Ariste Holdings ( Cash Genie )

Marckopite

Hello all i need some help full Advice.

I took out a Payday loan with Cash Genie back in 2011. I had paid back 50% of the loan with them. But then i lost my job and could not afford to pay back the loan anymore.

Last saturday i had a phone call from a company offering me a loan the company's name was Everydayispayday.co.uk

So i thought yes i would try for it the person on the phone guided me through the application process. Taking my Account Number, Sort Code, and Debit Card Number.

The company phoned me at 9.52am and then by 10.am they had taken £120 out of my account. They had tried 5 diffrent times taking money out of my account £100 x 2 £50 £30 £20

Having checked out who Ariste Holdings are i realised that they are a company who own 5 diffrent company's 1 being Every day is payday and also Cash Genie.

When Payday Is Everyday phoned me on saturday they led me to belive that they where a payday loan offering me a loan. but what it turned out to be was Cash Genie tricking me in to getting my new bank details and then going in to my bank and withdrawing money from my account without my authorisation.

Can this be a case of fraud because a company can not ring you up pretending to be from another company in order to get your bank details and then withdraw money from there.

Any help would be appreciated thank you.

Apples2

Sorry but I can't help but admire their tactics.

Did you have any intention of repaying your existing loan or did you think it okay to forget about it and start borrowing all over again?

I'm not even going to question your wisdom regarding throwing all your bank details out to a cold caller, did you really think they were going to give you a loan?

dealer_wins

Brilliant, thanks for posting OP you've made us all feel good!!

matttye

Yes, you should be able to get your money back as it was an unauthorised payment.

Of course, they will probably just deny offering you a loan and they'll say they rang up to discuss your debt. As you didn't ask for anything in writing it will be difficult to prove what you're saying.

You made a number of mistakes here: -

1. Taking out another payday loan when you already owe another which you can't afford to pay back;
2. Giving your bank details to a cold caller (could have been anyone, as you've found out!);
3. Taking out a loan without first researching a company and reading at least some of the important T&C's.

You may just have to put this one down to experience and make sure you learn from it.

barbarawright

I don't understand. How was it an unauthorised payment? You borrowed money and presumably signed a contract saying you would pay it back. Now you have paid it back as you promised to do. What exactly is the problem?

matttye

barbarawright wrote: »

I don't understand. How was it an unauthorised payment? You borrowed money and presumably signed a contract saying you would pay it back. Now you have paid it back as you promised to do. What exactly is the problem?

It's unauthorised because they never gave the company permission to take funds from THAT bank account.

The fact they used trickery to get it demonstrates this.

sharp82

That is pretty clever from the PDL!

Try reporting it to your bank as an unauthorised payment.

Were you in any payment plan with cash genie?

DevCoder

matttye wrote: »

It's unauthorised because they never gave the company permission to take funds from THAT bank account.

The fact they used trickery to get it demonstrates this.

Yes they did.

And this is why you should read t&c's before applying/accepting loans

7.1 You agree that if you apply for a loan and you already have an outstanding balance with Ariste Holding Ltd or any of its trading names such as Cash Genie, Payday is Everyday or Txt Me Cash, we may collect the outstanding balance from the account you provide in relation to your application before processing that application.

WellKnownSid

I've never had a phone call at 9.52am on a Saturday from a company offering me a loan If that were to happen, I would have absolutely no doubt that I would immediately think 'yes' just like the OP who wouldn't?

WellKnownSid

krisdorey wrote: »

7.1 You agree that if you apply for a loan and you already have an outstanding balance with Ariste Holding Ltd or any of its trading names such as Cash Genie, Payday is Everyday or Txt Me Cash, we may collect the outstanding balance from the account you provide in relation to your application before processing that application.

Gadzooks! It's almost as if these firms are anticipating an unprecedentedly high rate of non-re-payment, and are using legal-trickfoolery to claw back other people's hard-earned [STRIKE]wonga[/STRIKE] dosh.

matttye

krisdorey wrote: »

Yes they did.

And this is why you should read t&c's before applying/accepting loans

7.1 You agree that if you apply for a loan and you already have an outstanding balance with Ariste Holding Ltd or any of its trading names such as Cash Genie, Payday is Everyday or Txt Me Cash, we may collect the outstanding balance from the account you provide in relation to your application before processing that application.

I'd be very surprised if that's legal. Calling someone up to offer them a loan when the intention is clearly to recover monies using new account details goes against so many points of the OFT's debt collection guidance it's not even funny.

Let's just list some shall we...

"2.2 In general terms, businesses should:
• treat debtors fairly – debtors should not be subjected to
aggressive practices, inappropriate coercion, or conduct which
is deceitful, oppressive, unfair or improper, whether unlawful or
not"

Aggressive practices - cold calling someone to offer a loan when the real goal is to collect on a debt.

Deceitful - ringing someone to offer a loan when the intention is to take money owed in respect of an existing debt.

Improper - same reason as above.

"• be transparent in their dealings with debtors and others –
information provided should be clear and should not be
confusing or misleading"

Lying about the reason for the call is not 'being transparent.'

"• exercise forbearance and consideration, in particular towards
debtors experiencing difficulty – we would expect businesses to
work with debtors with a view to providing them with
reasonable time and opportunity to repay debts and, where
appropriate, to signpost them to sources of free independent
debt advice"

If the company had exercised their common sense, they may have put 2+2 together and realised the debtor had a new bank account because they could not afford to pay the debt and didn't wish the company to collect on it. This is the opposite of 'showing consideration.'

"• act proportionately when seeking to recover debts, taking into
account debtors' circumstances"

They did not take into account the debtors' circumstances at all here. If the debtor was applying for a loan, it's quite clear that times must be tough. Yet they didn't hesitate in collecting on the debt without discussing the matter with the debtor.

"• establish and implement clear, effective and appropriate policies
and procedures for engaging with debtors and other relevant
parties"

It's not clear, effective or appropriate to ring up and completely mislead the debtor about what the call is really about.

"3 UNFAIR OR IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES

• Communication: businesses should communicate in a clear,
accurate and transparent manner"

They were not clear, accurate or transparent.

"• Deceptive and/or unfair methods: businesses should be truthful
and fair in their dealings with debtors and others"

They were not truthful (they called and lead the debtor to believe they were offering a loan; not collecting a debt.)

"Communication
3.2 It is unfair to communicate with debtors, or their representatives, in
whatever form, in an unclear, inaccurate or misleading manner."

They were unclear, inaccurate and misleading.

"b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it
creates, or has the potential to create, a false or misleading
impression, or exploits a debtor's lack of knowledge"

They clearly left out that particular T&C and exploited the debtor's lack of knowledge of it.

"c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who
they work for, what their role is and the purpose of the contact"

They did not make clear the purpose of the contact (to collect a debt).

Need I go on?

They can't get away with being such cowboys just because it's in their terms and conditions. It's definitely arguable that the payment was NOT authorised anyway.