Mortgage prisoners and parolees of Firstplus/Elderbridge and other lenders

bulldogforever

Mortgage prisoners and paroled ex customers  of Firstplus, Elderridge and other lenders have collectively lost tens, if not hundreds of millions of pounds. From sources outside this forum and from some forum members it looks like this maybe changing.

I am referring to the unfair failure to reduce interest rates by lenders following the 2008 financial crises..

I am doing this on the basis that contractual terms that are not legal are not binding and that this applies to both common law and law laid down by statue.

So whilst I will return to the clauses or make reference to them(if asked to) the overriding consideration is adherence to the law!! In very simple term a contractual clause that stated the borrower must do an illegal act such as rob his or her neighbour is not enforceable. Similarly a lender with a contractual clause containing ambiguous words, used by that lender in an unfair way is not enforceable

Comments that equate to buyer beware, or to a defence on the lenders actions on the basis of the borrowers status sort of miss the point here in that it is not the detail of the clause but the unfair and one sided interpretation and application of it. It is not the lending to perceived higher risk at a higher rate, but the continuation of using that higher rate long after the costs to the lender have dramatically fallen (due to both the 2008 crash and increases in house prices)

At the time of the loans being taken out they were covered by two important pieces of legislation The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and Section 140 of the CCA

Section 140 changed into 140a-c and is as far as I can applies and is known as the Unfair Credit relationship

The UTCCR regulations seem to have been subsequently incorporated into another bit of law however that was after Firstplus stopped making loans so I think it is best to use UTCCR

Which states

5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

And goes on to say

7.—(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.

 

(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12.

I would state that at this time....

I have put in my own complaint in simple terms and am looking into the background and basis of asserting it is Unfair and would appreciate any help in saving money here, by that I am refereeing to gaining redress ie my overpaid money back (should they not be forthcoming with an adequate settlement)

I think that a lot of people could be in the same boat as me and hope this post is helpful

 

JJ_Egan

So please link to this campaign .

bulldogforever

JJ_Egan said:

So please link to this campaign .

sadly there isn't really one is there I am just trying to raise the issue but you know what its like banging your head against a brick wall, 
I was reading the title as Campaign Corner that is a Corner to Campaign not necessitating a formal "campaign"

Maybe I would be better forgetting about raising this issue for others ....sort of thing

awyatt62

Have you seen this thread 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6236216/barclays-first-plus-loans-interest-rates
Imagine it covers your issues?