Payday Loan for 17 year old

matttye

copperlight wrote: »

There you go, that's the attitude that has created the payday loan culture. They WANT you to not pay it so they can bang on obscene charges. They will eventually get the money, you cant run forever.

Unlawful, perhaps not. Unethical, absolutely.

The OFT guidance on debt collection says that charges need to realistically reflect a creditors' actual costs. The insane charges PDL Co's add on are not usually lawful. Interest is, of course, lawful however.

Naf

JuicyJesus wrote: »

If she has lied to say she's 18, which she'd have to have done unless the payday loan company are really that utterly incompetent, then that is quite clearly fraud on her part and she will soon discover the joys of CIFAS markers and the like if the PDL company get wind.

If she hasn't, they can go swivel for the actual money, but her credit file will likely be in tatters, meaning bank accounts (including most importantly student accounts) will be b*llocksed. They can't pursue her in court, but they most certainly can put a default on her credit history.

Given that a minor cannot enter into a legally binding contract; and placing markers on credit files is included in said contracts; and because a default is straying from an agreement, but said agreement isn't legally binding... surely anything placed onto her file could be challenged and should be removed?

Enfieldian wrote: »

Will you or she be paying back the £80 originally borrowed or are you happy to steal from this company?

Borrowed? You mean gifted, surely?
Because legally u18 can't enter into a contract, and PDL company know this, and knew her correct DOB, they have been aware from day 1 that this money could not legally be claimed back. So its a gift.

Naf

copperlight wrote: »

Altho I have debt I've never needed a payday loan. Am I right in thinking if used correctly the interest is acceptable for a short term loan?

In principle the idea is like saying to a mate 'lend me £20 and I'll give you £25 next week'.
Depends what you mean by 'acceptable'. I currently have £100 with The Money Shop after not having to do it for about 3 years. A DD came out that I forgot was so early leaving me £20 overdrawn and no money due in for a week. Bank's rates that's £20 x 5 days = £100 vs. taking £100 from Money Shop and paying back £130. (Yes, I could have taken just the £20 I needed, but the extra has bought much needed groceries).
Last time I took one was when I knew the money I needed to buy something was due in the following day; but if I didn't go out & get the thing that day, then I wouldn't have been able to get it for weeks. Again, the £30 I was charged was acceptable to me.

Enfieldian

Naf wrote: »

In principle the idea is like saying to a mate 'lend me £20 and I'll give you £25 next week'.

Based on what you have stated above, surely if your "mate" doesn't have a Consumer Credit Licence and/or FSA approval to lend then you you should be telling him to get lost when he comes looking for his money back?

And no, I do mean borrowed and not "gifted", as the 17 year old knew damn well that this money would have to be paid back whether the call was unsolicited or not.

chambta

Enfieldian wrote: »

Will you or she be paying back the £80 originally borrowed or are you happy to steal from this company?

Are you sympathetic towards them? I wouldn't call it stealing anyway.

matttye

copperlight wrote: »

So what would you call it?

Not theft, that's for sure.

There are five elements to theft:

"Dishonestly"
"Appropriates"
"Property"
"Belonging to another"
"With the intention of permanently depriving them of it"

The act needs to fulfil all five criteria for it to be theft. The OP's daughter could not have been said to have appropriated the money because it was given to her. That's why this is a civil matter.

It's like if I give you £50 and say "I want that back," but you then refuse to give it back. It's not theft because I willingly gave you the money; you didn't take it from me without my permission.

I'm a trainee lawyer (early stages) so take what I say with a pinch of salt

chambta

copperlight wrote: »

So what would you call it?

I think someone else has already provided a thorough enough answer to that question.

bigadaj

matttye wrote: »

Not theft, that's for sure.

There are five elements to theft:

"Dishonestly"
"Appropriates"
"Property"
"Belonging to another"
"With the intention of permanently depriving them of it"

The act needs to fulfil all five criteria for it to be theft. The OP's daughter could not have been said to have appropriated the money because it was given to her. That's why this is a civil matter.

It's like if I give you £50 and say "I want that back," but you then refuse to give it back. It's not theft because I willingly gave you the money; you didn't take it from me without my permission.

I'm a trainee lawyer (early stages) so take what I say with a pinch of salt

If you're a trainee lawyer then surely your answer depends on who is paying you, assume there would be a different answer if the pdl company instructs you with the cheque book open.

matttye

bigadaj wrote: »

If you're a trainee lawyer then surely your answer depends on who is paying you, assume there would be a different answer if the pdl company instructs you with the cheque book open.

Trainee criminal defence lawyer - I'd never be representing a PDL.

I take your point though

matttye

copperlight wrote: »

I never said it wasn't a civil matter. Its still dishonest, unethical and above all scummy whatever textbook you wish to quote.

No wonder the country is in the state its in if people think they can just get free money!

Free money? You mean like charging people ridiculous amounts of interest and then bullying them and constantly increasing it, sometimes to more than 1000% of the original debt, when they can't pay it back?

Unethical? You mean like lending to someone who clearly can't pay it back because they haven't carried out a full credit check?

Scummy? You mean like clearing out someone's bank account when they're trying to enter a repayment plan?

If PDL companies are dishonest, unethical and scummy, why shouldnt borrowers be?