Foxy

[Heart of Midlothian FC @JamTarts]

Decision goal.

Celtic 2-1 Heart of Midlothian

[Celtic Football Club @CelticFC]

🇵🇹⭐

Where history was made. Then and now 📸

#CelticFC🍀

[Foxy @R88FXY]

There ye go

[Fitzy 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 @Fitzy__07]

Celtic have released the Unique Angle of the handball 😂

[Jordan Murphy @JordanMurphy_25]

@20MinuteTims @Jackmarshall_67 Here Willie Collum clearing up the rules...

[Paul Carlier @Carlier_J87]

WARNING: Be very careful following this 'advice'. £830 is far below the true redress you are all owed. The FCA has manipulated this scheme and the redress formula so as to minimise the liabilities for the lenders.

This screenshot explains to you the difference in redress now being proposed by the FCA for victims of unlawful DCA's and other unlawful practises, vs the actual redress you are entitled to under the FOS decision specific to DCA's.

£1,140 from the FCA scheme vs £2,880 that you are entitled to under the FOS decision.

And once you add what should be appropriate interest vs the interest the FCA is proposing, the difference is even more disgraceful.

TOTAL of - £1,300 to £1,450 vs £3,800 to £4,200!

The FCA has dishonestly/disingenuously amalgamated the two types of redress (One determined by the FOS for DCA's that impacts multiple millions of agreements, and the other determine by the Supreme Court (SC) that is specific to fairness and amount of commission).

Why? Because the SC decision offers significantly less redress per agreement than the FOS decision specific to DCA's.

The FCA has created essentially a 'one size fits all' formula for all complaints, enabling it to use the lesser amount of redress for the SC type complaints to significantly water down the value of the redress you are entitled to under the FOS decision.

Yet the number of complaints likely to be specific to the SC ruling is approx 90,000, whereas the number of complaints eligible under the FOS DCA and other unlawful practises are in excess of 12 million.

By combining the two formulas, the FCA has manipulated the benchmark APR that they say you should all have been entitled to but for these various unlawful practises, much higher than that the FOS decision entitles you to.

Here is what the FCA is saying, and this uses an example of a consumer who received an APR of 10% but whose agreement was subject to a DCA or other of the unlawful practises:

You will be entitled to a 21% reduction to your APR for agreements sold prior to 2014 and a 17% reduction to your APR if it was sold 2014 or later.

IMPORTANTLY, this means if you had an agreement with an APR of 10% the redress the FCA says you are entitled to will be calculated as the difference between the interest you actually paid vs the interest you would have paid had your APR been 7.9% or 8.3%.

WHEREAS, the FOS decision determined that the redress should be benchmarked against the lowest APR the lender allowed the dealer in their generic APR bands that were subject to the unlawful incentives, typically 4%-14% or 5% to 15%.

So, the FOS has already determined that you, a DCA victim, should have your redress benchmarked against an APR of approx. 5% and not 8.3%.

Be very careful about accepting any redress offer out to you by the lender!

Good that Martin is no longer telling you all not to get Independent Legal Advice and to just rely on what the lender now tells you that you are owed......

The same lender who knowingly defrauded you all by way of any one of four different unlawful practises (including one potentially criminal practise), and who made false representations to me in 2016 and 2018 and subsequently to tens of thousands of others in responses to complaints, and also made false representations to the FOS when those complaints were escalated.

Albeit, he still doesn't go far enough and still urges you to accept as Gospel the crumbs the lender is now going to put on the table as opposed to the true redress you are owed.

See what the lender offers you but don't blindly accept it. What Martin and the FCA don't point out is that if you should be entitled to £4,000 and the FCA scheme only offers you £1,000, then if you got to a law firm and they do secure you £4,000, then giving up 30% of that still leaves you with more than double you would get via the redress scheme.

Or make a counter proposal yourself to the lender and demand the full redress.

I implore you all. Just do a little math before you agree to anything.

@premnsikka
@TransparencyTF
@IFSAPPG
@APPGJustice
@APPGbanking
@andyverity
@jameshurley
@BBCHelenCatt
@paullewismoney
@kevinhollinrake
@WB_UK
@LauraTrottMP
@CommonsTreasury
@hmtreasury
@stugoo17
@ArsenalTrader78

#carfinance #redress #fca #blackhorse #fla #witchhunt

[Foxy @R88FXY]

@Highland__paddy Is Tony Hamilton on the board or is he just the charity chairman?

[ceern @NotoriousBAG_]

Celtics fault but

[Foxy @R88FXY]

@maedamaestro No pace to hit them on the counter in that team.

[Foxy @R88FXY]

@PLZSoccer Stop all this pish about fitness. If he’s a class player play him from start.. get the game won instead of allowing dross like hatate to continue his form.

[Foxy @R88FXY]

Hatate is honking.

[Foxy @R88FXY]

@chris_sutton73 Well said big guy

[Foxy @R88FXY]

@gaz8467 We’ve done it since broony and lustig left. No shithousery in the playing squad with other teams / fans. Mcgregors time is up after this year. Along with the board!!!!

[Foxy @R88FXY]

@HereCelts They’ll do fuck all. They’ve left it too late. The man isn’t a miracle worker. The managed decline is complete.

[Foxy @R88FXY]

@TheGr33nDove And barely a player linked mate 😂 enjoy the ☀️

[Foxy @R88FXY]

@___CK67 But we need so much more than that to compete IMO. we’re miles off it.

[Foxy @R88FXY]

@___CK67 ST - maybe
The Welsh experiment has been tried and I think it shows how desperate we’ve become.
Candadian boy I’d take.
The RW - standout in our league maybe. But again. Is he going to handle playing against big teams in Europe (if we get there!!)
And yes - we need another CB