MSE News: Payday lenders must comply with new rules from today

GingerFurball_2

marksandsparx wrote: »

If it was just me I would agree with you comment fully, however I am not alone on this.

Obviously "people such as you" have never had difficulties with finances for any reasons.

I believe it is wrong for you to judge my "renege attitude" as I believe it is wrong to take amounts other than the agreed amount out of an account that clearly has less in it that they demand. such as, They wanted to take say £200 out of an account, that fails, so they attempt to take out £36, that goes through, so they then try £36 again, that didn't work, so they try £35, that goes through, they then try £0.99p, then that goes through... now this bank account is empty. And the person now is unable to purchase essentials to live, so feels like that have to take out another loan.


I shouldn't have to explain this to "people such as you" but there you go.


Kind regards,

"People like me"

Because you'd agreed to pay them £200.

BillJones

marksandsparx wrote: »

Obviously "people such as you" have never had difficulties with finances for any reasons.

I believe it is wrong for you to judge

Yet you are happpy to judge yourself. The irony...

As for "difficulties with my finances". I've had no money, and so been cold, hungry, and bored, but I've certainly not borrowed money, defaulted on my obligation to pay it back, and then complained that the company was in the wrong to take it anyway. In short, I've not expected someone else to be out of pocket when I was in trouble.

Do you genuinely not understand this point? If you promise to pay money back, and if that money is in your account, you don't just get to choose to keep it for other things. You certainly don't get to brand the cheated party as having been in the wrong.

BillJones

Deleted%20User wrote: »

Good one nanny state not that I believe it exists; what are they going to do if people are cost their jobs working at these loan companies because I see it going the way majority of PPI claims management companies have gone once upon a time when rules changed for them too, I don't doubt and hope there will not be more vulnerable people by the time FCA have finished

Were you drunk when you posted the above? It makes no sense.

pvt

One of the new rules is that the PDL must check that the borrower can afford to pay back the loan.

This is an interesting one. What's the situation if the borrower has simply lied about income and assets and could never have afforded to pay back the loan? Is it OK for the PDL to go swivel if their checks don't reveal their customer is deceiving them?

And how about those situations where circumstances change, and as so often seems to be the case with those PDL borrowers who come to this forum with righteous indigation that they have to pay the money back after they suddenly lose their job - despite the fact that the loan was predicated on repayment from a salary payment that will presumably still happen, but that the borrower now feels they have better use for. Does the PDL lose its right to have it's money back there as well?

marksandsparx

GingerFurball wrote: »

Because you'd agreed to pay them £200.

This was an example figure and situation.

marksandsparx

BillJones wrote: »

Yet you are happpy to judge yourself. The irony...

As for "difficulties with my finances". I've had no money, and so been cold, hungry, and bored, but I've certainly not borrowed money, defaulted on my obligation to pay it back, and then complained that the company was in the wrong to take it anyway. In short, I've not expected someone else to be out of pocket when I was in trouble.

Do you genuinely not understand this point? If you promise to pay money back, and if that money is in your account, you don't just get to choose to keep it for other things. You certainly don't get to brand the cheated party as having been in the wrong.

Congratulations on never having problems in repaying a debt, I assume that is what you want to hear.

You raise some valid points, but do you honestly think that emptying a persons account with several small amounts is the correct way of recovering their money?

I also assume you have never broken any promise at any time in your life either? I could certainly use some life lessons off you..

rizla_king

CONC 7.6.3
01/04/2014
FCA

A firm must exercise its rights under a continuous payment authority in a manner which is reasonable, proportionate and not excessive and must exercise appropriate forbearance if it becomes aware that the customer is or may be experiencing financial difficulties.

CONC 7.6.5
01/04/2014
FCA

A firm is likely to contravene CONC 7.6.3 R if it:
(1) requests a payment service provider to make a payment from the customer's payment account before income or other funds may reasonably be expected to reach the account; for example, this is likely to be relevant where a firm is aware of the customer's salary payment date; or
(2) requests a payment service provider to make a payment from the customer's payment account where it has reason to believe that there are insufficient funds in the account or that taking the payment would leave insufficient funds for priority debts or other essential living expenses (such as in relation to a mortgage, rent, council tax, food bills or utility bills); or
(3) requests a payment service provider to make a part payment (a sum due which less than the full sum due at the time the firm's payment request is made) of the sum due from the customer's payment account before it has made reasonable attempts to collect the full payment of the sum due on the due date; or
(4) continues to exercise its rights under the continuous payment authority for an unreasonable period after the payment due date without taking steps to establish the reason for the payment failure.

BillJones

marksandsparx wrote: »

Congratulations on never having problems in repaying a debt, I assume that is what you want to hear.

You raise some valid points, but do you honestly think that emptying a persons account with several small amounts is the correct way of recovering their money?

I also assume you have never broken any promise at any time in your life either? I could certainly use some life lessons off you..

Yes, I believe absolutely that it is the right thing for them to do. You are trying to hold on to their money, of course they have the right to recover it like this. It staggers me that you believe otherwise.

As to using some life lessons off me, you were probably being sarcastic, but the sad truth is that you probably could. You've managed to make enough bad decisions that you've gone to this sort of lender and then defaulted on your debts, yet you still seem to believe that you know best.

Don't you understand that it is this ridiculous attitude that has lead to your life being the current mess that it is?

To answer your first point, no, I don't want congratulations. I'd hoped to see a glimmer of personal responsibility, the slightest of understandings of what a wreck you are making of your life, and a suggestion that you are ready to take the decisions needed to turn it around, but you obviously know far better than anyone else...

GingerFurball_2

marksandsparx wrote: »

You raise some valid points, but do you honestly think that emptying a persons account with several small amounts is the correct way of recovering their money?

They're ensuring they get some of the money they're owed back. They could do it by direct debit but that runs the risk of bouncing, leaving the lender more out of pocket.

[Deleted User]

marksandsparx wrote: »

I do hope so! I got stung by this massively, So much so that I couldn't afford fuel to get to work!

It's a steep learning curve getting into debt with this "people". Totally soul destroying when you feel you need to borrow more to deal with the previous ones etc.

What would you have done if payday loans didn't exist?