Wonga/Payday Express - Why don't they play ball?

jonnyd281

asbokid wrote: »

Instead of scoffing, you should look it up! [1]

You might be surprised!

For US visiting forces, there is a duality of jurisdiction under a Status of Forces Agreement dating back to World War II. The Penal Code of the USA applies on all tenant bases of the USAF that are sited on British soil.

I'm no lawyer, but I would suspect that a contract concluded between wonga.com and a US serviceman (or his dependents) would be unenforceable in the civil courts. This would be on the basis that the contract was unlawful under the provisions of the 2007 US Federal Law, as above.

Furthermore, it would be a logical argument that since the contract was unlawful that the indebtedness should be extinguished, too. But as I said, I ain't no lawyer. Are you?

[1] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34531.pdf

So that would apply to US Servicemen based at, and living on 10 bases then. That has zero relevance to anyone else on this site.

antrobus

asbokid wrote: »

... But as I said, I ain't no lawyer...

That much is obvious.

Mara69 wrote: »

...Tell me, asbokid (rolls eyes); at what point do people like you stop spouting bile and hatred at the companies and start accepting that that responsibility for defaulting on these loans lies with the borrower? Or is that too radical an idea; that people actually accept responsibility for their own actions?

Well I'm hoping that asbokid will eventually realise that screaming and shouting about the evil that payday loan companies do is not the way to win friends and influence people.

antrobus

asbokid wrote: »

Your "inside source" is telling lies. That goes with the territory, of course.

In truth, the default rate on payday loans is not 5% but closer to 50%.

Skiba and Tobacman are two leading academics in the field of Payday Lending. They have spent decades researching the scandal. In their 2008 report they reveal that.."over half of payday borrowers default on a payday loan within one year of their first loans"....

That's two different answers to two different questions. By definition, payday loans are typically for 30 days or less, thus a payday borrower could take out as many as 12 or more payday loans a year. It's therefore perfectly possible that the default rate on payday loans is 5% and that the default rate on payday borrowers is 50%.

meer53

asbokid wrote: »

Morally she is 100% right: Don't pay Wonga. They are a rogue operation.

More importantly, can wonga.com use the strong arm of the law to force her to pay?

That surely depends on her circumstance.

"Won't Pay was Made to Pay" ? Or Maybe Not..

Exactly what planet do you come from ? Morally, she is 100% wrong.

Whether they're a rogue operation or not, you agree to borrow money and pay it back, then you should pay it back.

Anyone who takes out this sort of agreement then doesn't stick to it shouldn't be surprised when it all goes t*ts up.

But i suppose you'll know of some irrelevant USA legislation that will cover it ? You talk a load of tosh.

Zorz_2

asbokid wrote: »

For US visiting forces, there is a duality of jurisdiction under a Status of Forces Agreement dating back to World War II. The Penal Code of the USA applies on all tenant bases of the USAF that are sited on British soil.

US armed forces personnel stationed in the UK may be subject to their country's laws and military codes, a company though registered and operating wholly in the UK, is not.

I'll put it differently: American soldiers serving in RAF Someplace may be prohibited from taking that kind of loan, but payday lenders are not prohibited* from giving loans to American soldiers. Do you realise the distinction?

* unless someone can point out that this ban has also been codified in UK law, and is in writing at legislation.gov.uk.

But as I said, I ain't no lawyer. Are you?

I'm neither a lawyer. But I do play one on tv!

anna_grant

cankster wrote: »

I used www.skintypoo.co.uk they were ace, no messing and the cash in straight away. Interest was a bit urgent but as a lender of last resort they were top notch.

Are you on some kind of commission as this is the 6th time you've posted about them tonight?

bbfc

anna_grant wrote: »

Are you on some kind of commission as this is the 6th time you've posted about them tonight?

I was thinking the same thing.

asbokid

Zorz wrote: »

I'll put it differently: American soldiers serving in RAF Someplace may be prohibited from taking that kind of loan, but payday lenders are not prohibited* from giving loans to American soldiers

I'm sorry, my friend, but you haven't understood it even now.

The US Federal Law protects its servicemen from payday lenders.

Servicemen are not forbidden from taking out a payday loan. But the lender is explicitly forbidden under US Federal Law from issuing a payday loan to a US servicemen (or his dependents). Any loan that has been made is not only unlawful, but also unenforceable.

In a nutshell: a US servicemen (or his dependents) may technically borrow from an illegal moneylender like wonga.com, but he won't have to pay it back. Comprendez?

As an additional function, the same US law also punishes those who illegally lend money to its servicemen. Whether that law could be used to extradite Damelin et al to the USA to stand trial for illegal moneylending.. Who knows?!

Importantly, there is no legal avenue for a Brit-based payday lender, like wonga.com, to enforce a debt against any US servicemen, nor against any of his dependents.

So far as that US Federal Law is concerned, it matters not a jot whether the serviceman and his family are based here in the United Kingdom (under the provisions of a SOFA), or whether they are stationed on American soil proper.

US law applies 'on the base', and it very often protects its servicemen while they are technically 'off-base', too.

Incidentally, you asked about the UK codification and it is the Visiting Forces Act 1952, but it is only a very small component of the UK-USA Status of Forces Agreement.

The provisions of the SOFA predate the 1952 Act by over a decade, and extend well beyond the powers in that single Act, reaching into many other areas of British law, including the Tax Code, and laws on Intelligence and National Security, etc.

To be honest, this is a field in which you clearly have little to no comprehension, and even less experience.

asbokid

meer53 wrote: »

Whether they're a rogue operation or not, you agree to borrow money and pay it back, then you should pay it back.

You're not really making much sense, sweetheart.

Debts can be illegitimate and unenforceable for a variety of reasons.

Most gambling debts are not enforceable. Until recently, gambling debts were no more than 'Gentlemen's Agreements' and had no recognition in law.

It could be argued that wonga debts are also unenforceable because of the unlawful circumstances in which the loans are issued.

(viz Unfair Terms in wonga's Consumer Credit Agreement and wonga's Unfair and Aggressive Commercial Practices, etcetera).

Prostitutes can't enforce debts, neither can drug dealers.

Rogue lenders like wonga belong in the same moral sphere as those illegal industries.

You should neither trade with, nor pay any of them. It only encourages them.

MonkeyMad

I'll bite. I've only quickly read this but The Visiting Forces Act 1952 as amended precludes the trial of a visiting service person by a UK court if they have committed an offence contrary to UK law, subject to certain restrictions.

In practice if the offence was committed against other members of the visiting force, or their property a UK court will not intervene and what that really means is that for legal purposes the US base is considered US soil. If however, the offence was against a UK citizen or property, the legislature provides for that person to be tried by a UK court. It has been common practice for all NATO forces to allow the police of the visited country to enforce their own law in this respect. As a child who grew up in East Anglia with the plethora of US forces and bases there and an uncle who was a policeman, I can say they certainly were not exempt from UK law.

In any case it matters not, since a US serviceman taking a PDL would not be breaking any law of this country. This would almost certainly be a civil matter in which case the US forces would defer to UK law. If the US forces are anything like UK forces, then the local commanding officer would sort this out to avoid embarrassment of his troops and extract a toll on the miscreant.