Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

[Halifax71]

Hi all - posted this on another thread as an update to my ongoing complaint with Barclays FirstPlus (BFP). Think it's more appropriate for here so here goes.

The OFT has recently reprimanded BFP - dated 7th Dec 10. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/con...first-plus.pdf

However as it stands the OFT are refusing the make public the nature of the reprimand as they say it it is not in the public interest. Although the reprimand does highlight that the arguments put forward are valid, it does not help in the fight for retrospective realigment of rates.

Has anyone any experience of arguing for OFT reprimands being made public. I'm already seeking disclosure under s241a of the EA and I have also asked the FOS to reconsider their recent rejection of my complaint as I don't believe they have taken it into consideration.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance

[The Debt Star]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Dunno - ask Carol Vorderman - she earned enough money out of the blighters http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...FirstPlus.html

[Amethyst]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

You asked under FOI and they refused on what basis ?

[shell]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Dunno - ask Carol Vorderman - she earned enough money out of the blighters http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...FirstPlus.html

It's always sad when people lose their jobs, but having had the experience of dealing with the Cardiff mob, I'm having a little difficulty feeling any sympathy. I can understand toeing the company line to a certain extent, but actually being rude to its customers, well they got it down to a fine art.

[The Debt Star]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

It's always sad when people lose their jobs, but having had the experience of dealing with the Cardiff mob, I'm having a little difficulty feeling any sympathy. I can understand toeing the company line to a certain extent, but actually being rude to its customers, well they got it down to a fine art.

Totally agree with you.

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

You asked under FOI and they refused on what basis ?

I've sought disclosure under s241a of the EA which if your not aware is disclosure with a view to using information for civil action. (Guidance attached for convenience).

They are treating this as a FOI request though so we'll see. They refused to disclose last time I asked for info whilst the investigation was ongoing as it wasn't in the public interest and might harm the legitimate business of the company.

Info so far from the OFT to our complaints group is as follows: -

Decisions to issue Press Notices are made on a case by case basis and our standard policy is to publicise action when we wish to send a warning to other parts of an industry or when we wish to live advice to consumers on a particular matter. While we issue press notices in a number of cases it is also standard practice not to issue a press notice in some cases. In this case the requirements imposed on Firstplus were to ensure that it follows in full the policies and procedures agreed with the OFT. As such we took the decision that the nature of these requirements did not justify a press release in this instance. The fact of the requirements action and the text of the requirements were however made public through our Website and has not been hidden in any way.

While we are not able to disclose further details of the investigation, including information provided to the OFT or our assessment of it, the requirement places an ongoing commitment on Firstplus to comply in particular with the second charge lending guidance. The effect of this is to confirm that the relevant clause which was the subject of your complaint should be read in conjunction with the relevant parts of the second charge lending guidance (for instance, para 4.4). The specific policies and procedures agreed with Firstplus are commercially confidential documents relating to the business processes of Firstplus. It is for that reason that those documents have not been made public.


"You also refer to retrospective realignment of interest rates. In this regard you should be aware that under the Consumer Credit Act, section 33C(3) states that when imposing requirements, the OFT cannot require 'a person [.........] to compensate or otherwise make amends to, another person'. Consumers who wish to pursue redress in any circumstances should contact the Financial Ombudsman
Service or alternatively go to court under the unfair relationship provisions of
the Act (section 140A)." http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/33C

A lengthy reply was sent which I won't bother posting here but the reply from the OFT was if we wanted to complain then we could do via their official channels.

This is going to be done, but I just thought i'd pick a few brains on here about routes to disclosure.

Thanks in advance.

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Bump - anyone? Just wondering if i've missed anything.

The 2 things i've asked for are: -

1. 1. Reconsider the decision to withhold the specific details of the policies and procedures that Barclays Firstplus must now adhere to. Surely public interest, especially to the 50,000+ customers, would be served by releasing details.
   
   2. Reconsider the decision to refuse my request for disclosure under Section 241a of the Enterprise Act 2002. My e-mail below dated the 18th April 10 can be reused as my reasons. To reiterate I am fully aware of the restrictions this would place on me regarding wider circulation and I once again confirm that any information disclosed would be used solely for the purpose of seeking legal redress via the courts.
   
   I've sent them a little reminder today - copied below for info.
   
   Can I respectfully ask that, with a view to progressing this matter, the OFT ensures that should my 2 requests be unsuccessful that this is the OFT’s final response on the matter, i.e. it exhausts the OFT’s complaints procedure / is on behalf of the General Counsel?
   
   As you know I have been through this process before and received a refusal to disclose from Frances Barr (General Counsel). The refusal to disclose stated it was: -
   
   ·Against the public interest;
   ·Not necessary for my contemplated proceeding, and;
   ·Could significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the business to which it relates.
   
   I accepted this at the time as it was clear, although unconfirmed, that an investigation was ongoing. Now that the investigation is complete there is only one party benefiting from non disclosure, and it certainly is not the customer.
   
   I do not want to placed in a position where I have to waste even more time seeking a review from within the OFT hierarchy. The next steps will involve asking my MP to request the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reviews the actions of the OFT and then based on their response taking civil action.
   
   I would like to remind the OFT of the purpose of s241a of the EA: -
   
   “Section 241A EA02 enables public authorities in certain circumstances to disclose information where the information is to be used for civil proceedings or otherwise for the purposes of establishing, enforcing or defending legal rights. This will include prospective proceedings, taking legal advice in respect of proceedings and alternative ways of establishing, enforcing or defending legal rights such as Alternative Dispute Resolution schemes.”
   
   “Although the new disclosure gateway is discretionary, a public authority must exercise the discretion in good faith and for the purposes of the legislation, which is to help consumers and IP rights holders to obtain their legal rights. The Act and the Order lay down detailed criteria for making disclosure (in particular in section 244). Where the criteria are satisfied a public authority would be expected to disclose unless there was a legally proper reason to justify nondisclosure. Although the authority will need to satisfy itself that the grounds for the request are genuine it is not required to make a judgement about the likelihood of success for the consumer or IP rights holder.”
   
   I hope I can now rely of the OFT to “do what is right” and either make the content of the OFT reprimand public or disclose to me under s241a. Once again, if it is the latter, I am fully aware of the constraints this places on me regarding wider circulation.
   
   As always I am happy to discuss this request in more detail if required.
   
   I look forward to your reply by the 24th January 11.
   
   
   

[elbmek]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

First Plus belongs to Barclays? I never knew that. In the 90s I was buying this house, I needed £10k as a bridge for a month until my Army severance came through. I asked them for £10k for ONE month to pay for the moving, legal fees etc and they duly obliged. At no time did they tell me it would cost me £1500 to pay it off in a month!! I was really annoyed especially as my bloody mortgage was with Barclays!!

[shell]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Elbmek,

You aren't the only one that was caught by this mob. I went to my mortgage provider, Woolwich, to remortgage. My house was in positive equity and I wanted less than the equity I had. They said no, but knew someone who would give me a loan, in fact the mortgage advisor even phoned First Plus for me. So kind I thought! Only a few years later did I discover that both the Woolwich and First Plus belong to Barclays.

[righty]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Tell them you'll seek an order as follows:- Norwich Pharmacal Orders | Commercial Litigation Lawyers describe orders for information delivery

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Cheers Righty - I'll try that. Got my response from the OFT. See attached.

Expected refusal but still infuriating. And they have failed to provide me with my requested final response, i.e. from the GeneraL Counsel. This stops the issue being referred to the PHSO now. My inital reply is below.

--------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the reply David – to say I’m disappointed would be an understatement.

The attached says to me that the OFT accepts that the company have done wrong but won’t disclose because it could harm the business and the ongoing role of the OFT. That cannot be right – what about me, the customer who has been and continues to be harmed by this wrong? Clearly I don’t matter.

I know the OFT cannot forced retrospective action, but the FOS and the courts can, so I need the details. To refuse under the FOI is bad enough but to argue that it is not necessary for civil action is showing clear bias. Using your interpretation, s241a is completely defunct.

I’m a public servant, have been for 20 years, and therefore appreciate the constraints that are forced upon government bodies, but these walls that are being placed in front of me are a real concern. As per my email of the 19th January “As you’re aware the FOS are stating that they are unaware of any specific requirements placed on FirstPlus, and FirstPlus are happily telling me that there is no suggestion that their actions to date have been in breach of legislation or the Second Charge Lending Guidance. Apparently your ruling means they have done nothing wrong – I assume then all businesses get these as a matter of course.” I really can’t believe that despite my evidence the OFT & FOS are forcing me to go to court. I won’t put my real thoughts down in writing.

