Ariste Holdings ( Cash Genie )

John1993_2

matttye wrote: »

The judgemental part is assuming that they took out debt with no intention to pay it back.

I don't think that I accused them of that.

John1993_2

matttye wrote: »

There are proper channels for debt collection. What the creditor should have done is apply for a CCJ rather than mislead the customer into paying.

I don't know why people think I'm advocating not paying a debt; I'm just saying these companies should play by the rules.

You seem to want the lender to pay by the rules, but not the borrower. Why is that? Why are you so judgemental against one side here?

matttye

John1993 wrote: »

I don't think that I accused them of that.

It's inferred though. I don't think we have any need to comment on whether they should have borrowed money or not. The fact is, they HAVE borrowed the money. The only thing to be concerned about now is how the organisation is behaving in recovery of the debt.

John1993 wrote: »

You seem to want the lender to pay by the rules, but not the borrower. Why is that? Why are you so judgemental against one side here?

The borrower is still 'playing by the rules' if they end up with a CCJ against them and have to pay in instalments set by a judge. There's a reason such things exist!

As I've repeated ad nauseum, there are usually reasons why a borrower can't pay back the money as agreed, and such a low priority creditor has no right to the money over any other creditor; especially high priority ones like a mortgage lender.

DevCoder

The OP stopped playing by the rules when they breached their contract.

The contract formed a set of "rules" that each party needed to abide by, both the lender and the borrower "may" have breached the code of business side of their rules, we have yet to see proof that the 7.1 T&C would be in violation of best practise (and we wont know the answer until a complaint is made to the respective body and either upheld or dropped).

As mentioned before, FCA/OFT best practise is not definitive rules, they are what they say they are and not totally aligning with best practise does not mean that the FCA/OFT will issue a penalty.

On a side note, your example of allowing your clients to swear (which could cause offence) whilst you having to refrain ands treat the client with respect is an example of a relationship which has one-sided rules.

matttye

krisdorey wrote: »

The OP stopped playing by the rules when they breached their contract.

The contract formed a set of "rules" that each party needed to abide by, both the lender and the borrower "may" have breached the code of business side of their rules, we have yet to see proof that the 7.1 T&C would be in violation of best practise (and we wont know the answer until a complaint is made to the respective body and either upheld or dropped).

As mentioned before, FCA/OFT best practise is not definitive rules, they are what they say they are and not totally aligning with best practise does not mean that the FCA/OFT will issue a penalty.

I listed a whole host of guidelines that it was potentially in breach of, depending on whether or not the intent of the loan company could be shown to be to collect the debt, rather than to offer a loan. The FOS considers not only the law, but also common practices, industry standards etc. It's very unlikely they would deem this kind of behaviour as acceptable and in line with industry standards.

For a start, not every company does this, do they? If you owe Lloyds TSB money, you don't get a call from Halifax offering you a loan, and then debiting your account when you hand over your bank details. Why? Because it's very shady behaviour.

krisdorey wrote: »

On a side note, your example of allowing your clients to swear (which could cause offence) whilst you having to refrain ands treat the client with respect is an example of a relationship which has one-sided rules.

Which was my point.

The way an individual behaves affects only them and the company, but the way a company behaves affects all of its' customers/clients.

A company that lends to millions clearly has a responsibility to be fair to its' customers, and the appalling way it treated the OP was not fair.

Customers often have reasons why they do not pay back the money as agreed. I highly doubt there are many who have the money, but just choose not to pay. Usually it is a change in circumstances, an emergency bill or something that causes them to be unable to pay. Sometimes it is just bad financial management. But so what? That doesn't give a lender the right to trick the debtor into repaying. They should follow the appropriate channels.

I don't think it's quite hitting home that the way a company behaves affects everyone they lend to. They need to treat all of their customers fairly.

John1993_2

matttye wrote: »

It's inferred though.

So you are criticising me for something that I did not mean or imply, but you inferred?

Nice. Please, don't invent in your own head things that other people have not written, and then criticise them for it, it adds nothing here. If you want to criticise people for inventions of your own mind, don't direct it at me.

matttye

John1993 wrote: »

So you are criticising me for something that I did not mean or imply, but you inferred?

Nice. Please, don't invent in your own head things that other people have not written, and then criticise them for it, it adds nothing here. If you want to criticise people for inventions of your own mind, don't direct it at me.

Your words:

"I think that the "unfair" action was with someone taking out a ppayday loan that they could not guarantee that they'd pay back, in full, on the agreed date."

You're clearly suggesting the OP had some idea they weren't going to be able to pay back the money borrowed.

DevCoder

So if the OP had the funds to take out another PDL why didnt they clear the existing debt?

This is my main point (apart from the fact that the T&C hasnt been proved to be unfair). The better course would be proper budgeting and advice from the DFW board not another PDL.

matttye

krisdorey wrote: »

So if the OP had the funds to take out another PDL why didnt they clear the existing debt?

This is my main point (apart from the fact that the T&C hasnt been proved to be unfair). The better course would be proper budgeting and advice from the DFW board not another PDL.

If anyone has the funds why borrow at all? People usually borrow when they don't have the funds available for that at the moment but will pay it back.

DevCoder

I think you missed my point, why borrow money which assumes you have funds to pay it back (plus the extortionate interest) at maturity instead of budgeting and paying back monies that you have already defaulted on (using the interest amount saved on now taking out a PDL to in effect snowball the repayment in conjunction with the budgeting savings).

I know the answer (culture) and I think you do as well