Query: high rate on secure loan to pensioner

DevCoder

redcard wrote: »

Thankfully, you don't get to make that call.

So what have they done wrong?

JuicyJesus

redcard wrote: »

Thankfully, you don't get to make that call.

There's no actual wrongdoing that the OP has pointed to. Were his mother pressured into taking a secured loan over other forms of borrowing and/or or obviously unable to understand it then that would be wrong and a complaint should be upheld, but as it is the only claims of supposed wrongdoing that the OP has are "it's 14%", which is allowed and in fact relatively good for secured borrowing, and "she's 89", which is not a valid reason for complaint (I've known people over the age of 100 who are more mentally with it than many people my age). A complaint on those grounds will fail, especially if the sale was non-advised.

RobertoMoir

redcard wrote: »

Thankfully, you don't get to make that call.

So enlighten us: What, based on what the OP has posted here, have Barclay's done wrong? If you wish to suggest that someone who is of legal age and sound mind to enter into a business transaction shouldn't be able to do so(why?), this would make you something of a bigot.

Before you reply consider that we've had posts on this forum from OAPs complaining of age discrimination because they can't get a loan.

Hopefully, you don't get to "make the call" either.

oxfordhippo

Hi All, apologies for not coming back sooner.
Thank you for all the comments:).


Sorry - I have since discovered it was an un-secured loan - I am not sure how that affects any views on the interest rate etc.?

I was trying to get at 2 things -

(1) Purely for her peace of mind: was the 14% interest she agreed to fair? ( i.e. was it a market rate generally available to an 89yr old for an Un-secured loan? )


(2) the second part of my query only really applies if the view is that the rate was unreasonable / well above market rates.

She can seem very competent - but really does not have a good grasp of financial matters at all. and I feel this would have been apparent with a pretty minimal level questioning by the bank face to face with her before she signed anything.

Thanks.

opinions4u

My guess is that 14% for an unsecured loan will be below market average.

While most lenders advertise headline rates in single figures, this is often confined to amounts between £7k and £15k.

The rate's ok.

gb12345

oxfordhippo wrote: »

(1) Purely for her peace of mind: was the 14% interest she agreed to fair? ( i.e. was it a market rate generally available to an 89yr old for an Un-secured loan? )

Her age is largely irrelevant to the rate that she gets - lenders will look at credit history (missed payments, defaults, CCJ etc, level of existing credit).

There is no concept of fareness with loans, she was offered a rate that the lender decided they wanted the offer her based on their credit profile of her and she agreed to that rate and took the money. Another 89 year old woman may have gone to the same bank at the same time and been offered a rate of 7.99%, but that is irrelevant (equally a 3rd 89 year old woman could have been declined).

She took the money and unless she is in a position to refinance now for a better rate then she is stuck with paying what she agree to until the loan is repaid.

27col

We often hear questions or comments as to whether something is "fair". Fairness does not come into the equation. No doubt the bank thought the rate was "fair" to them. If the borrower had any doubts as to the "fairness" of the interest rate, they were perfectly at liberty to get a loan elsewhere.
I doubt whether interest rates are in any way connected to the age of the borrower. Only to the ability to repay.and the risk of default.
You haven't said whether the borrower was 89 when the loan was taken out or whether she is 89 now.
I would doubt whether lending a large unsecured loan to an 89 year old over a period of 10 years would be thought of as sensible lending by many lenders.