Log Book Loans Horror Stories

Tirian

Apples2 wrote: »

People will ALWAYS want money at short notice. It strikes me as a fairly reasonable option to use your car as collateral.

Losing a Car is not the end of the World, you could lose your license for any number of reasons (driving endorsements, illness etc) and have to make do without a car.

People will always want water to drink if the're thirsty too - but that doesn't mean you can't criticise someone who sells them dirty water for £10 a bottle.

It may be reasonable to use your car as collateral for a loan. But people also, justifiably, assume that they have certain protections when they borrow as well. We have consumer credit regulations to ensure that people's desperation is not exploited - and that lenders go through a certain legal process if they want to take ownership of assets in the case of default. A process involving a court taking a view on whether the lender has taken reasonable steps to facilitate payment rather than seizure.

And sure, losing a car may not be the end of the world - but if there's no other way that you can get to your job, it may be pretty close. Again, that's why there are legal processes in place to protect people from exactly that outcome in relation to other lending - e.g. a bankruptcy court will not order sale of a car if it is needed for the subject to keep their job. Why should a loan company using oblique and outdated legislation be able to give themselves greater rights than a bankruptcy court would allow?

Until people can learn to manage their finances, there is always going to be a demand for loans.
What other option, scrap lending altogether and save for everything???

Nope - just ensure that all forms of lending afford consumers reasonable protection against exploitation. Fairly simple concept, really.

Despite your assumption, I have made no comment at all about my personal financial position.

Frankly, I don't give a monkeys what your personal financial position is - it's your attitude towards other people that I take issue with.

Apples2

Tirian wrote: »

People will always yada yada yada

I give in reading your inane tripe. I don't even think YOU know what you are arguing about.

You simply want a World without greed or profit. That aint gonna happen!!

There will always be people who exploit others, your crusade is going to falter.

Do what the rest of us do, and try to guide people away from using these companies in the first place.

sp1987

campez wrote: »

no the terms on these loans are not clearly advertised .in my case agent was in a hurry no time to sit down and go through figures just told me the weekly payments give me aload ov forms back and a cheque for 1000 pounds and said if i wanted the money now i would have to cash the cheque with cashconvertors where he working from which i did they then charged me £40 this is not a profesional loan company .please anybody who reads this stay well away from logbook they are bullies and cowboy loan sharks they need closing down

So you requested the loan, spoke to the agent and did not question the terms of the agreement before signing? You realised that the agent was 'in a hurry' and so were not satisfied by the explanation of the agreement, but still signed? If you signed something which you state yourself you did not feel was clearly explained then more fool you, they could have written ''£2000 is repayable within 20 seconds or we will take your kidneys'' and you would be none the wiser. If you are not prepared to pay amounts an agreement requests and would rather not entertain what they might be, stop signing pieces of paper. I wonder if you would have complained had you been able to maintain your payments?

The loan rates are high and the terms are unfavourable as one can lose their vehicle if repayments are not maintained, however, every person has the choice to sign or not sign such a document. Once signed, if you pay it back then you do not risk your car. Accusing a company of theft who you asked to give you money and take your car if you did not return the money and interest is at best, inaccurate.

If one is desperate for money to physically survive, one can apply for a crisis loan. This thread is so similar to the payday loan threads in that those who feel wronged by the companies want to remove a viable option from others that would take the offer as a last resort if and only if they could support the repayments/deal with the consequences of not. Why should the option be removed from others in a consumer society when we are all free to make our own choices from what is available to us?

RobertoMoir

Tirian wrote: »

You lot make me laugh. You can't have it both ways, actually - come storming in and tell everyone how stupid they are for borrowing money on these terms and then finding themselves in difficulty, and then all of a sudden if anyone mentions that the logbook loan co's can be exploitative, then magically you're all full of concern for where people are going to get loans from if the co's get shut down.

That's not "having it both ways", that's knowing that loan sharks are still out there. Surely you're not saying that logbook loans are worse than legbreaker loans?

Tirian wrote: »

If you weren't actually so mindlessly brutish in your judgments on people you don't know, it would be hilarious. As it is though, it's just pitiful and sad

Anyway, since you ask - if people are unable to get a loan on unreasonable terms from, provided on a blatantly exploitative business model, then they may (a) look a bit further and find a loan on more reasonable terms elsewhere, or (b) not take a loan out at all, face their problems a little earlier, without some mercenary squeezing a few extra quid out of them on the way and using outdated, inappropriate legislation to get their hands on the only asset that person may have left.

Just a guess you understand, but perhaps a lot of people would actually be better off with either of those outcomes. But never you mind that, why don't you just have another bowlful of that smug-pudding that you love so much - because of course, it's inconceivable that anyone other than you can have thought logically about this - particularly if they've come to a different conclusion than you. :rolleyes:

I'm wondering if you've really thought this through. I'm fairly certain you haven't read much of the threads on this board and the debt free wanabee board. I'm also fairly sure you've not done a job like the one I used to have. You'll be surprised how desperate people get and you'd be appalled at what they do when they're that desperate.

As bad as logbook loan companies are, they do make the conditions of the loan and consequences of default clear enough, and there are worse people out there. Much worse.

Tirian

Actually, I have thought this through. I've read most of the current research on high cost credit, and yes I do know about loan sharks too - quite a lot more than you might imagine. And I've worked for a debt counselling charity, so yes I do know how desperate people get for credit.

And the fact of the matter is that if, for instance, logbook loans aren't available, then that does not mean everyone who is now borrowing from logbook loan companies will go straight to a loan shark. That is ludicrously simplistic. I accept that some may - but some people go to them anyway. It's certainly not just a case of saying, "oh, you mustn't do anything about those bad companies out there, because if you do then all those people will go to loan sharks instead."

For one thing, there's no reason why you couldn't improve the legislation/regulation so that logbook loan borrowers had more of same protections that other borrowers do.

And no, I am not against profit. Maybe I am against greed, but I feel no particular need to apologise for that. Particularly when it is greed that manifests itself in exploitation of the desperate. Greed when it does no harm to anyone else, well that is perhaps just distasteful. Greed when it does do harm others, I see no reason not to act against.

Why should the option be removed from others? Simple. On a societal level, if the harm arising from this type of lending practice outweighs the benefit it provides then there is good reason for action to remedy that. I'm sure some people can and do drive at 140mph without coming to any harm - but we don't allow it, because some people do come to harm through driving at 140mph. Somewhere along the line, a decision has to be taken as to where the benefits outweigh the harms, and vice versa. And that's exactly the same with lending which is why, for instance, we no longer have debtor's prisons.

Funnily enough sp1987, your own example undermines your position. If someone actually did sign a loan agreement that said that if they did not repay in 20 seconds the lender would take their kidneys, that agreement would not be legally enforceable because guess what - we have laws against that kind of thing ... laws that are there to prevent people in desperate circumstances being exploited by people who want to make a profit at any expense.

And no Roberto, maybe I have not had a job like yours - but then again, perhaps you have not had a job like mine ...

Tirian

Apples2 wrote: »

Do what the rest of us do, and try to guide people away from using these companies in the first place.

Once again, apparently your way is the only right way to do things. But since you bring it up, I would actually be very surprised if there were very many people who have done more to do exactly that than I have - simply because of the nature of the jobs that I have had.

But, since I believe that it's possible to do more than one thing at a time, I am also interested in tackling the other side of the problem. You, apparently, seem to believe that there's no point doing anything to limit the market. You are entitled to that opinion - but it's not automatically correct. Nor is it the case that simply because someone disagrees with you, that they have not thought properly about the issues.

Fairly typically though, you have decided to excuse yourself from actually facing debate on the issue by simply labelling a differing point of view as "inane tripe". You're not a tabloid columnist, by any chance are you?

sp1987

Tirian wrote: »

Funnily enough sp1987, your own example undermines your position. If someone actually did sign a loan agreement that said that if they did not repay in 20 seconds the lender would take their kidneys, that agreement would not be legally enforceable because guess what - we have laws against that kind of thing ... laws that are there to prevent people in desperate circumstances being exploited by people who want to make a profit at any expense.

I think your overtly socialist approach overlooks one major point in that laws are drafted and implemented to suit the majority in power at the time of their enactment. It is not in the interest of the elected to ''save'' those who cannot save themselves and it has never been in a capitalist society, nor is it possible as it would completely undermine the system. Without Darwin's theory, nobody could thrive. Obviously your over inflated sense of self righteousness also drastically overlooks cynicism as a form of wit but I cannot say I am surprised. If I wanted to be educated on ''the law'' I would study it at post graduate level not wait for vague references to unfair contract terms from some stranger on a forum written in an attempt to belittle something written quite obviously to deliver a certain result. Stop waving your arms around and create a petition on the governments website if futility is very much your weapon of choice.

Tirian

Ah, wonderful. I see that believing in consumer protections now makes one a socialist. I have to query what exactly you are doing on MSE discussion boards if you really believe that.

Regarding the drafting of the law, you are simply wrong. How else do you think we ended up with consumer protection laws? Or an Office of Fair Trading? And that pathetic attempt at bringing Darwinism into the argument demonstrates only that your ignorance about Darwinism quite possibly exceeds your ignorance about the law. I would question whether you even know what Darwinism is, given that sort of comment.

And of course making a few comments on an online forum has about as much chance at changing the law as starting a petition on the no.10 website - but then that's not my aim here. And if you think that posting on MSE is all that I am doing about this issue, then that merely shows the limits of your imagination.

Apples2

I'm glad I bailed out responding to the ramblings of this wuckfit in #23.

RobertoMoir

Apples2 wrote: »

I'm glad I bailed out responding to the ramblings of this wuckfit in #23.

Actually they are raising a few interesting points - in their reply to me for example. As much as I don't agree with everything Tirian is saying, their willingness to debate it vs. slinging mud with "hilarious" terms like "wuckfit" says rather more about you than it does about Tirian.