• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum. Please register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
  • LegalBeagles® is a free forum, founded in May 2007, providing legal guidance and support to consumers and SME's across a range of legal areas.

    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

    Decided it was time to file my claim after attempting to get the regulators to do their job. Over 5 years the FOS, the OFT, the PHSO, the ICO and the CMA have all considered disclosure of information that would assist me in identifying whether I have been wronged. They have colluded to ensure information that would answer my contentions straight away is not shared, even under the stringent EA241A disclosure legislation. Shocking doesn't quite do this charade justice.

    Anyhow as the published accounts clearly show that the only increased costs incurred by the bank are PPI related, e.g. introducer commissions (69% of total income at inception), whilst everything else, e.g. interest expense & operating costs have plummeted, my claim is a pretty simple one.
    What costs havebeen incurred by the lender, above and beyond those in place at loaninception, that legitimately explain why our loan liability (Capitalplus Interest) over the course of 25 years should be increased.

    The loan book was sold to Elderbridge Ltd in January and neither would admit it was their responsibility to defend the claim at LBA stage - so I've filed against both - let the court decide.

    I've asked for the claim to be considered under, but not limited to, the CCA 140 Unfair Relationships.

    I've included the summary discussions that were disclosed recently disclosed http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...ight=firstplus
    as this spells out the OFT's initial thoughts, i.e. that it was an unfair relationshipbut then failed to progress that point, and included a brief summary of the accounts over the last 10 years showing the shift in the income activity. Note - only legitimate costs that have an effect on my loan can be passed on to my APR.

    My claim here is for fairness, not to avoid my liability, it always has been, always will be. The bottom line is I'm being made to pay extra due to the banks failed business model which was built in PPI.

    Fingers crossed that I get a decent judge. I've requested, as a minimum, removal of the excess liability, unless legitimate costs are identified.
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

    The disclosure report mentioned above makes for some pretty disturbing reading, especially from, the consumer protectorate.

    The reprimand served on Firstplus in 2010 by the OFT required, the company to change its RCAPPM (rate change & policy procedures manual) so there was something clearly wrong in how they calculated interest rates &/or increases.

    You can clearly read in the letter from Barclay's the desire to keep this information from going public. The OFT kindly obliged. If it was not for the efforts of a few determined individuals, none of this information would be available today.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

      There is extra evidence not included in the above, such as Parlaimentary Ombudsman confirming "On the 6 November 2009 the OFT Legal Director responded to the Head of Secured Lending's request for an update on this issue. The Legal Director had spoken to another official at the OFT and they were in agreement that "the way into this kind of interest rate clause is unlikely to be via UTCCR" and that "In fact it looks like a classic potentially unfair relationship - you get the benefit dear lender when rates go up but you do not give me the benefit when they go down.."

      The regulators could have made this go away very quickly by disclosing - assuming there is actually evidence of justifiable costs, of course. When asked they refused to answer due to disclosure restrictions.

      The bottom line is that no such costs exist, and the regulators knew, they just failed to do anything about it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

        The OFT’s decision not to take action under the UTCCR 1999


        78. Up until March 2013 under the UTCCRs the OFT had a duty to consider a complaint that any contract term drawn up for general use was unfair. It was at the OFT’s discretion whether it took action. The OFT received a number of complaints in 2009 and as result considered whether it should take action. It is clear that the OFT did consider whether it should take action under the UTCCRs.


        79. In November 2009 the OFT first considered that it might not be the ‘way in’ for looking at the concerns about interest variation and also questioned whether it would be able to take action under the UTCCRs, as the interest rate could be considered the price for the core service so was likely to be excluded from the UTCCRs. By early January 2010 it seems that the OFT had decided that it was not going to use its powers under the UTCCRs. In June 2010 a member of the OFT’s staff said that UTCCRs did apply to the interest variation clause and another member of staff said that there was a ‘reasonably strong argument’ that the term was unfair. However, the OFT did not explore pursuing the powers under the UTCCRs further and, when the investigation was concluded, that the matter was best addressed by another tool, in this case imposing requirements under the CCA 1974.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

          The OFT’s decision that Firstplus had not acted inconsistently with the SCL guidance


          82. During the OFT’s investigation it was concerned that the clause as it was written did not comply with section 4.4 of the SCL guidance which said that ‘Rates should only be increased on a loan to recover genuine increases in costs which have an effect on that loan’. The OFT sought significant information from Firstplus and met with it. Its concerns were backed up by a statement made at the 25 January 2010 meeting. The OFT sent a dissatisfaction letter to Firstplus as it was concerned that the wording of the clause allowed a breach of section 4.4.


          83. The OFT analysed data provided by Firstplus. While the OFT found that there was a potential for Firstplus to have acted inconsistently with the SCL guidance, it did not see evidence that Firstplus had acted inconsistently.


