Payday Loan for 17 year old

matttye

copperlight wrote: »

Ok at least you admit what it is.

Well it's difficult to suggest not paying money owed is an honourable thing Merely pointing out that, on this occasion, the PDL Co is simply being treated how it treats its' customers.

matttye

copperlight wrote: »

Yes. Why do you think they treat customers so ruthlessly in the first place. Too many people bump them thats why.

The nature of their business means more people will default, as they're lending to people who run out of money during the month.

Doesn't give them the right to do what they do. Eventually a lot of these companies will have their licences taken away I think, starting with a certain fairy.

bigadaj

Going back to the original OP I'd be tempted in their situation to force the young adult to pay the money over to a debt charity, no reason why the pdl should profit from their own mistake. Or even get the original amount back, but it would create a difficult moral precedent to show them that they can borrow money and not pay it back, potentially the start of a slippery slope.

rdwarr

matttye wrote: »

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

Because if we all sink to the same depths as PDLs then we'll be living in the society dreamed about in the pages of the Daily Mail.

Naf

Enfieldian wrote: »

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.

And by the sound of it intended to, but got into difficulty. This is part of the reason that companies are not supposed to lend to minors. If they got even just the original amount back, it wouldn't make them think twice about doing the same again to another poor unsuspecting u18!
I do like another poster's idea, though, of making her pay at least the original loan back to a charity.

Can anyone tell me if my thinking in the first part of post 36 is correct? A couple of people appear to like it; but I wonder if its actually the case?

ValHaller

matttye wrote: »

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

There is an irony. Although come the revolution, someone will have to defend them for crimes against the people

rdwarr wrote: »

Because if we all sink to the same depths as PDLs then we'll be living in the society dreamed about in the pages of the Daily Mail.

Shop lifting to get your copy, there is a thought. At least I would get a copy that way .....

ValHaller

bigadaj wrote: »

Going back to the original OP I'd be tempted in their situation to force the young adult to pay the money over to a debt charity, no reason why the pdl should profit from their own mistake. Or even get the original amount back, but it would create a difficult moral precedent to show them that they can borrow money and not pay it back, potentially the start of a slippery slope.

The daughter is 17. I would suggest that forcing her to pay the money anywhere, whether it is a debt charity or the pdl co is going to do more harm than good.

By borrowing the money, she has voluntarily taken a step int an adult world. Telling her whom to pay back is putting her very much in the position of a child, whereas what is required is for her to address the matter herself in an adult way.

Mother needs to tell her the facts, that the debt is unenforcable, and leave the girl to sort out for herself whether and if so how she will pay it back or whether it is better to put the money to a debt charity. That is probably harder than just doing as she is told.

bigadaj

ValHaller wrote: »

The daughter is 17. I would suggest that forcing her to pay the money anywhere, whether it is a debt charity or the pdl co is going to do more harm than good.

By borrowing the money, she has voluntarily taken a step int an adult world. Telling her whom to pay back is putting her very much in the position of a child, whereas what is required is for her to address the matter herself in an adult way.

Mother needs to tell her the facts, that the debt is unenforcable, and leave the girl to sort out for herself whether and if so how she will pay it back or whether it is better to put the money to a debt charity. That is probably harder than just doing as she is told.

Utterly ridiculous, she has benefitted from a technicality, no sympathy for the pdl but to give a 17 year old the indication that you can take money off these firms and happily not pay them back is asking for trouble.

You do t see the irony of this situation at all do you, the law doesn't see her as a sufficiently responsible adult but you do, in which case shouldn't she just lay the loan back with full charges?

ValHaller

bigadaj wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous, she has benefitted from a technicality, no sympathy for the pdl but to give a 17 year old the indication that you can take money off these firms and happily not pay them back is asking for trouble.

You do t see the irony of this situation at all do you, the law doesn't see her as a sufficiently responsible adult but you do, in which case shouldn't she just lay the loan back with full charges?

What is utterly ridiculous is that you have firmly grasped absolutely the wrong end of the stick. I did not suggest giving the

indication that you can take money off these firms and happily not pay them back

What I said is that mother should

tell her the facts, that the debt is unenforcable

Are you advocating (in your moral tirade) that mother should not tell daughter the truth?

I was fully cognisant of the apparent irony you might percieve when I wrote. But I see no irony here. In the adult world of DebtFreeWannabes, debts can and do become unenforceable if not acknowledged for 6 years -as a matter of Statute Law. So are you going to go to DFW and tell everyone whose debts have become Statute Barred that they should pay their unenforcable debts? Go on, I'll get my popcorn. Similarly, if a minor incurs a debt, it is unenforcable from the outset.

Obviously, I have failed in communicating. But the essence of the stupidity of your idea is that the daughter will learn anything moral by being forced by her mother to pay the money to a debt charity. At her age, she will just be forced to be a child a bit longer and lose an opportunity to become an adult through making her own moral decision.

cgk1

bigadaj wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous, she has benefitted from a technicality

That children can't form contracts isn't a 'technicality' that a lending company can somehow misunderstand! :rotfl: