Loaning £20K.

Sambucus_Nigra

CHR15 wrote: »

It is those such as yours which cause more trouble from someone who has self proclaimed themselves some kind of moral defender.

What the heck are you on about? Someone pointing out that sometimes things go well causes more trouble than a bunch of doomsayers jumping on a bandwagon? Good grief.

There is always going to be more threads on here when it goes wrong, by the very fact that if it goes right, people aren't going to post 'OMG - it went according to plan' are they? Think about it a little before you start on someone for no reason whatsoever.

RichGold

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Think about it a little before you start on someone for no reason whatsoever.

I think you'd probably want the advice of others before you lent £20k.

I'm with the doubters on this one. To any sound-minded, sane and well balanced person this sound like utter madness.

opinions4u

I do wonder about the "friendliness" of charging £2,500 in interest.

Sounds a bit steep for a reliable friend.

Sambucus_Nigra

RichGold wrote: »

I think you'd probably want the advice of others before you lent £20k.

I'm with the doubters on this one. To any sound-minded, sane and well balanced person this sound like utter madness.

I'm neither doubting nor non-doubting. As I've said, I wouldn't - but you don't know enough about the situation to make a judgement of whether the OP is of sound mind, sane or well-balanced. So to infer that they are not of sound mind, insane &/or unbalanced seems rather rude, don't you think?

LovelyLeeds

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

So to infer that they are not of sound mind, insane &/or unbalanced seems rather rude, don't you think?

No, it smacks of old fashioned common sense, but that doesn't matter because had we taken the opening post to the letter and merely addressed the questions then the simple answer would have been - employ an accountant and/or solicitor to address your two questions.
The concerns which posters were merely trying to weigh up regarding the whole situation, despite withheld information to the contrary, have been treated as wholly superfluous and unwanted by the OP - fair enough.
Some opening posters would be relieved to read about the warning signs of lending to friends/family, likewise some opening posters (such as this one) are entirely aware and in control of the risk.

Apples2

Crikey, that's TWO posts on the First page alone which really do need to be read by the op

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3567045

sharpy2010

Apples2 wrote: »

I bet that poster wishes people had convinced him/her not to go through with it.

But the OP didn't want advice on whether to go through with it or not, she wanted advice on how to do it.

Sambucus_Nigra

LovelyLeeds wrote: »

No, it smacks of old fashioned common sense, but that doesn't matter because had we taken the opening post to the letter and merely addressed the questions then the simple answer would have been - employ an accountant and/or solicitor to address your two questions.

So you will only answer questions that are not asked; and refuse to answer questions that ARE asked; yet the questions that WERE asked had simple 'legal' answers and the question that wasn't asked was just a matter of opinion?

Hmmm...simple common sense.

LovelyLeeds

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

So you will only answer questions that are not asked; and refuse to answer questions that ARE asked; yet the questions that WERE asked had simple 'legal' answers and the question that wasn't asked was just a matter of opinion?

Not the case at all. Check your facts first. If you care to see my reply #30.

RichGold

sambucus_nigra wrote: »

so you will only answer questions that are not asked?

37. .