My husband is looking for a short term loan

27col

So, your husband hates banks, but not enough to have nothing to do with them when he wants a loan.
If you do not have an account then how can you possibly expect to get a loan. The bank would have absolutely no idea of what the risk of lending to you might be, and therefore is unlikely to lend.

2sides2everystory

Errata wrote:

The bald fact is that you can't get anyone to trust you because your record shows you are untrustworthy. That may be the fault of your ex, but it doesn't alter the fact.

Agreed, totally pointless and in fact it shows the poster is as mixed up as they get. To say that someone is untrustworthy because they have no credit record and are "wed to someone who was wed with someone who ..." is a disgusting reflection of the hoards of numpties like Errata who probably man our banks from top to bottom now. If the computer says they have evidence upon which to predict a future record of creditworthiness then these numpties conclude that the truth = not worthy of trust. Totally brilliant, Errata. Can't imagine why we didn't all make that conclusion and avoid everyone we meet in the street too.

Opinions 4U is another willing slave to a totally blinkered computer verdict, and who knows why 27col things the same.

Would you each care to explain why 25 years ago when banks still (just about) showed some semblance of understanding their place in the high street how I was able to walk in to Barclays or HSBC or Citibank or more or less any bank I chose and organise a new account and a more or less simultaneous decent overdraft (more than £2000) simply based on a good reason for asking, and the promise of income in the short term future to pay off the overdraft in one hit?

I have done it a number of times and with the credit lines I built up, at one point I did not even need to wait for a mortgage arrangement to buy a house because banks understood their business was lending, not sitting on piles of money and keeping it/churning it/sucking on it.

And now we have gone full circle so the rug is well and truly pulled from the likes of grandma22 and her old man because banks won't act like banks anymore, they prefer instead to act like self-preservation societies. I shall laugh heartily when I see most of them overbalance big time and disappear over the cliff.

Apples2

Maybe because in the past they were so carefree and lax with who they lent to the whole banking system almost collapsed.

Move with the times or get left behind.

opinions4u

Opinions 4U is another willing slave to a totally blinkered computer verdict

You made reference to the need for proper "relationship banking".

I merely pointed out that the person wanting to borrow the money has no relationship with any bank.

So go back to the halcyon days of Captain Mainwaring making the lending decision ... what do you think it would have been back then?

jonesMUFCforever

grandma22 wrote: »

My bank ave never refused so far,and if they do he would have to open one.
He hates banks and the way they operate,very simple.

You haven't told us what you would do if the pension lump sum turned up as a cheque in his name?
You haven't told us what you would do if the payment came by CHAPS and your bank refused to accept it?

2sides2everystory

Apples2 wrote: »

Maybe because in the past they were so carefree and lax with who they lent to the whole banking system almost collapsed.

Move with the times or get left behind.

That wasn't why the banking system almost collapsed and I think you know it Apples2. It did collapse because bankster crooks decided to make no risk judgement because they premeditated offloading the risk to someone else by colluding with ratings agencies and others to trade the loans and the attaching uncontrolled risk fraudulently. It was bailed out after it collapsed in many parts but that was of course part of the plan - governments were given no chance to make proper judgements that way and coughed up our cash like the good boys they were.

Banksters have only got away with actual fraud in very recent history. Risk taking has always been part of bank lending but it sure as hell never required bankster fraud to make the bank a profit, and it never required a sure-thing either.

Emmzi

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Would you each care to explain why 25 years ago when banks still (just about) showed some semblance of understanding their place in the high street how I was able to walk in to Barclays or HSBC or Citibank or more or less any bank I chose and organise a new account and a more or less simultaneous decent overdraft (more than £2000) simply based on a good reason for asking, and the promise of income in the short term future to pay off the overdraft in one hit?
.

The world has changed and IT enhancements which benefit many make fraud a lot easier, so vetting has to be more thorough. The number of con artists has gone up - cultural values shifting.

If you want to PAY for your bank accounts to a level including thorough vetting of all transactions then the world can go back to how it was in the olden days.

Can you get off your high horse please, you are blocking the sun.

Wutang_2

2sides2everystory wrote: »

That wasn't why the banking system almost collapsed and I think you know it Apples2. It did collapse because bankster crooks decided to make no risk judgement because they premeditated offloading the risk to someone else by colluding with ratings agencies and others to trade the loans and the attaching uncontrolled risk fraudulently. It was bailed out after it collapsed in many parts but that was of course part of the plan - governments were given no chance to make proper judgements that way and coughed up our cash like the good boys they were.

Banksters have only got away with actual fraud in very recent history. Risk taking has always been part of bank lending but it sure as hell never required bankster fraud to make the bank a profit, and it never required a sure-thing either.

Can you talk about this crap somewhere else please? Think you need a time machine too.

2sides2everystory

Wutang wrote: »

Can you talk about this crap somewhere else please?

Why's that then? Are you a bankster, are your friends banksters? Or are you just an ostrich?

Think you need a time machine too.

I do - it says Omega and it is on my wrist. The time is now my friend - I am here, you are here - deal with it.

StuTheDon

So 1000's of people taking out 125% loans with Northern Rock, because they promised to take it back, didn't contribute to the collapse?