Payday loans please read

asbokid

Derivative wrote: »

Cancelling it [a sky tv subscription] doesn't help

why do you say that?

cancelling a sky subscription is a reasonable suggestion.

i've done it. not because of an inability to pay, but on the grounds that the monthly subscription had soared to an unacceptable price, and that the quality of the output was unacceptably below my expectations.

when i explained to the sky telephone operative why i had cancelled the contract (and the direct debit mandate) she read out her script.. claiming that i had breached the contract. i denied that and argued that it was, in fact, sky that had breached the contract, and that the contract was void from immediate effect because of that.

from thereon afterwards, i never heard another word from sky, and that was in 1994, iirc.

what is rupert murdoch, the "dirty digger" going to do about it, if you do cancel your subs for his garbage tv output? is he going to seek judgment in the county court? isn't he rather busy with the leveson enquiry, trying to excuse the criminal behaviour of his telephone-tapping footsoldiers?

it's important to get things into perspective. cancelling a contract with sky TV, with or without justification, is infinitely better than taking out an exorbitant and unserviceable loan from a scum lender like wonga, just to temporarily cover the unwanted subscription payments for Sky TV.

malkyh

asbokid wrote: »

why do you say that?

cancelling a sky subscription is a reasonable suggestion.

i've done it. not because of an inability to pay, but on the grounds that the monthly subscription had soared to an unacceptable price, and that the quality of the output was unacceptably below my expectations.

when i explained to the sky telephone operative why i had cancelled the contract (and the direct debit mandate) she read out her script.. claiming that i had breached the contract. i denied that and argued that it was, in fact, sky that had breached the contract, and that the contract was void from immediate effect because of that.

from thereon afterwards, i never heard another word from sky, and that was in 1994, iirc.

what is rupert murdoch, the "dirty digger" going to do about it, if you do cancel your subs for his garbage tv output? is he going to seek judgment in the county court? isn't he rather busy with the leveson enquiry, trying to excuse the criminal behaviour of his telephone-tapping footsoldiers?

it's important to get things into perspective. cancelling a contract with sky TV, with or without justification, is infinitely better than taking out an exorbitant and unserviceable loan from a scum lender like wonga, just to temporarily cover the unwanted subscription payments for Sky TV.

To be fair, if I was the sky agent who had you on the other end of the phone, I'd have paid your cancellation fee just to get rid of you.

I can see it now.

Sky: good evening sky television.

Asbo: identify yourself earthling.

Sky: excuse me?

Asbo: you sound like that woman from the wonga advert. Hold on whilst I do a quick Google search. Ok, are you listening......blah blah

Derivative

asbokid wrote: »

it's important to get things into perspective. cancelling a contract with sky TV, with or without justification, is infinitely better than taking out an exorbitant and unserviceable loan from a scum lender like wonga, just to temporarily cover the unwanted subscription payments for Sky TV.

Oh definitely, cancelling the subscription helps, it's just that in the immediate sense it's nothing.

A quote from Christine Lagarde:

We are watching this tsunami coming, and you're just proposing that we ask: "which swimming costume we're going to put on.

When your account balances hit zero, it's time to batten down the hatches, not make a few soft phone calls for token payments.

Waiting until Wonga are banging on your door to cancel stuff like that is mental. I don't think anyone that has less than a few months' worth of emergency savings has any business paying for any luxury service like Sky.

It may be judgemental to say so, but that's one of the reasons this site exists - to get people to realise the errors of their ways before it's too late and things crash down around them.

asbokid

malkyh wrote: »

Asbo: you sound like that woman from the wonga advert..

Really, which woman? which wonga.com advert?

Is this the advert in which wonga unlawfully misled its would-be borrowers?

The Advertising Standards Authority ruled as follows ... [1]

ASA Adjudication on Wonga.com Ltd

Wonga.com Ltd, 88 Crawford Street, London. W1J 2EJ

Date: 14 July 2010 -- Media: Television -- Sector: Financial -- Number of complaints: 63 -- Agency: DTV Group -- Complaint Ref: 113977

Ad

A TV ad, for Wonga.Com, a loan company........
[..snip...]

1. The viewers challenged whether it [Wonga TV advert] was likely to mislead vulnerable viewers about the nature and implications of the product.

2. The ASA challenged whether the ad complied with the Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations 2004 and the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Response

Wonga said they did not realise the ad did not comply with Consumer Credit regulations *bwhahaha!*

[..snip...]

Assessment

We concluded that the ad was likely to mislead about the nature and implications of the product.

1. Upheld -- the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rule 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising).

2. Upheld -- the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1.1 (Misleading advertising) and 9.8 (Lending and credit).

Action

The ad for Wonga.Com must not be broadcast again

This opens an interesting avenue of attack..

The borrower was misled by wonga about "the nature and implications" of its loans.

There will be those who based their decision to take out a wonga loan, at least in part, on the content of that misleading TV advert.

Did the misleading content of wonga's advert constitute "financial advice", for the purposes of the relevant statute(s), regulations and rules?

If so, is the debt unenforceable?

The borrower was deceived by Wonga. Why should he pay back its stinking loan?

[1] http://www.asa.org.uk/Asa-Action/Adjudications/2010/7/Wonga,-d-,com-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48744.aspx

meer53

They seem to be doing quite well despite the ASA Adjudication.

Apples2

Asbo

Assessment1. Upheld
The ASA acknowledged Wongas willingness to amend the ad. We considered, however, that taking a loan was a serious step, which should be taken only following careful consideration

The ASA managed to consider taking a loan is a serious step.... How come you didn't when frantically grabbing as much Wonga from anyone daft enough to lend to you?

What are you trying to tell us about yourself??

MonkeyMad

asbokid wrote: »

Really, which woman? which wonga.com advert?

Did the misleading content of wonga's advert consist of "financial advice", for the purposes of the relevant statute?


[1] http://www.asa.org.uk/Asa-Action/Adjudications/2010/7/Wonga,-d-,com-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48744.aspx

Obviously not since that one had a man in it.

I think most of us know the answer to the question about financial advice but why don't you have a go? We'll award additional points for relevance of research

LovelyLeeds

malkyh wrote: »

To be fair, if I was the sky agent who had you on the other end of the phone, I'd have paid your cancellation fee just to get rid of you.

:rotfl::D
Excellent!
It would be worth taking out a Wonga loan to pay him off!

malkyh

asbokid wrote: »

Really, which woman? which wonga.com advert?

Is this the advert in which wonga unlawfully misled its would-be borrowers?

The Advertising Standards Authority ruled as follows ... [1]

This opens an interesting avenue of attack..

The borrower was misled by wonga about "the nature and implications" of its loan.

There will be those who based their decision to take out a wonga loan, at least in part, on the content of that misleading TV advert.

Did the misleading content of wonga's advert consist of "financial advice", for the purposes of the relevant statute?

If so, is the debt unenforceable?

The borrower was deceived by Wonga. Why should he pay back its stinking loan?

[1] http://www.asa.org.uk/Asa-Action/Adjudications/2010/7/Wonga,-d-,com-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48744.aspx

All I hear is blah blah blah

asbokid

MonkeyMad wrote: »

asbokid wrote: »

which woman? which wonga.com advert?

Is this the advert in which wonga unlawfully misled its would-be borrowers? [1] [2]

Obviously not since that one had a man in it.

Do you mean this wonga advert then?

That wonga ad was also ruled by the ASA to be misleading and unlawful:

ASA Adjudication on Wonga.com Ltd

Wonga.com Ltd, 88 Crawford Street, London. W1J 2EJ

Date: 2 March 2011 -- Media: Television -- Sector: Financial -- Agency: DTV Group -- Complaint Ref: 145535

Ad

A TV ad, for Wonga.Com, an instant loan company........

Issue

The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading...

Response

Wonga said they .. did not think the ad... could be misleading.

Assessment

Upheld -- the ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1, 3.2 (Misleading Advertising) and 3.10 (Qualification).

Action

The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form.

It's hard to keep up with all of wonga's misleading ad campaigns!

Any more ASA Adjudications in the pipelines?

The ASA must be snowed-under with complaints about our favourite Rogue Lender...

Join the fray and file your own complaint about wonga today.. [4]


[1] http://www.asa.org.uk/Asa-Action/Adjudications/2010/7/Wonga,-d-,com-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48744.aspx
[2] http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?267856-Wonga-slapped-by-ASA
[3] http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2011/3/Wonga,-d-,com-Ltd/TF_ADJ_49839.aspx
[4] http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints/How-to-complain.aspx