Trouble with a Payday Loan Provider

michael1983l

Apples2 wrote: »

The OP is more than likely a Troll so doubtful he will be back.

If not, you have decided the OP is not responsible for his own actions. This is quite clear as you believe the blame lies with the payday loan company.

We simply cannot have people we deem not worthy of making their own decisions, voting in the same polls as the rest of us.
Why should we allow the OP a vote which is worth as much as mine or yours when we won't allow him to fill out any application forms??

I have not said that the OP is not to blame, I have said that the loan company is just as responsible. It is the lenders fault because they are accepting people who cannot afford to pay it back, they are proffesionals who should know who can and who cannot afford it. Alot of the time the borrower thinks they can afford it (for various reason, poor budgeting, overly optomistic) however the lender should be able to spot this and as responsible lenders reject their application. Payday loans are terrible for a society that is in hardship, they clearly prey on the vulnerable.

LadBroke

I'm not sure what an OP is but I understand you are refering to me ? Excuse me but why would I want to "troll" this site ?
Apart from "Michael1983" it seems like most people on here - can I suspect them of being "trolls" ? - have not read what has actually happened here. I have to accept that people think that I have tried to break the "T&C" , in fact it is pretty clear that PaydayExpress believe me to be one those rogue elements out there who deliberately attempt to do that - I am not !
Has anyone considered that something urgent could have come up: Could it be that I needed new glasses ? Is it possible that I required a new crown for a tooth ? And that the funding of either of those meant that I ended up not having the money to pay them back ?

My main question really is about the legality of their attempt to charge me for apparently "missing a payment" when I have clearly attempted to pay back what I could afford to pay back - and that was done by e-mail and over the phone before my payment was due ? The most important point in all of this is that I have been given different information regarding their procedures on four (!) occasions. I repeat: Four times have I been given different information on how to proceed ! Are they really entitled to charge me an extra £75 ? And are they really entitled to charge an additional 25% on all of this - as they have now threatened to do so at the end of the month in a letter I have received on Saturday ?

Apples2

http://www.paydayexpress.co.uk/FAQ.aspx#Q5

Can I choose how much I want to borrow between £80-£800?

No – during the application process we assess how much you are likely to be able to pay back on your payday and this is the amount you are approved for initially.

So they do assess if the applicant is able to repay.

Is it REALLY their fault if the borrower decides to pop to the Dentist for a new Crown instead of honouring his promise to repay the loan?

http://www.paydayexpress.co.uk/Payday-Loan-Cost.aspx

The cost of credit for a payday loan is a flat fee of 25% repayable on your next payday. We charge £20 for every £80 we lend. So, for every £80 you borrow, we require payment of £100.

May seem abhorrent to you but if I borrowed £80 from you for 47 days I wouldn't feel to outraged if you wanted £100 back (you did get me out of a hole after all).


Website doesn't seem to say much about default charges that I can see. This alone would prevent me from ever using it but the OP (yes Ladbroke, that's you) seemed happy enough.

The Standard of the responses has been caused by the open admission by the OP that he couldn't even afford the interest, let alone the capital. This suggests a complete ignorance to the importance of entering into such an commitment.
In fact the OP seems quite nonchalant about the whole repaying bit and had decided his own repayment terms from the outset.

michael1983l

Apples2 wrote: »

http://www.paydayexpress.co.uk/FAQ.aspx#Q5



So they do assess if the applicant is able to repay.

Is it REALLY their fault if the borrower decides to pop to the Dentist for a new Crown instead of honouring his promise to repay the loan?

Of course they do apples, they are supposed to do it by law, however how accuratley/well they do those checks is another thing. It is quite obvious that they clearly don't calculate them properly as a large portion of their loans are given to totally uncreditworthy people.

CHR15

Does that mean if you go into Tesco's and buy £80 worth of groceries only to find you end up with an £80 unauthorised overdraft it is also Tesco's fault for you incurring fees??

Where do you draw the line at allowing people to make their own decision?

The OP must have said he can make this repayment during the request and assured them there would be no problem repaying it.

I am quite sure if you intercepted the OP's application and prevented him from getting this money he would have been slightly annoyed at you. Or do you think he would have thanked you and not bothered applying elsewhere?

The repayment terms are quite clear as per the post earlier

Where does the Nanny state finish and we allow adults to make their own decisions??

