We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Government moves towards bank charges pledge
Former_MSE_Guy
Posts: 1,650 Forumite
This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:
"It has launched a consultation on steps to be taken to ensure consumers get a better deal when they borrow money ..."
"It has launched a consultation on steps to be taken to ensure consumers get a better deal when they borrow money ..."
0
Comments
-
i will belive it when i see it.....0
-
The consultation documents http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/consumer-credit-call-for-evidence0
-
I have got up to page 15 of the consultation document. My will to persevere has gone as I can't find any jokes or pictures. I suspect that MSE Martin will want to read it if he has not done so already.
J_B.0 -
More taxpayer's money wasted on interfering initiatives and increased regulation. Worse, it will increase the cost of credit to people like me.
I notice endless references to "responsible lending" - but nothing about responsible borrowing. It seems it will become even more difficult for companies owed money to enforce debts through the courts (ban on orders for sale for unsecured debts below £25,000, minimum debt thresholds for charging orders of £25,000). This will just licence more irresponsible borrowing by people who think they (and their houses) are untouchable. This will again increase the cost of credit to the majority like me who pay our debts.
Yes to transparency and clarity. But it should also be clear, if you can't/don't pay your debts, then (after due process) your assets WILL be used to pay your debts. This warning should be put on all credit agreements. We've had a decade of people making huge tax free gains on property whilst running up consumer debt. Meanwhile others cannot get on to the property ladder. This is the real unfairness.0 -
chattychappy wrote: »
I notice endless references to "responsible lending" - but nothing about responsible borrowing.
Two of the four bullet points summarising the purpose of the consultation are all about encouraging responsible borrowing:
*introducing a seven-day cooling off period for store cards;
*requiring credit card providers to make electronic statements available to enable consumers to judge whether an alternative credit card would provide better value for money.0 -
I haven't read the article or any attached document, and don't intend to.
I think there is little point in government sticking its nose in to the price of loans. Market forces can determine these quite nicely, and the range of different prices for the same sorts of borrowers on the high street confirms this.
What is more important is that the government ensures that the market is more open to new players. There is little point selling RBS branches to Sanatander if the intention is competiton. When the Lloyds and C&G branches hit the market in the next couple of years, do we really want Santander, Barclays or HSBC picking them up?
It would be better to look at how to encourage new players in to the market. Looking at ways to give building societies the opportunity to progress in the market now dominated by massive banks, without weakening them financially. Looking at ways to enable credit unions to reach more people, without the excessive margin pressures that a high cost base / low customer base currently forces on to them.
But polticians telling lenders what they should be charging when they don't understand how these businesses work is an absolute no from where I sit. A government created pricing cartel is in nobody's interests.0 -
Alpine_Star wrote: »Two of the four bullet points summarising the purpose of the consultation are all about encouraging responsible borrowing:
*introducing a seven-day cooling off period for store cards;
*requiring credit card providers to make electronic statements available to enable consumers to judge whether an alternative credit card would provide better value for money.
I see what you (they) mean, but I disagree that this encourages responsible borrowing. Both measures are making lenders more responsible for the borrower's decision making process.
Responsible borrowers would need neither measure. The first in particular suggests that it is "OK to be irresponsible" - because you get a cooling off period. I doubt whether it will make any practical difference. In the case of the second, responsible borrowers would shop around or use sites such as this to decide the best deal.0 -
opinions4u wrote: »But polticians telling lenders what they should be charging when they don't understand how these businesses work is an absolute no from where I sit. A government created pricing cartel is in nobody's interests.
Nicely put!0 -
chattychappy wrote: »I see what you (they) mean, but I disagree that this encourages responsible borrowing.
How can removing the ability to obtain credit on an impulse not encourage responsible borrowing when a 7 day cooling off period on store cards clearly actively discourages irresponsible borrowing?0 -
Alpine_Star wrote: »How can removing the ability to obtain credit on an impulse not encourage responsible borrowing when a 7 day cooling off period on store cards clearly actively discourages irresponsible borrowing?
It might reduce borrowing by those who can't afford it - but that's not the same as increasing responsibility. Responsibility is having the choice, making the decision, and being accountable for it - not having regulation move in to ensure you don't make the wrong decision.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards