Ariste Holdings ( Cash Genie )

Apples2

matttye wrote: »

People usually borrow when they don't have the funds available for that at the moment but will pay it back.

Not all people.

matttye

krisdorey wrote: »

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

Temptation perhaps? Let's not forget that the PDL called the OP; not the other way around.

I think cold calling to offer loans should be banned. If people want a loan they'll come and find one. The last thing we need is loads of people taking out loans they don't need simply because it's offered to them.

I'm not suggesting everyone would be tempted and of course you have the choice of saying no; I'm just saying it's irresponsible to cold call people offering loans!

Apples2 wrote: »

Not all people.

I did say 'usually'

barbarawright

matttye wrote: »

Temptation perhaps? Let's not forget that the PDL called the OP; not the other way around.

I think cold calling to offer loans should be banned. If people want a loan they'll come and find one. The last thing we need is loads of people taking out loans they don't need simply because it's offered to them.

I'm not suggesting everyone would be tempted and of course you have the choice of saying no; I'm just saying it's irresponsible to cold call people offering loans!



I did say 'usually'

The OP said they were actively looking for a loan and had put their details in various websites. The lender *knew* they were planning to take out another loan without paying back the first.

Marckopite wrote: »

I had been looking for a loan before they phoned me, But once you apply to one company your details get sent out to other lenders like wildfire. So then they phoned me pretending to be from Payday Is Everyday in order for me to apply on the website for a loan. But after they had my bank details they cleaned my account out. Looking in to it more the company who phoned me where Fredrick and sons. A debt company.

Marckopite

barbarawright wrote: »

The OP said they were actively looking for a loan and had put their details in various websites. The lender *knew* they were planning to take out another loan without paying back the first.

How do you know i was not going to pay back the first loan i took out.

So you think its alright for a company to pretend to be a lender and take your bank details and then go in to your account and take out what was left in there do you.

I am a family man who has 3 children to support that money was in my account for my family to have food on the table. But its alright for a PDL to let my kids starve is it.

matttye

barbarawright wrote: »

The OP said they were actively looking for a loan and had put their details in various websites. The lender *knew* they were planning to take out another loan without paying back the first.

Makes no difference IMO, as the OP still didn't consult that company directly by the sounds of it.

The companies that call have no idea whether the borrower has already secured a loan with another company by the time they ring.

Apples2

Marckopite wrote: »

I am a family man who has 3 children to support that money was in my account for my family to have food on the table. But its alright for a PDL to let my kids starve is it.

I'm not convinced the best way of supporting 3 kids is by plain and simple theft.
Please don't patronise us by suggesting you were going to repay the first one, it's been two years so far.

Learn to budget properly instead of letting that family down. You have been pointed toward the dfw board. Use it to understand money.

You also should be repaying the original loan of course. How many more do you owe?

John1993_2

matttye wrote: »

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.

Don't be ridiculous. You don't get court orders given against you for sticking within the rules, you get them for breaking them, and breaking them badly enough that the courts have to get involved.

John1993_2

matttye wrote: »

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.

You accused me of implying tht at they had "no intention" of paying it back. Why then do you now twist that to "could not guarantee"? It's not the same thing at all.

You accused me of saying things that I didn't, and are now having to twist things very badly to try to justify your slander. Please don't do this, it's dishonest.

John1993_2

Marckopite wrote: »

So you think its alright for a company to pretend to be a lender and take your bank details and then go in to your account and take out what was left in there do you.

Yes, I do. I applaud them for it, as clearly do others.

matttye

John1993 wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. You don't get court orders given against you for sticking within the rules, you get them for breaking them, and breaking them badly enough that the courts have to get involved.

It is still within the boundaries of the law. The law takes these things into account. There would be no such thing as a CCJ if people never broke contract.

I'm simply saying that companies have LEGAL means available to them to recover debts, including but not limited to attachment of earnings, bailiffs and charging orders on properties. To use illegal/questionable means is just wrong when they have a plethora of legal options available.

There's a reason that non payment of debts isn't a crime; because there are genuine reasons why sometimes people cannot keep to agreements. It doesn't necessarily make them bad people, nor does it give a company the right to clear them out in shady fashion. Like the OP said, and we have no reason to dispute this, the money was for putting food on the table.

John1993 wrote: »

You accused me of implying tht at they had "no intention" of paying it back. Why then do you now twist that to "could not guarantee"? It's not the same thing at all.

You accused me of saying things that I didn't, and are now having to twist things very badly to try to justify your slander. Please don't do this, it's dishonest.

Whoa no offence was intended and I certainly didn't intend to slander you. Apologies if it came across that way. I'm just having a discussion here, not trying to cause any trouble.

Looking at it, I clearly misconstrued what you were saying.

John1993 wrote: »

Yes, I do. I applaud them for it, as clearly do others.

Do you really want a society where cowboy companies can do whatever they like? What they did is just so, so wrong, on so many levels. I can't believe people actually think it's acceptable.