First Plus Update

Utseya123

The takeaway it seems is to avoid First Plus in future. For the present, I think you need to take legal action against them. You cannot be expected to pay GBP 8000 more.

JuicyJesus

Utseya123 wrote: »

The takeaway it seems is to avoid First Plus in future

Not especially hard since they are closed to new business.

jockinleeds

I recognise some of the names on here from the FP Complaints Forum I think... ? If so, I tip my hat to you for keeping the pressure on these clowns.

As someone who has a FirstPlus loan, the consumer interpretation on a variable loan was that it would track base rate... it didnt. Rates went up and down more often than the Pepsi Max and usually in the wrong direction.

I can even get any sense on starting a PPI claim and I'm being told in was 2002... purple loans and now owned by GE.
I don't really know where I stand??

Some of the other posts do come across as unhelpful.
When your mortgage is with Northern Rock, your second charge with FirstPlus and no chance of remortgaging... you're on to plums!

If you're not able to help, keep it to yourself.

Hanky_Panky

Reddh_Legend wrote: »

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.

Taken from your first post, "We may from time to time vary our interest rate. We may increase or decrease our interest rate to reflect a change which has occurred, or which we reasonably expect to occur in interest rates generally or to ensure that our business is carried on prudently, efficiently and competitively"

If the lending that is left is of questionable quality then expect to pay more via the interest rate as it costs a hell of a lot more to run. It's a simple business model, lenders are a business that needs to make money.

You just don't like it because you've been caught out and frankly I don't blame you but it doesn't change the reality. You always have the option to move elsewhere and that's what they really want you to do as they want to close the book down. If you can't because of a poor credit rating then apportion blame accordingly.

Hanky_Panky

iolanthe07 wrote: »

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.

I also don't buy the whole unfair contract term thing - I didn't with bank charges and I don't with this either. Ultimately you signed it and took the money on those terms, you could have gone elsewhere - if not why not ? Time to pay the piper. I small success at county court level doesn't suddenly make you all right - it simply means 1 county court judge agreed with you - how many haven't ?

cavework

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I also don't buy the whole unfair contract term thing - I didn't with bank charges and I don't with this either. Ultimately you signed it and took the money on those terms, you could have gone elsewhere - if not why not ? Time to pay the piper. I small success at county court level doesn't suddenly make you all right - it simply means 1 county court judge agreed with you - how many haven't ?

I am quite happy to pay back what I owe to first Plus as long as I am treated fairly. Retrospect is a wonderful thing but basically this company has been allowed to rip off customers who were led to believe they were entering into a fair contract with a reputable bank..
We all now know after PPI and Bankers bonuses , Libor etc that most banks do not give a rats a**e about being fair and honest with their customers.

DaisyDuke

I've had a reply to my letter to First plus and their clause 7.

In brief it states that the court decision in the November case doesn't bind other judges and is applicable to the particular facts and case only.


It goes on saying Firstplus had not breached any regulations and an other court matter Howells v Firstplus heard in Mar 13 considered the clause and categorically concluded that there was nothing unfair in Firstplus's agreement in relation to interest rate variation.

It also states that Firstplus stood by its commitment to provide competitive rates of interests compared to other lenders.

This was their final response.

I had separately said that as we'd had a rebate following an earlier complaint to the FOS although the rebate had gone to the official receiver, our credit file should reflect the new balance but they've not responded to this. Not that it makes any difference to our credit rating.

halifax71

I know for a fact that the presiding judge said the clause was unfair within regulation 5.1


Can you go back to Firstplus and ask them to explain how being ruled unfair under 5.1 does not constitute a regulation breach.


I've done the same - awaiting their reply.


In addition, I'm hopeful of finally getting sight of the reasons underpinning the 2010 reprimand http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer-credit/first-plus.pdf


Remember the OFT deemed the reasons too sensitive for public disclosure, as they could harm Firstplus' commercial interest.


Remember also that Barclays lawyers have said in a court of law that the reprimand was not relevant to the way Firstplus had administered their interest rates - this is despite the reprimand being specifically about Interest Rate Variations.


I think there'll be some explaining to do very soon.

SIMOED

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?64054-Firstplus-Requirements-%96-OFT-FOI-Release&highlight=foia+oft+firstplus


..This being (the link) a partial disclosure of the Firstplus OFT reprimand given by an official investigation on public request by the First Tier Tribunal. This was done via a FoIA request by a determined member of the "joe public" following a severe anal attitude to any such openness. As it clearly reads it, is complicit with collusion & hidden details protected by professional privilege................Who is the bad guy here, the regulator or the loan provider.

SIMOED

iolanthe07 wrote: »

I admire your persistence with this, and good luck with it, but I can't help but think you're on a hiding to nothing. The only thing would be for each borrower to go to the County Court individually. In the end though, the lesson is never to take out a second mortgage ( or an unsecured loan) with a variable rate clause.

Yes indeed but, consumers did & consumers are suffering as a consequence.

These contracts destroy lives & create a need for change which, is in process as it is a problem for the courts now with the inclusion of the CCA 1974 140 unfair relationships in the relative arguments.