That is excellent news upacreek.

Perseverance paid off by the sounds of it.

regards

Hi

Thanks to this site and lots of advice, we wrote last March to Barclays. They dismissed our claim completely regarding the PPI. I stuck with it, they then offered us a ridiculous amount as a goodwill payment, but still with the interest on the PPI to pay to the end of the loan. I took this to the Ombudsman who have now told me that Barclays have agreed the policy was mis-sold. They are repaying all I have paid plus 8% and re-writing the loan. We have still to recieve this, apparently there is a back-log!! It has taken six months but stick with it, it will be well worth it in the end.

Julie.. yes this is a major problem and most people just tend to leave it to others to fight. Glad you are on board and ready. Goto google and search for "Firstplus Complaints"

you will find a website dedicated to the fight against firstplus, where you will also get help with letters and join in the ever growing community network of Firstplus Fighters.

OK - I have had enough of reading all the information and peoples issues and decided I (as a Barclays FirstPlus customer) wish to get off my backside and take action and complain to the Financial Ombudsman and the Office of Fair Trading. My only issue at the moment is I don't know where to start in terms of writing letters, are there any 'standard' letters around that I could use, so I then ensure to quote the exact financial wording etc....

Just thought i'd bump this following yesterday's despicable rate rise.

There's a lot of useful info on this thread. If you haven't complained yet please do so. First to Barclays FirstPlus (always use their full title as many feel that these are are a back street bank - they are part of Barclays, a supposed reputable bank if there is such a word. Then to the Financial Ombudsman and the Office of Fair Trading.

The OFT guidance of transparancy is quite clear

OFT Guidance on Secured Lending

3.6 There should be transparency about the circumstances in which rates or charges may change, in particular where they may be varied at the discretion of the lender or by reference to some particular factor, for instance as a result of an increase in the lender's input costs. If rates are stated to be variable but do not vary in line with Bank of England base rate, this should be made clear, and if a particular rate is tracked, this rate should be stated.

4.4 If rates or charges are variable, this should be made clear. The potential implications of such variations should be explained, including the impact on the periodic instalments and / or the amount payable. Rates should only be increased on a loan to recover genuine increases in costs which have an effect on that loan and should not be misused, for example, to take advantage of a borrower's lack of ability to end the agreement. Clear explanations should be given to borrowers prior to rates or charges changing.

Oh and as always, remember there's the dedicated site for customers - Search / Google FirstPlusComplaints.

Just checked hotmail and no blockage..

Just post a message on FPC and I wil respond.

Angus - I'm on FPC as FPvictim. Hotmail has blocked your address - how do i get in touch?

Smoke.. Angus here from FPC.. that is an interesting result.. would you mind emailing me to discuss.. very interested in the ruling.. especially as broker involved

thanks

Note: email address removed. Please place your email address in your profile - which can be seen by clicking on your username. Please also read the moneysupermarket.com Community Standards and Terms of Service. To edit your profile, log-in in and go to the News & Community homepage and click on ‘Edit my community profile’ on the top right-hand side. Thanks.

Thank you to everyone at this forum and also FP Complaints. I've just received a confirmed that FP (though FO quoting the broker), are agreeing to make an offer in line with the FO's requirements to refund my PPI, and restructure my loan, and pay my 8% interest.. (original loan £75k, PPI about £18k!)

I'm very conscious that in the past you've all advised people to look very carefully at what offer comes back. Anything I should look out for, or do you think they'll stay in line with the FO's regulations. Also, why is it the broker they're quoiting, not FP?

Thanks as ever.

if you google firstpluscomplaints you should find a site specific for consumers with various issues against FP.

The issues are plentiful as you will see and progress is being made on many fronts.

Hello PPIUK - From the comments you made in your response is there any where I can read up on the ongoings with First Plus? I did not know about them being under litigation etc. Curious to know the full story.

Excellent post ReddhLegend.

Agreed.. FormerFP has no clue about this industry,, perhaps the reason why he is former and not current.

The evidence we have amassed on Firstplus is damning.. the OFT are investigating them.. the FOS are about to announce that barclays being the worst offender for complaints against them..

Firstplus is under litigation at the moment for secret profits.

The Inland Revenue clamped down on them for there off shoring on the PPI, FP tried to make more than its nomal 70% profit..

90% of Claims are being upheld.

There is no licence,, they just steal the money.. the Dick Turpins of the Noughties..

DumbBlonde:

These companies literally have a license to steal money. They set whatever rules and regulations they wish in order to make a profit of their choice and whatever the market conditions.

The indiviidual is not protected at all with FP

Only weapon individuals have is bad publicity that these companies get on public forums like this.

Good Luck!

Thanks for your suppor blonde.... FormerFP is talking through his/her backside!. Red's post explains in perfect detail the reality of all FP customers situation.

Some interesting observations, however, in no particular order:

FP no longer trading - they are indeed trading, they are a loss making business that are no longer offering new loans but are a trading entity collecting and administering existing loans. That said, they are now noted as a Going Concern in their latest accounts and have relied on a letter of support from Barclays to satisfy the requirements of their auditors.

