Just when you think it can't get worse .... it does!!!

Why does FCF remind me of the phone hacking scandal ...... ???

First Crap Finance have done their utmost best to try to neutralise this thread and forum by trying to post here and pretending to be a “friend” of someone dealing with FCF and also by trying to threaten people (ha, ha), including me, in an attempt to convince them to stop posting here. Well First Crap Finance, there is a much simpler and easier way of doing this!! 1. Firstly, treat your customers well and do not treat them as “money objects”. 2. Start doing the job you promised and are paid to do. 3. Stop mis-selling what you can do. 4. Respond appropriate to al the legitimate complaints. 5. Stop to always blame the customer when things are wrong and do sometimes accept your responsibility. 6. Get another Compliance Manager. and so on … then the postings here will certainly diminish significantly. Remember, you cannot defeat a platform like this! Remember, it is only libel if it is untrue!!

I assume you received their “complaints procedure”, the one with the grammatical errors? I admit my English is not perfect, then it is not my first language but most importantly, I am NOT writing policy documents for a company!

She is funny, isn't she!! I will recommend to open an additional folder and call it 'Amusement' and file all her nonsense in there! They will probabley come up with some fabricated letters (as in my case) and believe everone will fall for it and do not realise that is the easiest thing to prove these fabrcations, but one should not be surprised! The FOS charge the company you are complaining about around £500 (not sure what the exact amount is). So for them to benefit say £300 they ran the risk of you reporting it to the FOS costing them £500! I assume they write it off against taxes but it still doesn't make sense why they are not doing the appropiate thing, deal correctly and fairly with your complaint (I forgot! you didn't complain!!) and save themselves the cost! When you report this to the FOS, I assume it will come to that because they will ignore everything and just steam on their own self righteous path!, you will then probably get another letter from her stating that you have opened another complaint (yep, reporting them to the FOS is another complaint!, told you an amusement folder is necessary!) and that it is a bogous complaint! Just for the record [Name Removed], when one refer your complaint to the FOS it has the reach the stage where both parties failed to come to an agreement and the person referrring the complaint the FOS and the company should not 'try' to resolve it but any negotions should take place through the FOS. Expect this from them and a claim that should you take them to court for any money they will counterclaim for your post here! he he. Gathering the current developments I assume me and [Name Removed] will against speak soon, I miss you!!

Thanks for the response, I did asked for a review and I added the information from the FSA. The woman from the FOS states that they look at it at a case by case basis and the individual circumstances. Well, my circumstances was exactly as described in the response of the FSA to CrapOne. Here is both the information from the FSA towards Crapone and the FOS decision towards me, anyone can see that they the FOS statement is the exact opposite op the point of view of the FSA. From the FSA website: “From January 2005 to April 2006, Capital One failed to ensure that 50,000 customers received important information about the policy including all exclusions although they did receive a policy summary. Affected customers were unable to check what they were covered for or if the policy was right for them”. Extract from the final notice issued by the FSA to Capital One: In particular, the Firm's failure to provide more than 50,000 customers with a policy document (rather than just a policy summary which was provided in all cases) meant that affected customers did not have the opportunity to consider all aspects of the PPI policy, and whether it may have met their demands and needs, prior to purchase. However, the provision of full policy information is important as PPI is a complex product which consumers need to fully understand in order to make the decision that it is suitable for their needs. As a result of the Firm's failure to provide a policy document, affected customers were not given full information to form a judgement to whether the policy was suited for their demands and needs. The FSA considers this to be a serious and significant failing. In a non-telephone sale, an insurance intermediary must generally provide the full policy terms and conditions to a customer prior to the conclusion of the contract. The FOS statement: The policy was sold by Capital One without any recommendation and they did not formally give advice. Capital One only provided product information (in the form of a summary overview document, a copy which is enclosed) to allow you to decide whether to purchase the policy or not. As such, it was incumbent upon you to satisfy yourself that the policy was suitable for your needs and to investigate alternative options or other means that might be available to you, before you made the decision to purchase.

I took out a PPI with a CrapOne card which was during the period the FSA found them guilty of failing to live up to their obligations, From the FSA website: “From January 2005 to April 2006, Capital One failed to ensure that 50,000 customers received important information about the policy including all exclusions although they did receive a policy summary. Affected customers were unable to check what they were covered for or if the policy was right for them”. Well the FOS decided that Crapone have done enough in my case (which is no diffrenet to that of the customers in which the FSA decided they failed to do so). I assume the only option now is to take legal action again the Crapone loosers? Will the fact that their buddies found in their favour count against me in a legal case??

Anyway, should they really contact your creditors without your permission (you didn't sign something giving them permission) then they are breaching the Data Protection Act AND Ching!!! Big payday for you!!

They are fat changers and very loose with facts! NO, they cannot charge you and should they try, refer the to the FOS for a £500 fee. They are aggresive and out of line and are trying to pressure you into signing up. just ignore them!!

They will probable do what they do when you cancel. Here is just some points I have learned while dealing with these clowns and I hope it can be of some use to someone who want to cancel their agreement with them. Upon cancelling they make hastily arrangements with the creditors for F&F settlements so that they can pocket 25% of the money “saved” by such arrangements. Therefore one should slam them with a section 10 notice of the DPA 1998 when you cancel so that they will have to supply good reason while they are still discussion your personal affairs with the creditors after you have informed them to cancel that. Unless they can provide a good enough reason why they should continue discussion your affairs with the creditors, they are not allowed under the DPA 1998 to do that. Them trying to make money out of the fact that you cancel, is certainly not a good enough reason. In the cancellation letter one must make it very clear to them that you cancel your arrangements with them and that it is with immediate effect and that all monies in their possession must be returned to you. Stating the fact that you cancel is very important, they try to play games by treating it as a complaint and therefore allowing them to continue to represent you and to make these unlawful F$F settlements while “investigating” your complaint. I believe you should also require them to refund the interest they drew on this money. When you give an organisation a section 10 notice you have to allow them sufficient time to adhere to it. It is understandable that organisations cannot immediately comply in certain situations. When you cancel with FCF then you will have to allow them enough time to “wind down” their involvement in representing you and finalise discussions and arrangements with your creditors. Therefore you will have to make it very clear that they have no permission to start new arrangements, them making F$F settlements arrangements after been served with such a notice, would be a breach of the DPA (that is my take on it and please provide a different argument and the reasoning behind it if you believe I am wrong). The fact that they keep the money in the “pot” and not paying the creditors seems to be something that is frowned upon. The FOS asked me for information to show that they have done that and it seems that the FOS is not too happy about it. The fact that they made F$F settlement deals after I informed them that they no longer represent me with immediate effect is one of their breaches of the DPA in my case, there are many more. The ICO have a huge backlog but I did receive a letter yesterday that they will look at setting up mediation and I will have them answering this very question and I will ask for compensation. I modified this from another thread: Statutory Notice pursuant to Sections 10 of The Data Protection Act 1998. Data Subject Notice To: Head of Compliance First Step Finance Your Address Dear [Name removed] Take notice that I require that First Step Finance cease from processing my personal data with immediately effect of the receipt by you of this Notice, especially that you do not begin to process any personal data of which I am the subject insofar as that processing involves the communication or passing of personal data of which I am the subject to any third party and insofar as the said data relates wholly or in part to the implementation by you of alleged defaults or contractual breaches or breaches contrary to The Common Law. Should you feel that there is a need for the communication or passing of my personal data to a third party after the receipt by you of this Notice, I require, as specified in The Data Protection Act 1998, your reasons for doing so and you must supply me with such reasons in writing not later than 10 days after the receipt by you of this Notice. Please note that this is especially true for new negotiations (started after the receipt by you of this Notice) with third parties and I believe there is no valid reason for you doing just that. This Notice is given on the grounds that the processing or continued processing by you of the said data will be likely to cause substantial damage and/or substantial distress to me and my family members in addition to that which has been caused to date. And that as the processing of the said data in the way referred to in this Notice would violate both the Principles and Data Subject’s rights of The Data Protection Act 1998, to do so would be both unwarranted and unlawful. Yours sincerely

