FLM Quick are destroying us.

Hax

revolu wrote: »

Erm the op will have paid back the money, so where's the risk.

I think you need to take stock of what you are writing.

You are slagging off the CRAs and saying that high APRs should be outlawed.

Without the CRAs, there is no way for an independent lender to assess the credit worthiness of applicants. This would tie people into only being able to have financial products from the banks they have their current accounts with. So, you are removing choice in that one fell swoop.

If you outlaw high APRs then regardless of being forced to get their financial products from their bank, the borrower would be unable to secure ANY form of credit. Their bank would still deem them a high risk and refuse to lend to them.

As for your statement that I have quoted at the start of this post, you are very wrong. The OP wouldn't have paid back the money - they simply would not have been able to borrow the money in the first place.

As for your next post:

revolu wrote: »

Your trying to kid a kidder, it's all BS

That was said in response to me saying that people make their own decisions on whether or not they borrow money. Are you telling me that people don't have the free will to make that choice and that we're all forced into it?

revolu

The current system of CRA and lending have failed miserably, things need to change from the script you preach.

I said before I don't have all the answers but you know its a disaster when payday loan companies hit mainstream tv and start sponsoring football teams.

fozmcfc

revolu wrote: »

The current system of CRA and lending have failed miserably, things need to change from the script you preach.

I said before I don't have all the answers but you know its a disaster when payday loan companies hit mainstream tv and start sponsoring football teams.

Why are you bothering to even reply, it is clear that Hax is just making you look like you know absolutely nothing about what you're on about, you're just embarrassing yourself, more and more everytime you post.

If this were a boxing match, it'll be over in the first 10 secs.

The_Unready

swifthorn wrote: »

They keep on adding a 20 charge every week for being late and 7 for letters being sent out.

Not only that but they regularly empty my partners account of any money we have left.

I can't drive and he can't walk far because of his disability means he's in constant pain.

They keep on phoning us. They text me none stop, email every couple of hours. Whenever we tell them the situation they get pushy and aggressive.

I've phoned a debt advisor from my bank and they told me to tell FLM that I can't afford that amount and I told them I could pay them only a certain amount. They won't accept it.

...they say we now owe for the last month (49 plus 20 plus 3 letters at 7 pound each)

I have explained this many times to FLM and all they reply with is that its not their concern and they just take what is owed to them.

I've summarised some of the main points from the OP's post.

It's sad to see that some of the spiteful posts by FLM apologists on this thread can't see beyond the black and white of this situation.

The Unready

Hax

revolu wrote: »

The current system of CRA and lending have failed miserably, things need to change from the script you preach.

I'm not preaching - just stating facts. What's the point in simply saying that the current system is "wrong" when you are unable to offer any alternative proposals?

Personally, I think it's the current "want it now" mindset that is at fault - that's what creates the market for all these loans and that's what gets people in to trouble - they just see the opportunity to have something now, without thinking about the long-term - how they're going to pay it back and how they're going to cope if something goes wrong.

revolu wrote: »

I said before I don't have all the answers but you know its a disaster when payday loan companies hit mainstream tv and start sponsoring football teams.

That's a fantastic way of demonstrating that things are wrong in the financial world. I mean, you wouldn't catch a mainstream bank like Barclay's sponsoring football would you?

theoretica

If you don't get the new bank accounts in time for the benefit try to take it all out in cash as soon as possible and then work out how to pay your other bills once the money is in your pocket.

Send a formal complaint, in writing, and then escalate to the ombudsman.

revolu

fozmcfc wrote: »

you're just embarrassing yourself, more and more everytime you post.

If this were a boxing match, it'll be over in the first 10 secs.

I am far from being embarrased, I don't agree with a word either of you 2 guys say, I can understand how the op has got into this situation and don't follow the "I'm alright jack of others on here"

And I've seen Rocky and the good guy always wins.

Daisy4567

revolu wrote: »

And I've seen Rocky and the good guy always wins.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Well said!!;)

Tixy

Seems to have gone a bit off topic.
Debating the current system of credit and CRAs won't actually help the OP on this thread at all - and may just make it harder for the newbie OP to see/focus on the advice that has been given on what they could do in their current situation.

lionelator

In the end payday companies fill a niche area which is providing loans to very high risk people, and they manage to do this by charging enormous interest rates which regular banks wouldnt, but then regular banks wont loan to the people who need to resort to payday companies.
As these people are high risk, they often default, and when they do the methods of claiming the money owed to these companies is often quite harsh, but then they are not running charities, they do need to get back the money they owe, and the terms and conditions are made clear before the loan is taken out. With alot of the people defaulting on debts with these companies, just asking them nicely and infrequently is not really going to get anything done, is it?
If anything, people have come up with methods, for example, changing bank accounts and writing to these companies and stating you will pay them a fixed amount, say 1 pound, or 5 pounds, indefinitely, which if anything is a bit unfair to the loan companies really, isnt it?
I mean, if any of the people complaining about how unfair these loan companies are, lent someone 100 pounds, and then got nothing back and a letter without some excuse and the information that they were going to be paying back 1 pound as and when they could, I wonder how they would feel.