          84. As a result of the OFT’s concerns it decided to use its powers under section 33A of the CCA 1974 to impose requirements on Firstplus. Firstplus proposed a draft requirement, which the OFT considered, amended and issued. Read in isolation it does not look like the requirements would add anything to the existing obligations on Firstplus, as it already would have had to comply with the legislation and guidance. However, the requirement compelled Firstplus to follow ‘the policies and procedures it [had] disclosed’ which included the RCAPPM. It is this policy which was important, as it was reviewed and revised as a result of the meetings with the OFT and its dissatisfaction letter. With the requirement the OFT could be satisfied that the concerns that it had raised had been addressed and to prevent Firstplus from breaching the SCL guidance in the future.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

            Originally posted by Fred View Post
            .
            79. In November 2009 the OFT first considered that it might not be the ‘way in’ for looking at the concerns about interest variation and also questioned whether it would be able to take action under the UTCCRs, as the interest rate could be considered the price for the core service so was likely to be excluded from the UTCCRs. .
            Toquote from the Financial Services’ Authority’s Fairness of termsin consumer contracts Guide – “neitheran interest rate variation clause nor a premium review clause is acore term within the meaning of the Regulations because each relatesto varying the price rather than to setting the initial price.”

            It'll be interesting to see whether this is suggested as an argument - I doubt it will. I've a sneaky feeling they won't even contest.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

              District Judge Backhouse
              Approved Judgment
              First Plus v M & D
              looking at the bargain it seems to me that the Claimant has already secured itself a
              high return for the risk it is taking on.
              18. This is not, I accept, a case where there are simply no valid reasons given for a
              variation or the variation can be for any reason the firm sees fit. But in my judgment
              this clause does heavily favour the lender. It creates a significant imbalance in the
              parties’ rights and obligations, and it is clearly to the detriment of the consumer. So
              for those reasons I have concluded that it is unfair within regulation 5.1. Regulation
              8.1 provides that an unfair term is not binding on the Defendants. But the Regulation
              goes on to say that the contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of
              continuing its existence without the unfair term. Having discussed this with Ms.
              Witherington, it seems to me that it is perfectly possible to sever this term and for the
              contract to continue at the interest rate stated on the loan agreement, namely an APR
              of 9.4%, annual interest rate 9.06%, and that is what I shall find

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

                Well that is my claim, although in my case my inception APR was 8.4%. I still don't believe this is what the contract was "supposed" to do, but it certainly wasn't meant to include the possibility of base rates reducing 80% and APR's increasing 10%.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

                  Originally posted by Halifax71 View Post
                  Well that is my claim, although in my case my inception APR was 8.4%. I still don't believe this is what the contract was "supposed" to do, but it certainly wasn't meant to include the possibility of base rates reducing 80% and APR's increasing 10%.
                  Yes & hopefully it "will" be successful. What these lenders get away with baffles me sometimes :tinysmile_twink_t2:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

                    Hi new to this but as you can guess me and my ex wife are in exactly the same position as so many overs regarding first plus.

                    We had taken out a loan back in 2005 and after paying for 11 years phoned up and was told there was more owing than we originally had taken out.

                    We are looking at clause 7 and it states in there about the Apr only been twice the base rate etc

                    Will defiantly be keeping an eye on what happens with halifax71 case.

                    Thanks

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

                      Originally posted by Ha20px View Post
                      Hi new to this but as you can guess me and my ex wife are in exactly the same position as so many overs regarding first plus.

                      We had taken out a loan back in 2005 and after paying for 11 years phoned up and was told there was more owing than we originally had taken out.

                      We are looking at clause 7 and it states in there about the Apr only been twice the base rate etc

                      Will defiantly be keeping an eye on what happens with halifax71 case.

                      Thanks
                      Have you read this;

                      http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...=oft+reprimand

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

                        Mini update - I have a mediation call in June.

                        The defendants original solicitors have been replaced by one firm - Hogan Lovells. They want me to discontinue against Firstplus as they say it's misconceived. Only after I filed against both and only after they both potted their original counsel in favour of Lovells have Elderbridge accepted they are responsible. I've so far refused as I believe it may harm my case - e.g. not sure if there would be a causal link between my contract and Elderbridge and as such it may reduce the liability. The threat of costs has been made but the excess work is essentially duplicating a form here and their which will be negligible and in my opinion it's self inflicted due to their less than helpful stance at LBA stage when neither would confirm where responsibility lay.

                        I would estimate that they have already spent more defending this case than its value as I doubt Hogan Lovells hourly rate will be cheap.

                        All they have to do to make me go away is to show what legitimate costs have been incurred, above and beyond the massive reductions in borrowing and operating costs, that for some reason impact my loan whilst not being documented in the audited accounts.

                        Then again, they don't exist so they can't.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

                          There are no legitimate excuses for abusing a position purely for the profits of an organisation, when you consider what is at risk, it, makes the situation even more astounding in the fact that it can be allowed to continue.

                          There are years to go (2030 +) on these types of contracts & still nothing done by way of any regulatory support.

                          The only way forward is to push against these people & make it known what they are about. It is fantastic to read somebody is standing up to them & long may it continue with others joining force.

