MSE News: Payday loan adverts reported to watchdog

dealer_wins

Monkeyballs wrote: »

I think that's the point of the article, if someone isn't all that savvy then they might see an advert suggesting a loan is used to pay for a holiday or a night out which is totally the wrong thing to use these loans for.

If the PDL's advertised them for their intended purpose then there wouldn't be a complaint...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that PDL's are a good idea but I do think there is a place for them - just not for "luxuries".

MB

This is half the problem, people these days dont see things like holidays, owning a car, Sky TV, expensive smartphones, 50" TVs as luxuries.

Monkeyballs

dealer_wins wrote: »

This is half the problem, people these days dont see things like holidays, owning a car, Sky TV, expensive smartphones, 50" TVs as luxuries.

That's a good point... How can it be a luxury if the family next door have them and they don't work either?

MB

BillJones

Monkeyballs wrote: »

I was just thinking... Maybe I've just missed them but how many people post on forums asking for help after using a PDL which they took out to pay for a weekend away or a boozy weekend?

Well, if you lok at the responses that many people give to well-intentioned advice, it will very often include every reason under the sun why they can't sell their caravan, cancel their holiday, not have an iPhone, cancel Sky, not go out for a drink as a "treat", not "deny" their children videogames, and so on and so forth.

In each of these cases, it is very much the case that they are asking for help after bowing money on unnecessary luxuries.

Let's turn it around, in how many cases has the person in question got a PAYG phone, no televisions, and never has a drink or smokes?

matttye

hanlou007 wrote: »

"Day in, day out Citizens Advice is helping people deal with the devastation caused by irresponsible payday lending"

Obviously not the fault of the irresponsible person who asked for the loan ??

So who is more culpable - the person who borrows a loan they can't afford, or the company that lends thousands of loans to thousands of people that can't afford them?

The latter, obviously.

Monkeyballs

BillJones wrote: »

Well, if you lok at the responses that many people give to well-intentioned advice, it will very often include every reason under the sun why they can't sell their caravan, cancel their holiday, not have an iPhone, cancel Sky, not go out for a drink as a "treat", not "deny" their children videogames, and so on and so forth.

In each of these cases, it is very much the case that they are asking for help after bowing money on unnecessary luxuries.

Let's turn it around, in how many cases has the person in question got a PAYG phone, no televisions, and never has a drink or smokes?

Hey Bill,

I was alluding to the possibility that maybe not everybody who posts on these forums are being quite so honest and open as they should be when asking for help after getting into PDL debt...

More of an observation really I suppose because you're right, often people do try to justify why their "luxuries" are actually "must have" items

I posted today on a thread started by someone who had been "scammed" by a PDL broker and they just wanted to slate that broker (*spit* I do despise them though) as opposed to accept that it was their responsibility to learn from their mistake and take the necessary action to reclaim the money they have been "scammed" out of...

That said, depending on circumstances some sacrifices obviously do need to be made while others don't - at the end of the day it is down to the Op asking for help and advice as to whether they follow it and to what degree

MB

Monkeyballs

matttye wrote: »

So who is more culpable - the person who borrows a loan they can't afford, or the company that lends thousands of loans to thousands of people that can't afford them?

The latter, obviously.

Perhaps with a face to face service like you might find with the likes of the Money Shop or Cheque Centre where evidence of earnings at least should be supplied but it's more difficult online.

If I wanted to I could say that I live with my parents, have an annual salary of £40k and my only outgoings are £20 pcm to a credit card and £200 into an ISA... While PDL's don't need to do credit checks are they any more responsible than me for lying on the application form?

It's one thing to lay the blame on PDL's but why would they do something that they don't have to which would increase their operating cost and probably reduce their customer base?

I'm not defending them btw - just trying to get across that the process of lending relies on both parties sticking to their side of the agreement.

MB

matttye

Monkeyballs wrote: »

Perhaps with a face to face service like you might find with the likes of the Money Shop or Cheque Centre where evidence of earnings at least should be supplied but it's more difficult online.

If I wanted to I could say that I live with my parents, have an annual salary of £40k and my only outgoings are £20 pcm to a credit card and £200 into an ISA... While PDL's don't need to do credit checks are they any more responsible than me for lying on the application form?

It's one thing to lay the blame on PDL's but why would they do something that they don't have to which would increase their operating cost and probably reduce their customer base?

I'm not defending them btw - just trying to get across that the process of lending relies on both parties sticking to their side of the agreement.

MB

The law in this country usually always considers the "dealer" to be more culpable.

Theft - term of imprisonment not exceeding 7 years.
Handling stolen goods - term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years.

Possessing drugs:
Class A - term of imprisonment not exceeding 7 years.
Class B - term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years.
Class C - term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years.

Supplying drugs:
Class A - up to life imprisonment.
Class B - term of imprisonment not exceeding 14 years.
Class C - term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years.

In this case the "buyer/thief" is the customer and the "dealer/handler" is the PDL company.

You know it makes sense

BRITGUY

Tucked away at the bottom of the story I see the OFT have 'suspended the consumer credit licence of Micro Lend' - very late in the day for OFT to show their teeth! any ideas why?

BillJones

matttye wrote: »

So who is more culpable - the person who borrows a loan they can't afford, or the company that lends thousands of loans to thousands of people that can't afford them?

The latter, obviously.

Not in any rational world, and certainly not in this one, whne the borrower has about a thousand times more knowledge of what they can afford than the lender does.

Credit-Crunched

GingerFurball wrote: »

It's not about not trusting adults not to make informed decisions, it's about misleading advertising, which in the case of payday loans, can lead to absolute misery.

If I brought out a new beer and tried to advertise it by suggesting that drinking 10 of them a night would make you irresistible to the ladies and would make you a huge success at work, then that advert wouldn't see the light of day. Payday lenders who suggest that people borrow money from them to blow on shopping sprees should be treated in exactly the same way.

Payday lenders aren't necessarily a bad thing, but they must be responsible with their lending and they must be responsible with their advertising.

By that rationale the new VW Golf advert that gives the owner a sense of joy and superiority should also be banned?