Maybe you should review the purpose of the wider implications process - www.wider-implications.info/. Or maybe over 50,000 affected customers and over £300m of profiteering is not deemed to be a wider implications issue.

I will formally appeal once my MP (Paul Maynard) has reviewed your decision. I have given Mr Maynard permission to discuss this on my behalf so he may wish to discuss with you.

[righty]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Elbmek,

You aren't the only one that was caught by this mob. I went to my mortgage provider, Woolwich, to remortgage. My house was in positive equity and I wanted less than the equity I had. They said no, but knew someone who would give me a loan, in fact the mortgage advisor even phoned First Plus for me. So kind I thought! Only a few years later did I discover that both the Woolwich and First Plus belong to Barclays.

Quite they force consumers into the clutches of their wholly owned sub-prime lenders in order to rip them off even more

[ncf355]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Elbmek,

You aren't the only one that was caught by this mob. I went to my mortgage provider, Woolwich, to remortgage. My house was in positive equity and I wanted less than the equity I had. They said no, but knew someone who would give me a loan, in fact the mortgage advisor even phoned First Plus for me. So kind I thought! Only a few years later did I discover that both the Woolwich and First Plus belong to Barclays.

Shell,

did you take action on this?

Surely you have a right for redress as they were acting against your best interests and in their own favour?

(Fudiciary duty?)

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Just an update. Below is my review request sent a few weeks ago and attached is the General Counsel's refusal. My MP is going to refer to the PHSO.

Good Morning – Can you please escalate this as soon as possible. I would appreciate it if you could refer direct to the General Counsel if possible.

As Mr Blocksridge has separated the two issues I wish this request to be solely about the refusal to disclose under s241a of the EA. Although I am not happy about the refusal under the FOI I do not intend to waste my time arguing this point.

It is very disappointing to note that Mr Blocksridge has felt it necessary to start the clock again on this matter. I’m sure you will agree that enough time has been spent arguing this point and it needs escalating to a neutral party, i.e. the PHSO and / or the court.

It is my intention to seek a court order once a final decision is provided but I would like to point out that my limited knowledge of the legal system appears to infer that, under the Norwich Pharmacal principle, it does not matter that a third party considered some of the information to be confidential, holding that the public interest in confidentiality was outweighed by the interests of justice in disclosure for the purpose of the plaintiff's intended proceedings.

That aside it is clear to me that the only parties benefiting from non-disclosure are the business and the OFT itself.

The stance that it is not in the public interest is an irrelevance as under s241a I could not share the information so it would not get into the public domain.

Similarly, the legitimate business interests would not be harmed as I could not share any of the information. It would be used solely for ascertaining exactly what formed the basis of the reprimand and using that information to seek justice through the courts.

You state that I have not demonstrated that disclosure is necessary. To be honest I’m staggered by this viewpoint. The OFT and Firstplus have it appears come to some sort of “agreement”. This “agreement” takes the form of some “policies and procedures disclosed to the OFT”. Now correct me if I’m wrong but I think it is reasonable to assume that a formal reprimand under s33a is a result of a “wrong”. That “wrong” may or may not have a direct impact on the arguments that FirstPlus have breached law, regulation or code of practice in the administration of their interest rates. The OFT appear to me to be making a judgement about the likelihood of success of my proposed action. You are not supposed to do this. This is a genuine request for information, and the OFT would be demonstrating clear bias by arguing that it is not.

I would appreciate urgent reconsideration of this refusal in order for me to escalate to the PHSO and / or the court at the earliest opportunity.

[Halifax71]

Re: Firstplus' OFT reprimand - Disclosure

Just an update. The PHSO have received the complaint - see attached. I'm not holding out much hope.

The legal route is the only one left now. Working on that one.

That aside the lenders 2010 accounts have recently been published. These reaffirm what we already know in that the loss of £100m p/a in fees and commisssions has had no impact on their balance sheet. It's nice to know that we're keeping them afloat. They've also repaid 27% of their overdraft (their funding stream) in the last 2 years. This is 4 times more than they have done historically.

This issue is expected to be given some media exposure in the very near future as it links in nicely with the PPI aftermath in that customers are going to foot the bill via increased interest.

I'll update after the event.