Jeff_Bridges_hair

michael1983l wrote: »

Apples2 wrote: »

So they do assess if the applicant is able to repay.

Is it REALLY their fault if the borrower decides to pop to the Dentist for a new Crown instead of honouring his promise to repay the loan?

Of course they do apples, they are supposed to do it by law, however how accuratley/well they do those checks is another thing. It is quite obvious that they clearly don't calculate them properly as a large portion of their loans are given to totally uncreditworthy people.

So why do some of the adverts on the telly claim 'No Credit checks' then?

And also you can roll over your payday loan for about £25 each month and while this would incur you interest on the loan again it would at least stop the OP from fretting too much and having all this hassle

Apples2

michael1983l wrote: »

It is quite obvious that they clearly don't calculate them properly as a large portion of their loans are given to totally uncreditworthy people.

The WHOLE point of the Payday loan Industry is to provide SHORT TERM cash advances to people who would fail any application search by a mainstream lender.

The whole Business Model surrounds totally uncreditworthy people.

What you appear to suggest, is that no application should be approved unless the applicant is in a financially sound enough position to repay it.

If that were the case, they wouldn't need the service in the first place.

I would like to think that anyone using this kind of Service has VERY little money in their account when the fridge blows up/ car stumbles to a smoking halt etc. and needs some emergency money until they get paid.

Yes it is an exception, yes the following Month will be more of a struggle but the applicants life can go on, complete with working fridge or roadworthy car.

michael1983l

Apples2 wrote: »

The WHOLE point of the Payday loan Industry is to provide SHORT TERM cash advances to people who would fail any application search by a mainstream lender.

The whole Business Model surrounds totally uncreditworthy people.

What you appear to suggest, is that no application should be approved unless the applicant is in a financially sound enough position to repay it.

If that were the case, they wouldn't need the service in the first place.

I would like to think that anyone using this kind of Service has VERY little money in their account when the fridge blows up/ car stumbles to a smoking halt etc. and needs some emergency money until they get paid.

Yes it is an exception, yes the following Month will be more of a struggle but the applicants life can go on, complete with working fridge or roadworthy car.

what I am saying that it is indeed morally wrong and irresponsible to lend money to some of the people they do, hence the reason why I think they should at minimum have much tighter regulation, however I'd just ban them if I was PM. As these companies are clearly targeting by your own admission people that can probably not pay them back.

I have said before these companies do far far far more harm to people than is worth while when for the people they do genuinly help.

Crisis loans from the social should be the only form of loan in these circumstances.

All in my opinion obviously

michael1983l

CHR15 wrote: »

Does that mean if you go into Tesco's and buy £80 worth of groceries only to find you end up with an £80 unauthorised overdraft it is also Tesco's fault for you incurring fees??

Where do you draw the line at allowing people to make their own decision?

The OP must have said he can make this repayment during the request and assured them there would be no problem repaying it.

I am quite sure if you intercepted the OP's application and prevented him from getting this money he would have been slightly annoyed at you. Or do you think he would have thanked you and not bothered applying elsewhere?

The repayment terms are quite clear as per the post earlier

Where does the Nanny state finish and we allow adults to make their own decisions??

Nanny state? wow where do I start on this one, firstly Tescos are not lending you money so it is totally irrelevant. Your bank is and they will make a decision wether to authorise your transaction based on your account conduct.

As for Nanny state, this is nothing to do with state. This is to do with ethical banking. If you lend money to somebody with no income, you know from the start that they can't pay you back. To know this, knowing you will impose fines as per your terms and conditions in my eyes is legal robbery.

Apples2

michael1983l wrote: »

Crisis loans from the social should be the only form of loan in these circumstances.

I will be the first to admit I don't know much about Crisis Loans other than they are Interest Free loans.

I would LIKE to think though, that there is a strict criteria for being accepted for them.
I would like to think you will not get one because your fridge has died or your car as failed.

I would like to think they are for genuine emergencies e.g having no food, no heating in winter with kids/elderly.

I would like to think there is a panel of people who examine each and every case on an individual basis (can I assume the rest of us are funding these Crisis Loans??)


That's the emergancies dealt with, now are you implying you want these Crisis Loans loans offered to people who want a new TV or whatever other reason people like the OP took one out??


Isn't buying food from Tesco with a Debit Card knowing there is no money in the account the same as taking a loan with no money to repay.

Technically different of course, but the reality is the same.