The Stockport Circus, aka First Crap Finance, did try to influence people by posting here themselves pretending to be someone who has "friend" with these idiots are are very happy with these loosers, prima was one "name" they used. It stand out very clearly and they didn't made any head way. This "Prima" was kicked off anyway.

Here is the letter that I have send them: Without prejudice I informed you in a previous correspondence that you terminated this agreement upon an invalid Default Notice. An invalid Default Notice is equivalent to no Default Notice and therefore terminating this agreement without issuing a valid Default Notice is a breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and because of this unlawful rescission you are only entitled to claim the arrears outstanding at the date on this unlawful rescission on your part. Furthermore I believe that the agreement is un-enforceable for not containing the “Total Amount of Credit” and the incorrect APR, putting me at a serious disadvantage when entering into the credit agreement. Therefore you have no hope of getting a successful conclusion should you pursue the recovery if the money through the legal system. Despite these facts I am now in a unique situation to help you getting this issue resolved. I have to stress that this is a once off situation and should you fail to make use of this offer, I will have no other choice to make an offer to another creditor and to let this debt gets statute barred and you will not able to collect on it at any stage. In a Full and Final Settlement of this debt I am offering an amount of £xxxx.xx and believe that it a very generous offer taking into consideration the above mentioned facts. I would also expect that you will record it as fully settled on all Credit Reference agencies after the making of the Full and Final Settlement payment and that no further action of any kind be made to pursue this debt any further. I am awaiting your positive response by returned letter within the next 14 days. Yours sincerely Here is a link about a creditor still adding interest and theft charges after they terminated the agreement: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?266583-Halifax-Terminate-agreement-pass-debt-to-Albion-but-still-add-charges-to-account I believe the fact they still add interest is your main concern. I do not know whether this link will show any light onthe fact whether they are allowed to add interest after the termination of an agreement. Personally, I am not sure whether that is allowed by law or not. I will post their response once I have it scanned but I believe it could be helpful to spell it out to them why the DN is invalid and why the agreement is un-enforceable and to reference the legislation. In hindsight I would have add the following: "These facts show clearly that according to law the DN is invalid and the credit agreement un-enforceable but I do expect you to claim that the DN is valid and that the agreement is enforceable. Please be aware that UNLESS you can show that the agreement is enforceable and the DN is valid by proving these points that I raised wrong, then I will take it that you realise that what I say is true, even if you deny these facts and that you realise you will NOT BE ABLE to take any legal action in the future."

They need both licenses. For their "Debt Management" part, arranging payments plans, making payments (including token payments), etc., they need this Credit License. For the challenging of the Credit Agreements they need the license from the Ministry of Justice. Getting this license revoked will probable not completely prevent them from trading but it will severely hampering them from doing what they are trying (trying is the word) to do. This will also make it very hard for organisations like the FOS to find any complaints in their favour. The MoJ will probable also frown on this and hopefully (!!) will look into their license with them as well.

Thanks for that, I have to submit more infor to the FOS regarding this circus but I probable will have to ask them to hurry up so that I can get my money back from these clowns!!!

Can you post a link to it?

If you give me a day or 2 then I can post my letter to them as well as their response and you can start from there.