PPI - FP have an £8m provision in their accounts to deal with compensation payments they believe they will ahve to make to customers who complain over missold PPI.

Interest rates - FP have blamed everything they can for not reducing rates. They have blamed house prices, competitor rates etc and justified their actions by declaring to me they can do as they like in the application of their "commercial judgement". Their accounts state clearly that their own loan facilities are linked to B of E base so their own costs have plummetted this last yr and they have chosen not to pass this on to customers in a clear attempt to increase the gap between interest income and expense. They increased the gap from £50m to £90m last yr to subisidise the losses in other areas and whilst they "beleive" this is OK it clearly breaches UCCT guidelines. They dish out excuses but we know the score and their accounts give it all away. Without increasing the gap the business would have lost some £50 -£60m last yr. With base rate at 0.5% this gap will now be near £150m and this is enough to keep the business trading acceptably going forward and this is the only reason Barclays have supported in writing and by £9m of bail out. Now this gap exists, when rates go up, so must customer APRs. I have evidence to show that up until last yr, my loan and many others I speak with, our loan APRs pretty well moved in line with bank base and is this is their own funding base, that makes sense. The goalposts have clearly changed, I hold all the evidence I need and am presenting it to litigators and regulators.

Publicity - I recently appeared on the BBC Moneybox programme in an interview regarding FP. A compliance expert deemed their interest rate clause to be in breach of unfair contract regulations, the bargain so one sided as to be unfair and could question the enforceability of the loan. FP had every opportunity to defend their corner and answer the questions posed but simply stated "we are doing nothing wrong".

Regulators - the second charge market lenders know they sit between many stools and as such escape the spotlight of mortgage regs and also the regs of the CCA for many loans. The arrogance we have all seen from lenders in this field has been such as they have deemed themselves untouchable and it is difficult for regulators to take ownership. I hjave pointed out to the FLA that FP have breached its Lending Code, the FLA took this to FP and essentially allowed them to not answer my questions regarding the calculation of interest rates, which the code says the lender must disclose if asked. They allowed FP to say how they applied interest to the loan which is a completely separate point in the Lending Code and allowed them to hide behind "commercial sensitivity". This appalls me as everyone the info would be sensitive to (ie former competitors) knows exactly how each company works and as they are no longer offering new loans, who exists to hide this "big secret" from?

OFT - after being passed around from FLA to FSA and now to OFT, the remit of Unfair Contract Clauses falls under their remit. This is not about assessing the actual loan rate but their interest rate clause. They now have a weight of evidence from the accounts of FP, the evidence of my experience, the change in rate letters from FP ( that used to say "due to change in BofE base etc, then changed to "changes in interest rates that may affect our decision" that now say "changes in our underlying costs" -why change them I wonder?), compliance expert views and hundreds of customers that are gathering awareness that change may be possible and complaining accordingly.

Whilst Former FP is right in saying "the customer is protected" the truth is that in this specific section of the lending market, the consumer is the least protected of any sector and experience proves this. That said, if you fight hard enough you find your way to the people who can hwlp and that is where we are now. At no point has anyone put up an argument to deny what unfair contract clauses are about and why Fp may not be breaching them and I would love someone to state why. I understand FP have sought their own legal advise and Former stated "they told them they were OK", well of course they would give out that message. Look at the accounts, look at the regulations and if you cannot see what has happened then look again until you see it.

To end, this is what the OFT have from me:

Additionally, FP have since produced accounts to Dec 2008 and this completely explains their behaviour and shows their actions are directly linked to utilising the interest rate clause to directly improve their gross income profit position - a clear contravention of UCCT.For clarity, I have summarised the position as follows:The interest rate clause reads...

"We may from time to time vary our interest rates. We may increase or reduce
our interest rate for one or more of the following reasons, namely, 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."

The market perception of variable is that loan rates will move in line with a change in one of the publicised benchmark rates that exist, namely Bank of England base rate, LIBOR or FHBR. In the first years of my agreement, changes in interest rate followed changes in Bank of England base rate and I hold letters indicating a link between the changes in bank base and my FP loan. It is acknowledged within the accounts of First Plus that their lending costs are linked to Bank of England base rate. I also attach an interest rate graph that shows rate movements historically and clearly identifies the actions of the funder to change what underpins the loan for its own gain. The FSA have also indicated the loan may in essence have been missold.

In recent times, since the falling trend in base rates, First Plus have refused to change interest rates, disassociating themselves from any link to ANY base rate and citing changes in house prices and competitor loan rates as justification for their actions. The truth is, these matters bear no consequence to their underlying funding costs and are simply using these excuses to portray "commercial judgement" when in truth they are manipulating the interest clause to their own gain, to my detriment and changing the nature of the bargain completely in their favour.