                          Regulation should be ashamed of their stance, not, the consumers.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

                            Hi I requested statements from elderbridge and after being fobbed off sent subject access request the disc supplied by them had only a retrospective statement on no interest . I contacted ico and elderbridge to find out why data was withheld still no response. Ico are writing to elderbridge to ask them if they are withholding data and why . I have stopped payments now three months behind let's see what elderbridge do next .

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Claim against Barclays / Firstplus & Elderbridge Ltd

                              Hi, I am now looking into options of how to fight Firstplus/Elderbridge yet again. I fought through the courts in 2014/15 to try and stop Firstplus from takeing possession of our home and I lost in court and ended up having to find £25k to stop the bailifffs from changing the locks, yes it got to that and the court bailliff waited on our doorstep while I quickly scrapped money together off friends and family. That worked at that time and we thought we were safe. Then along came Elderbridge.

                              My counter claim to Firstplus's possession order was that not only had they fudged the interest charges all the way through the term of the loan but also they had dispearsed the PPI refund payment that I fought for and got in 2012, ILLEGALLY by not clearing all arrears first. Also their calculation of the PPI refund was flawed and totally incorect and didn't alllow for the extra interest they had charged to my account based on the arrears accrued when I had lost my job in 2008 and found out that the insurance only paid out for 9 months. Some good their goldstar PPI was!

                              Brief details:-
                              Loan taken out in 2004
                              I lost my job and was out of work from 2008 until 2010
                              Put claim in against PPI in 2008
                              Insurance [Goldstar PPI] only paid out for 9 months.
                              Wasn't told until 2010, 9 months after insurance had ran out, that we were in arrears. Thought the insurance was covering everything as we had been told it would!
                              Made an arrangement, which made arrears even worse and the payments were not sustainable in fact they were impossible even though FP had income and outgoing reports.
                              Massive arrears charges added month on month from 2009 until 2014.
                              Made PPI Refund claim in 2012 and FP made us a payment, a payment that didn't seem correct at the time. In hindsight calculation was well flawed and totally inaccurate.
                              PPI refund that we got was supposed to be used to clear arrears first but it wasn't. FP used Half on arrears and half was put against capital.
                              Therefore arrears stayed and more arrears interest charges were applied and continually added until 2014 when Firstplus started possesion proceedings against us.
                              I fought back and asked 'in court' for an accurate statement of affairs including all interest charges and fees applied. This was never presented, even after I repeated request several times in court sessions.
                              On one ocassion the judge actually passed comment about the '£1000 suit' that Eversheds had sent in to court, saying that this seamed a bit over-kill for a house possession case and he wasn't going to be intimidated! The case was adjourned that day. Still never got proper statements though and he later ignored the lack of accurate statments.
                              In the subsequent visits to court, the judge seamed to get pee'd off by my counter claim and 'whinging' and found in favour of FP. I tried an appeal which I was only given 15 minutes to lodge and lost that too and had to race home and make calls to raise money because the courts bailiff arrived 10 minutes after I got home.
                              Fortunately I managed to pay FP and the bailiffs were recalled.
                              Job done or was it?

                              Now it would appear that our details have moved to Elderbridge sometime in January 2016 after 11 months since we paid FP and we now find that they are trying to get our home again and have sent us a letter to say they are applying for an eviction notice. But we have had no other contact from FP or Elderbridge and they say we are £6k in arrears! Arrears for what though? We have no loan with Elderbridge, no loan agreement exists, no payment terms of any form, oh yes and we don't owe them anything. FP won last year and got paid even though I didn't agree with the total cost. And up to yet we have paid nearly £80k for a what in reality was a £20k loan. When is enough a enough?

                              When are these companies going to be brought to justice?..... I fought alone and lost alone last time, now its all started again and it is so UNFAIR , how can this be legal?

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.

                              Announcement

                              Collapse
                              1 of 2 < >

                              SHORTCUTS

                              Pre-Action Letters
                              First Steps
                              Check dates
                              Income/Expenditure
                              Acknowledge Claim
                              CCA Request
                              CPR 31.14 Request
                              Subject Access Request Letter
                              Example Defence
                              Set Aside Application
                              Witness Statements
                              Directions Questionnaire



                              If you received a court claim and would like some help and support dealing with it, please read the first steps and make a new thread in the forum with as much information as you can.


                              NOTE: If you receive a court claim note these dates in your calendar ...
                              Acknowledge Claim - within 14 days from Service

                              Defend Claim - within 28 days from Service (IF you acknowledged in time)

                              If you fail to Acknowledge the claim you may have a default judgment awarded against you, likewise, if you fail to enter your defence within 28 days from Service.




                              We now feature a number of specialist consumer credit debt solicitors on our sister site, JustBeagle.com
                              If your case is over £10,000 or particularly complex it may be worth a chat with a solicitor, often they will be able to help on a fixed fee or CFA (no win, no fee) basis.
                              2 of 2 < >

                              Need Formal Help?




                              Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

                              Find a Law Firm


                              See more
                              See less

                              Court Claim ?

                              Guides and Letters



                              Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

                              Find a Law Firm


                              Loading...
                              Working...
                              X