Firstplus (elderbridge) secured loan

sourcrates

SIMOED wrote: »

I think he/she may of wanted some assistance rather than a load of patronising comments over decision making & how there is little anyone can do.........

Unfortunately this kind of loan product has disaster written all over it, anything with a variable interest rate has the potential to get you into serious trouble, as the interest charged can be crippling.

These forums are open to everyone who wishes to express an opinion, however mis-guided that opinion may or may not be, advice is available in abundance, not always good advice, but advice non the less, financial advice should only be taken from someone qualified to give it.

Telling people they are full of a certain organic element does nothing to raise your own credibility in all of this.

John_G_Jones

halifax71 wrote: »

The issue is ambiguity of the wording. No one would have anticipated that the contract could have been administered in this way. That is the issue.

I disagree, the vast majority of the population would read the contract and politely decline.

If the OP genuinely wants help he would be well advised to learn some manners as more people would be willing to help. He comes across as very unpleasant and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s stopped him getting genuine assistance.

John_G_Jones

SIMOED wrote: »

You are right about not being the "op" but, the advise on here is patronising & does not take into account the rights of the consumer. The guy wants some assistance & a contract is between two or more parties all with an equal duty to be fair & reasonable.

The op would do much better being re-directed to a specialist site/thread.

Of course it takes into account the rights of the consumer. They have the right to receive the very large sum of money that they borrowed and spent. Against this they have the obligation to abide by the repayment terms which they were happy to agree to.

I genuinely am amused by posts such as yours who expect people to receive the money and then only afterwards complain about the deal that they entered into. It is such a bizarre mindset, expecting someone to get the benefits but not honour the obligations.

SIMOED

John_G_Jones wrote: »

Of course it takes into account the rights of the consumer. They have the right to receive the very large sum of money that they borrowed and spent. Against this they have the obligation to abide by the repayment terms which they were happy to agree to.

I genuinely am amused by posts such as yours who expect people to receive the money and then only afterwards complain about the deal that they entered into. It is such a bizarre mindset, expecting someone to get the benefits but not honour the obligations.

Thank you, yes the lender has to honour the obligations, like justifying increased charges for instance, in these cases they refuse, hence, breaking the terms of their license with the regulator.

These are similar to the poisonous RBS loans & will end up in the very same bin........watch it as it unravels, you might just learn something.

SIMOED

sourcrates wrote: »

Unfortunately this kind of loan product has disaster written all over it, anything with a variable interest rate has the potential to get you into serious trouble, as the interest charged can be crippling.

These forums are open to everyone who wishes to express an opinion, however mis-guided that opinion may or may not be, advice is available in abundance, not always good advice, but advice non the less, financial advice should only be taken from someone qualified to give it.

Telling people they are full of a certain organic element does nothing to raise your own credibility in all of this.

Disaster, not really, these loans were pushed hard as a benefit & the terms very cleverly written. The interest term has been found "unfair" in court using the UTCCR 5.1, a case using the CCA 140 has not yet reached court.

Lots of very professional & very good people have been caught out by these loans & the law/regulation has failed them, perhaps, for not much longer. The FOS, for instance has not ruled on any cases for over three years now, the only exception being petty complaints.

SIMOED

John_G_Jones wrote: »

I read it, and I did make constructive criticism. I will now just make pointed criticism as you are coming across as pretty unpleasant.

What you did, borrowing this money and spending it, without even bothering to understand the contract was more than foolish.

You are an adult and you are now feeling the effects of that foolish action. I hope you spent the money on something life-changing, as as you should have realised before but seem unable to is that the repayments definitely are life changing.

Your actions have consequences, one day I hope that you will understand it. In the meanwhile I’ll leave you to it.

If you did read the thread then, you may notice I have no mention of borrowing anything nor have I asked for condescending commentary.

I am not a fool, nor should it be assumed so, what should I have spent what on & when ? your assumptions point towards what you accuse me of.

Yes, I can confirm I am an adult. The consequences of the lenders behaviour is under the microscope, the consumers have very strong argument & therefore, should complain.

dealer_wins

SIMOED wrote: »

Yes, I can confirm I am an adult. The consequences of the lenders behaviour is under the microscope, the consumers have very strong argument & therefore, should complain.

Erm, no they dont lol

SIMOED

dealer_wins wrote: »

Erm, no they dont lol

The lender in question is spending millions to mitigate their case but, hey, you know better dont you............

halifax71

John_G_Jones wrote: »

I disagree, the vast majority of the population would read the contract and politely decline.

John, with all due respect, stop trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

John_G_Jones

halifax71 wrote: »

John, with all due respect, stop trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

No, I think it better if you step away from the keyboard. Maybe it amuses you to post disinformation, but you are doing genuine harm here, and should be ashamed.

The contracts are not ambiguous, they are clear. If you or the OP struggle to understand them that is very unfortunate, but the right response to being given a contract that you don’t understand is to walk away.

What is sad here is that in many of these cases the money was used for a wedding, or a holiday.

It does raise the question, I suppose, of whether the state should limit freedoms for those unable to handle things like this, but on balance I think that’s a step too far. People need to be free to do stupid things, on the whole.