Beavis. I see what you are trying to achieve here, but it does appear that you are trying to put hte cart before the horse. The lack of a credit agreement at this stage really means not a lot, it is when the lender tries to enforce the debt via the courts, this is where they will come up with some serious issues, no agreement, no debt enforceable.. Lenders have are not under any law to disclose data to CRA's it is purely voluntary. However should lenders choose to share the data then they are under legal obligation to ensure the data is true and accurate. Dont worry about the default at the moment, there aint no credit about anyway. Take your time and think about what you are arguing, since the account is in default the lender will no doubt be passing it over to a DCA for enforcement, when this happens, ask the DCA for a copy of the agreement, and when they cant produce, then the debt does not exist. Should they take you to court, you may then be able to argue the enforceability of the debt, and therefore could possible request that court to remove the default. Better to bring the mountain to mohammed than mohammed going to the mountain. Best Of Luck to you.

More of a case of keeping mum, when the lenders are watching.. why give them a heads up to what we are doing .. remember lenders can read these forums too.

Varda, sorry, was going to reply earlier, however these sort of discussions on a public Forum that FIRSTPLUS will no doubt be visiting, really would prejudice your case. I am part of the "Firstplus Complaints" Forum and we note Firstplus popping in and reading our forums each day, so we had to secure it. I will say you have many options and dont even consider the FOS as you will be waiting at least a year.

Standard Letter in the first part. You have to be aware that unless you send the letter direct to a named individual the complaint gets logged in summary into the "Respond CenterPoint – Complaint Management System" Basically if you send it to Complaints Department. Some jobsworth will enter it in as "Mr Complained about mis -sold policy" What it seems here is that they are now taking task on the entire contents of the letter, due to the AMOUNT of complaints being raised for issues not being addressed. The letters they are sending are most definetly pre defined: 4 Week Hold 8 Week Hold Letters, I noticed on my SAR and this was confirmed by one of our whistleblowers that these HOLD letters are entered into the diary at the same time. Which is just wrong.. they really should deal with each complaint in full and only issue hold letters if it is required. Software Used By FIRSTPLUS: http://www.cdcsoftware.com/en/Customers/A-to-Z-Listing.aspx?name=Barclays

Ayman, was your loan through a broker?

The media have contacted the members over at FPC site, and I have personally spoken to two financial journalists who are working on stories at the moment. The FPC site is more about raising media awareness, but does have access to some great solicitors and companies who are helping the members.. this of course is legally privelleged information and is therefore discussed directly between member and counsel, outside of the forum.

Nothing on the Firstplus complaints site will help the member here, as most of the legal stuff is now secured away from prying eyes in a private forum. What I can tell you is that there are cases going to court that involve the sale of PPI amongst a few other issues, just waiting to hear the results of such. However what is clear is there are issues much bigger than the sale of PPI, in the coming weeks one should pay close attention to the media especially with regards to Firstplus.

The FOS have a back log of queues a year long now, and FIRSTPLUS complaints are notoriously some of the longest. In the context of the situation in this thread, a member is going through repossession procedings. Clearly it is not in the interest to simply go to the FOS and wait for a resolve, as this matter needs urgent attention. Once Court proceedings have commenced it therefore allows the member to highlight issues with the terms of the contract and ultimately the additional premiums levied and associated costs of such. The member must come across as fair and reasonable despite the opposite approach from the lender. If issues do exists with the PPI, the judge is likely to take these issues into consideration and therefore possible to grant recission of the PPI policy. Now I do appreciate the FOS are able to deal with cases of a Vanilla nature, they are neither educated or equiped to deal with issues of common law, issues such as agency law and unfair terms really should be dealt with by a court. The issues of this case are many, firstly, firstplus never disclose commissions paid or recieved from insurer, or to a broker. This could be deemed as a party to a breach or a direct breach of its fiduciary duty. These are just a few issues, as the list is exhaustive.

Many Thanks..

The Fight Continues.. Just waiting for a result on the Bank Charges Case, before making my next move. Also the Julie Edwards Number has changed to 01908 349822

The worst part is that they never wrote and told me about it, I called them and asked why they had not responded to my last letter, and the said "Your default was removed, sorry we made a mistake" Thats it.. nothing else, then got a phone call 2 days later asking if I would like to top up my loan to consolidate the credit card so as to benefit from a fixed 8% rate. What a very bizarre journey. It may take years to resolve, but I would warn any company that tries it on with me, that I WILL NEVER GIVE UP, that being said I would like to offer my sincere thanks to EGG, for without your contemptible attitude it would not have encouraged me to go back to University and Study for my Law Degree. Once qualified I will be back on these boards, helping others to fight on. My advice to anyone dealing with companies such as this, is to hang in there and know that "You are not alone"

Sorry for the Late Update. But EGG overturned the DEFAULT. and returned my account to good standing.

Ladies/Gents. As a fellow complainant and owner of a complaints Site, I can tell you that we get visits daily from Several Banks, including the one to which our site is about, time is spent browsing our forums, viewing profiles and reading content. I therefore believe that certain communications in an open forum, can only prejudice the client here, as tactics and methodolgy are being discussed. While I see the importance of discussing openly in order to assist other users in similar situations, one should bear in mind the public access to the forum, and should always therefore consider what is being said. Sensitive responses should therefore be done in private. What is basically happening is that the Lenders Counsel and the Lender are aware of your arguments before court proceedings and are therefore at an advantage. I do wish that Lenders would of course respect the claimants, and of course the goodwill of the board, however from a RISK MANAGEMENT point of view, it is essential for these lenders to know what is going on and how each other lenders are responding to similar complaints. I would like to make a request to the Owners of this Board to allow for some form of Secured Access, where legal advisory priviledge could be observed.

Get responses daily from them. What do you need to know

Great Thread. so looking to revive a little, with a poset. PPI, when sold through a broker. The lender claims to to be the intermediary to the insurer in the sale of PPI. The Lender asserts its membership to GISC and infers that the purchase of insurance from a GISC member is a protection for the principle should things go wrong. Despite this the Lender blames the Broker for the Sale, and therefore nullifies the protection of the Lenders GISC membership. The broker is not a member of GISC. Therefore the representations of the Policy Documentation are arguable. Any Thoughts?