The latest financial accounts for First Plus, that underline their activities, convince me that they are operating a "one sided bargain" in the application of their interest rate terms to my detriment. Their accounts show:

1 the business is now noted as having "Going Concern" basis and parent co Barclays has had to issue letter of continued support


2 other income (i.e. PPI ) has dropped as the company is no longer offering new loans thus the only source of true income is the difference between interest income and interest expense. Any reference made to remaining "competitive" is thus irrelevant, unless those companies involved are undertaking collective price fixing practices.


3 their own loan funding is linked to Bank Base (as noted in their accounts) and as such their own funding costs have dropped dramatically in the last year


4 they have distanced themselves as far as possible from linking customer rates to base rates when this was historically the case ( see attached graph)

5 their accounts show they have almost doubled the gap between their interest income and interest cost through the manipulation of their terms. The gap has increased from £53m to £93m and base rate was still at 2% at 31/12/08. With BBR now at 0.5% this gap will have increased even more as customer rates have not been varied. This is a clear attempt to manipulate terms "to protect profit margins". Any resolution will require restatement of loans so that the gap between their costs and interest income is back to the £40 -£50m it has been historically. If this is not enough to enable the business to survive that is their problem and underlines why they manipulated and abused the interest rate clause.


6 even with the manipulation they still lost £20m and without it they would have lost in excess of £50m. Barclays has had to inject £9m to maintain liquidity.


It is clear they are using the scope within their terms and conditions for "commercial judgement" to fundamentally manipulate the interest charged to customers to cover their own losses in other areas. Now they have created this gap between income costs and income, they have no choice but to pass on future changes in Bank Of England base rate to customers as they have noability to be profitable without doing so.With rates at the bottom of the cycle and the lender refusing to explain any mechanical means by which to allow customers to budget, then I fear not only for now but for the future also. The current market means, I like many, are in negative equity and the ability to dissolve the contract by means of settlement is not possible.To this end I am trapped in fear with the one sided nature of the contract within which I find myself and one I would not have entered into had the clause been explained in practise at point of sale.

With specific regard to how this breaches Unfair Contract Clause Terms :
1 UCCT clause 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.

The process used by First Plus to apply rate increases and avoid rate decreases has clearly led to a significant imbalance in my rights to my detriment.

2 UCCT Clause 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.’

There is no fair and open dealing as they will not disclose how or why they calculate / change their rates with any practical application. When I have asked them directly or via the FLA they simply requote the interest rate clause which is vague and essentially states they can do as they please by applying their "commercial judgement". Their commercial judgement has seen them unable to offer new loans, seen them lose £50m in the last 2 trading years, seen them face a barrage of missold PPI claims ( and have huge provisions in your accounts for the settlement of current claims), seen them be noted now as a Going Concern, seen them have to note Secret Commission allegations, seen them requiring a Letter of Support from Barclays who have also had to bail them out to the tune of £9m. I am struggling to come to terms with their ability to apply "commercial judgement" in anything other than a self supporting manner. I note also, Barclays had to amend an investment product with a similar term allowing Barclays to apply "its judgement".

2 UCCT Clause 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.’

There is no fair and open dealing as they will not disclose how or why they calculate / change their rates with any practical application. When I have asked them directly or via the FLA they simply requote the interest rate clause which is vague and essentially states they can do as they please by applying their "commercial judgement". Their commercial judgement has seen them unable to offer new loans, seen them lose £50m in the last 2 trading years, seen them face a barrage of missold PPI claims ( and have huge provisions in your accounts for the settlement of current claims), seen them be noted now as a Going Concern, seen them have to note Secret Commission allegations, seen them requiring a Letter of Support from Barclays who have also had to bail them out to the tune of £9m. I am struggling to come to terms with their ability to apply "commercial judgement" in anything other than a self supporting manner. I note also, Barclays had to amend an investment product with a similar term allowing Barclays to apply "its judgement".


3 Where a term which merely says that variations will only be 'reasonable' or will only be made 'reasonably', is unlikely to be any fairer than one which contains no such qualification, unless there can be little doubt in a reasonable consumer's mind as to what sort of variation, broadly speaking, such wording allows, and in what circumstances. Where the criteria of reasonableness are vague, or clearly meant to include the best commercial interests of the business, there will be scope for the supplier to change the bargain unfairly to the detriment of consumers, simply on the basis that he needs to protect his profit margins. This is self explanatory and evidenced in the accounts.

4 The compliance expert appointed by the BBC on its recent Moneybox programme, Adam Samuel, noted that there were clear breaches of Unfair Contract Clause terms and as such the enforceability of the loan may be called in to question.


Had First Plus taken anytime to explain how they would apply the term variable to my loan at point of sale, knowing that they would be operating their loan outside of market understood norms, then I simply would not have entertained any level of loan with them.

I require that this specific clause is investigated due to the way in which it clearly is allowing First Plus to do as it pleases and I have serious fears for the future when interest rates start to increase as I am being afforded no explanation or information to give me the peace of mind I need or the ability to budget accordingly.

The breaches in Unfair Contract Clause Terms is clear as you can see and I require you to investigate this immediately.

Anyone who has not yet complained to the OFT re FP then please use the above information and complain immediately.