Welcome (and for that matter most other institutions) will flatly ignore anything you put in front of them that they have an unenforceable agreement and issued an invalid Default Notice. Even if you haven’t signed it or a DN states only 2 days! Basically they have no other choice than to take such a stand because, should they admit it, then you can tell them where they can go and they basically write off the debt in that process, therefore they will always deny it (their way of doing it is ignore you in that regard as far as possible and when pressed very hard, states that they have an enforceable agreement and that everything is perfectly sound). Do they know themselves know that it is the case? This is difficult to say. They must have dealt with agreements and DN from the same time and they did receive your letters, whether your letter would sink in depends very much on which monkey opened it! If they are aware of the invalid DN, why are they continued to issue it? The one dealing with your account can know it is invalid but they will not necessary consult with the people who create the template letters. Therefore it is not that easy to determine but many institutions do know that but Welcome Finance is not the brightest. If they know they cannot enforce the agreement they will continue to up the pressure on you for payment but they will not start any legal action. One way of to increase pressure on you is to ignore your letters, increasing the interest and fees as much as they can and to pass the account on to the usual idiots (DCA’s). This is exactly what seems to be strategy in your case. It is telling that the solicitor who chased you earlier disappeared and that they passed it on some other low life. These clowns have a cycle (3 or 6 months) and then it will probable be passed on yet again. The longer this continues, the clearer it becomes that they realise they can do nothing. Off course, should they pass it on to coward carter, he will probable start legal action but it is pretty easy to chase this hyena away! Well, how does it help you solve the problem with the increasing interest? Probable not much, they think are legally entitled to do that. You can try to up the pressure on them as much as possible as well. I am dealing with them as well, and remember they are struggling to survive. They do not accept any Full and Final Settlement offers anymore (which planet do they live on!!) and told me they want the full outstanding amount. Off course, they denied the un-enforceable agreement and invalid DN and they passed it on to one of the bottom feeder DCA’s, probably to save some money. The way in which I am dealing with them is to ignore the monkey’s (I am no longer wasted any ounce of energy on them anymore) and I am going to issue them with a section 10 notice under the DPA 1998, aka http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?24013-Defaults-a-proposed-method-for-removal-and-the-full-template-letter Therefore they will have to stop processing my data and I am going to ignore them until they see the light of day and accept an offer (part of the offer will be that it is based on the outstanding amount when I made it and not all the interest they added after that). You can issue it as well, it does not guarantee they will stop processing one’s personal data, but it will up the pressure on them for certain. One can always instigate legal action from your side, but it is a difficult prospect. How do you plan to eventually get rid of this debt? You can always try to save and make them an offer later. You can also make an offer now, for say, 30% of the outstanding amount (doesn’t matter that you cannot afford it) seeing that they will reject that anyway (you can make it even higher, them rejecting a high offer is not good for them). Save this then for later because it shows that you tried to resolve the matter and that they failed to participate (should they try something nasty, it will be another weapon in you favour). Always put “Without Prejudice” on it. The other option of dealing with it is to ignore it until it gets statue barred, the longer it continues, the smaller the change of legal action becomes. Legal action seems doubtful as well. Do not know whether it helps but this is what I think, if I think of something else, I will post it.

Since I got rid of the Stockport Circus my circumstances improved drastically and in a very short time. With what I have learned here and from the web in general I was able to challenge most of my debts as a result of the mis-sold PPI. Not everyone will benefit that much from PPI but it is by far the best to challenge your debtors yourself with the information you can gather from here and it is not that difficult, you will be surprised! The Stockport Circus, aka First Crap Finance (FCF) has one AND ONLY one goal, to make money out of your situation! Should you benefit in the process (very doubtful!!), then good, if not, they could not care less!! The advice in this thread is clear, stay clear form these clowns! I could not agree more!

They are IGNORANT and ARROGANT, an explosive combination!!

My honest opinion is that if you have a small amount of debt ( or only a few debts), then it can work out with them. One of the biggest things (to me anyway) is that they are not open and honest beforehand what is going to happen over time with your situation. Each and every debt will end up as Defaulted and you will get harrassed by Debt Collectors for all of them and a few can even go to court (or close to it by them suddenly setting up an arrangement). As you mentioned a debt collector earlier, maybe you already advanced in that direction but you have to realised you are going to have a Credit File full of Defaults for 6 years (or you will have to struggle to get rid of them). As long as you know these things beforehand and accept them, then it will be helpful but they do not tell you that. Another thing which you will have to get them to answer is the fact of "debts been written off", to me it is a myth because an Uneforceable Credit Agreement IS NOT EQUAL TO a debt been written off, if you are intereted have a look at this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?269650-The-myth-that-debts-can-be-written-off Let them explain what they consider under "a debt been written off", you need to know that beforehand. Everything they do you can do better yourself with the advice on this forum, it will be much faster and YOU are in control. You will also get more money back, as well as the fact that if you add all their fees up, then you will realise that you do get back much less than what you would think. Doing it yourself may sound daunting but it actually isn't but I do accept the fact that not everyone is up for it or want to do it themselves. To highlight a bit more about my statement that you will get more money back from Creditors than what they do (they didn't ask for interest on charges for example and certainly not the proper redress after PPI), you can have a look at this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?283603-Ensure-you-get-a-proper-account-redress-after-a-PPI-refund-including-over-limit-charges Also, ask them what will happen if a creditor refused to refund the PPI and /or the charges. Creditors do refuse it!! and they do not have a magic wand to get them to do it. PPI you can refer to the FOS, what will they do? and they also have a generic claim for PPI, something that is far less effective than you yourself doing a detailed claim based what actually happened when you took out the PPI. I just want to state the following, with the help here you CAN do the following yourself: Determine whether a credit agreement is enforceable Claim back charges Claim back PPI Set up a regular payment schedule which you can afford Make full and final settlement offers to Creditors They do no more! As I said, not everyone wants to do that themselves but hopefully I could assist you somehow to give you some pointers to clarify with them before you sign up so that you are far better informed before you get involved.

Sorry to be a bit sceptical, but FSF are known for pretending to be consumers and posting on here praising "themselves", aka Prima, Prima1, craft-y-nan and therefore a first post could be in doubt but I believe you are who you say are. I signed the contract in good faith like anyone at that stage but when I looked at it recently I realised that they did not counter sign it and it looked a bit strange, therefore I asked a solicitor too clarify this for me who said that it is not too serious and they didn't do it. I did not complain about the charge, I complain because it took them 6 weeks after making the payment to get it added!! I had to make numerous phone calls, send a number of faxes and had to mail the details a couple of times before it was added, this is something that is completely unacceptable to me! They made another charge for the second set of debts, they do have a statement on the agreement that it will add the same fee when you add additional debts and the only way to interpreted it so that it make makes sense is to intrepeted it as the same percentage, an umbigious statement but the agreement states that it is for the duration of the agreement, therefore on early termination they should take only a pro rata amount. The problem comes in on early termination, should you decide you had enough and want to cancel, they say they will send an itemised statement, charged for their "work" done so far, this was their own words to me and it seems to be the experience of other posters here but they did not try it when I cancelled. If you run the agreement the whole 5 years or more years then they will not be able to take any more fees. Off course, given they calculate it correctly, in my case they took about 57% instead of the 15% on the contract for pro rata/token payments, they refused to refund the remainder or to explain why they took that much! One of the reasons why I referred them to the FOS. I can only suggest that you do that as regular and as often as what you deem necessary and to ensure you do get a proper action and result when calling them in any situation that you think is necessay. The cancellation was "completed" a while ago but with the many inaccuracies and things that were not right and their refusal to either put it right or to proper explain that I decided to referred them to both the FOS and the ICO for investigation. The FOS would have contact them and it seems that after they received that contact they send me the junk and try to threaten me and send copies of the "documents" they have send to the FOS that includes two fabricated "letters" sandwhiched between the real letters they have send to me. It seems to be an act of desperation and the easiest for them would simply have been to at least try to do the right thing. One thing is confusing me though, you say you just signed up and that you spoke to other people who are involved with them, how is it that you end up on this forum?

