grow a pair.