how did anyone give my wife £20k worth of credit on a card when she was unemployed

Devils-Advocate_3

ILW wrote: »

Women do not need credit cards, they only end up filling the house with shoes and handbags, then if there is anything left over, it all goes on online bingo.

And women could say that men do not need credit cards as they only end up filling the house with beer cans and useless gadgets, then if there is anything left over, it all goes on hookers and football betting.

opinions4u

Devils-Advocate wrote: »

And women could say that men do not need credit cards as they only end up filling the house with beer cans and useless gadgets, then if there is anything left over, it all goes on hookers and football betting.

What's wrong with that?

<innocent look>

ILW

Devils-Advocate wrote: »

And women could say that men do not need credit cards as they only end up filling the house with beer cans and useless gadgets, then if there is anything left over, it all goes on hookers and football betting.

Better than wasting it.

jules888

ILW wrote: »

Women do not need credit cards, they only end up filling the house with shoes and handbags, then if there is anything left over, it all goes on online bingo.

What a bad generalisation!

KimYeovil

What is all this 'chip' rubbish? I have used benefits figures to estimate numbers that a house-hold with children has access to. Regardless of source (whether solely wages or complemented with benefits) house-holds with children have very large incomes. £20K of debt is perfectly affordable and available to any family with children.

I have answered the OP's question - unlike the irrelevant commentary of my reply.

YorkshireBoy

KimYeovil wrote: »

£20K of debt is perfectly affordable and available to any family with children.

I don't doubt that £20K of potential credit card debt is available, but affordable? Surely not!

I mean, 3% minimum payments will mean a monthly servicing cost of £600.

If benefits are being used to service this level of debt (or any debt other than mortgage/housing costs) then there's something wrong with the 'system' isn't there?

Evilm

SnowTiger wrote: »

Do you know if it was a joint application or did she add you as an additional card user?

If it was a joint application that you knew nothing about I think your wife has been a very naughty bunny.

I'll echo the reply to about "joint" applications not being so. it only appears on one of the credit reports, whoever is the main cardholder.

But I will ask OP does the statement arrive in YOUR name or your wifes? If its your name then I wonder if someone can advise on the legality of the debt (although I think you would have to ask for your wife to be prosecuted for fraud to get anything done which I am assuming you won't want to do).

To be honest I see no reason why a wife shouldn't be able to use the household income to get credit. I did it when I was unemployed but the difference was I ensured my husband was informed and we take all financial decisions jointly. Its only fair that we do that and that both of us get to have cards in our name and have a decent credit rating.

LovelyLeeds

gordikin wrote: »

...Freudian surely?

yup yup - was in a hurry and didn't have time to spellcheck or use cap letter!

PiggyBankShaker

ILW wrote: »

Women do not need credit cards, they only end up filling the house with shoes and handbags, then if there is anything left over, it all goes on online bingo.

OMG what a cave man!:eek:

KimYeovil

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

I don't doubt that £20K of potential credit card debt is available, but affordable? Surely not!

I mean, 3% minimum payments will mean a monthly servicing cost of £600.

If benefits are being used to service this level of debt (or any debt other than mortgage/housing costs) then there's something wrong with the 'system' isn't there?

Okay, 'perfectly' affordable probably a bit of an exaggeration. But with a minimum income after housing of more than £1000 it is manageable. £350 to pay it off over ten years or £500 to pay it off over five years.

Of course it is not sensible if the customer is not sensible - but why be judgemental before the fact? Plenty of sensible couples could well want the money up front and would choose to pay back eight or ten thousand the first year and only spread the other half over a longer period.

Yes, we know the chances that they money has only been spent on... and not on... --- now, that is a comment I could be called up for.