True, but how can they make a proper assessment whether this company behaved inproper if they supplied them with false information? P.S. This info went into the "evidence bank" as well because the FOS complaint is just the start for them!

3 gusets, hello Stockport!!

I referrred the Stockport Circus (the only way in which I can desrcibe "First Step Finance" after their latest stunt of , a so-called 'debt-reduction' company but more the creators of the biggest mess you can imagine!) After the FOS asked them for information I received a letter from them filled with junk but most importantly, it contains 2 letters 'sandwiched' between the others which they never wrote to us until now (dates 3-4 months ago!). Apparently this is the info they also supplied the FOS. They send all their letters recorded but the first fabricated "letter" is marked as been send unrecorded on the other fabricated "letter", very convenient because they can say they send it but must be "lost" in the post. Luckily it is very easy to prove that this is a fabricated "letter" for a whole series of reasons and I supplied the FOS with all these reasons. The 2nd fabricated "letter" is marked as been send recorded. The only way I can think they could try to "prove" that it has been send (because of the lack of the signature) is to use the "fog" of all the other recorded letters sent during that time, I will just have to let them produce all the signatures and they will not add up!! I reported this to the FOS but was wondering whether anyone else experienced this behaviour from a company before? This will anyway shoot their credibility to pieces (should they have had it in the first place!)!! Surely the FOS will frown seriously upon it and every subsequent judge, should this end up in court?

sequenci, Thanks for keeping this thread alive, it is of the utmost importance that people are informed about this “company”!!! I have realised that the best way, by far, to deal with these clowns is legal action! The courts, however, do expect that you explore all other options before reverting to legal action. This fact, combined with the sheer time and effort necessary to clean up the mess this “company” has created, let me decided to first refer them to the FOS. I also made a complaint to the ICO, for all their Data Protection breaches. After these 2 organisations have completed their investigations I will decide on which range of legal actions to take. After sending all my information to the FOS I received a range of strange “documents” from these clowns containing veiled threats and some fabricated “letters” amongst it, which they have apparently have send to the FOS as well. When I originally cancelled my agreement with them they tried their utmost best to treat it as a complaint while it was extremely clear that it was a cancellation! They are still trying to portray it as such! Now they say I have made “another complaint” to them and the incomprehensible letter states that they have concluded their investigation, that I cancelled the complaint, what they would have done to investigate the “complaint”, what they going to do to investigate this “complaint” and if I am unhappy with their response, then I can refer it to the FOS. Really a lot of nonsense that is very hard to decipher but the matter of the fact is that I complaint to the FOS and haven’t send this circus outfit any documentation for a significant period of time (and I didn’t intended to!). To sum up: I send my complaint to the FOS (nothing to them!) and they send me a letter as response with veiled threats and statements that I have made a new complaint to them and they also included fabricated letters that they have allegedly send months ago! Very disturbing and something that I am going to report to the FOS as well. They will probable argue that they did send these fabricated “letters” back then as portrayed by the “dates” on them but there are enough discrepancies and irregularities to prove that they didn’t send it back then. Furthermore, in their response to my Data Subject Access request they failed to include them (because they didn’t exist back then!). They also came up with a “Summary of Events”. Something they failed to include in the DSAR response, another Data Protection failure. This shows how incompetent and ridiculous they are!! It is riddled with inaccuracies, nonsense and plain rubbish (adding to their encyclopaedia of inaccuracies and irregularities and utter nonsense in their correspondence)! It is also very revealing. Stating that my verbal complaint about their service is crap!! Also that I received weird advice from CAG – I informed them that I believe one should deal with invalid Default Notices, that it constitutes unlawful rescission if a creditor terminates an agreement on the back of an invalid DN and that they are then only entitled to collect the arrears. What they put down is on this “Summary of Events” is such rubbish, I can only assume that they could not comprehend what I have said and just put down any nonsense!! The bottom line is that it is sending shivers down my spine to think that I entrusted these people with my finances!!! Luckily I put a halt to it!!!