Excellent idea Mr M

regards - M
Read more...

was just washing up (stupid dishwasher from freecycle is playing up) and well had a thought does as well as being listed on the credit license in time when they are available this will mean there is a SC clause in the acounts.

BTW mr firstplus spy (am sure there must be one) we know why they acted it is becouse of the reasons set out in the SC, following the logic in relation to the primary legislation and the code of conducts that reflect
Read more...

thanks marmite how you doing?

think that is step 1.5 ask for the info first and then tell um why maybe ???

thing is they may hasve agread not to tell, they may mearly have agread not to publicise re some bits. in which case they might tell without to much persuassion
Read more...

was just drafting my initial response

Dear sirs I wrote to you and lodged a complaint regarding firstplus financial over a year ago, I note that other complaints have been clearly received as this is evedant from your reply. I am also aware of a complaint from a consumer action group.

It has now come to my attention that you have taken action in the form of a section 33a requirement regarding interest rates.

Whilst I appreciate that you have acted relatively quickly in this matter (once brought to your attention) I am concerned that your action is effectively just shuting the stable door after the horse has bolted, it may be that your hands are tied in this respect, equally it may not. In any case the horse has bolted and I suppose that it is now down to others to act.

As one of those others I do intend to act, for it is my horse , so to speak, and I can’t afford to have it thieved from me (to keep in metaphor) and to that end I must I suppose go to the FOS or courts; so I shall. ~Now in order to save them time and in order to allow for this action to take place I request of you the answer to the following.

1 in what way firstplus were deficient?
2 exactly what they now have to do?
3 for how long they have acted in a way you consider deficient?
Read more...

having looked at things am reckoning the OFT action is really a lip service action and it is down to us to make it into something else, we presented them with an irrefutable case and they had to act but the way they acted does them little credit, now wev must take it elsewhere we know we are right.
Read more...

moveing on and hopeing, was reading this www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leafl..._licences/oft969.pdf

"sec 4.12

If the OFT imposes a s33A requirement on you, information about this
will be entered on the Consumer Credit Register with the details of your
licence.16"

now can we simply get hold of this "consumer credit register" to find out what it says about the sec33 requirment and will if it tell us any more than we allready know????
Read more...

maybe....

but in anycase
1 they have acted (under sec33), meaning that FP acted unfairly to a greater or lesser extent
2 they have done this due to unfairness (highlighting the OFT guidance)
3 they have done this in response to the arguments we have put forward ~(sc and others)
4 they are saying they are limited in what they can do (appears to be true)
5 theyare saying that the FOS (although Halifax is finding this hard) and the courts can take the action we want.
6 the law on sec140 does allow the courts to act on "unfair credit relationships"
7 the law has wide ranging responses and powers under this section, reflecting disperate and proportinate responses.
8 in asserting the case re sec 140 we do not have to prove our case they have to disprove it.

am thinking that one thro severn make it very hard for them to disprove infact one thro severn actually would do the job (providing disclosure of OFT info if we had to prove our case.

so once again happy new year coz this is defo a way forward.
Read more...

Hope you had a good christmas too,,nearly over for another 365 days
Read more...