Payday Loan Ombudsman Victories - Large Refunds!!!!

simonp96

norsefox wrote: »

Congratulations on staying clean, and long may it continue.

I trust you're going to pay your mum back with your refunds?

Thank you, Yes i've been paying her back since 2011 but any outstanding amount she will get back.

Powered_By_Pies

It's an interesting debate actually - morally any amount someone borrows from any lender should be paid back as you're effectively borrowing money that otherwise you wouldn't have. You're essentially utilising someone's trust in your ability to pay any amount borrowed back, and not doing so can be considered a breach of said trust.

That said, PDL's charge incredible amounts of interest which means anyone who gets into trouble with one of this loans can easily tail-spin and end up chasing their tails trying to repay the interest more than the capital. Ergo, the PDL's get a nice fat profit from it.

It is ludicrously easy to get 'quick-fix credit' from these companies because they don't necessarily perform credit checks to the same extent as a standard high street lender does, so those who get caught in the trap continue to utilise this and end up spiralling the debt because it's so easy to get the cash for a short term fix. I certainly have experience of that, about 4 of the 7 creditors on my DMP are PDL's.

That said, I intend to pay what I owe in full as I accept it was my own stupidity that resulted in the debts racking up. If they decide to scrap any debts outstanding or refund any interest, I'd consider it a very generous bonus. But I certainly don't expect them to do that. My only main gripe with the OP is his admission he was a compulsive gambler and effectively has laid part of the blame at the feet of the PDL's for 'allowing him' to take out the credit. I have no knowledge of the effects of a gambling addiction and I understand it can be a debilitating condition, but the key is to learn and accept the mistakes made and work towards making amends, not look to make claims and effectively point fingers when it was your own fault.

Overall though, I guess the ombudsman obviously feels differently if they've managed to get these companies to pay some money back.

simonp96

FireWyrm wrote: »

If it was truly 'irresponsible' then the customer would not have been aware of several key features and pieces of information in order to make an informed decision. As far as I know, no company you have listed is anything other than entirely upfront regarding fees and conditions of a loan. Therefore, there is no case to answer. The fact that you got away with it this time is immaterial. You, the customer requested money from an accredited and fully licensed lending institution after being made aware of all terms and conditions associated with that loan. Frankly, I fail to see where the PDLs have done anything wrong. Your lucky escape has done nothing other than set a very dangerous precedent for which, other customers will no doubt end up paying when further cases are 'upheld' on the basis of politics. Having debts written off should be the last resort when the customer is out of their depth through no fault of their own. There have been several cases on here of people who suffer life changing injuries, terminal illness and incapacity through no fault of their own...they are the ones who are deserving of such a stroke of luck, most other people are adults and know what they were doing.

I borrowed and paid back every month for an 18 month period. Would the PDLs not realise that i had become reliant on borrowing from them each month? It was obvious the way this was going to end.

As I said in my original post, i am a compulsive gambler (which is recognised as an illness) and therefore did whatever i could to borrow money to fund my habit and also my lifestyle.

What is responsible lending? - Any lender needs to make appropriate checks to ensure that the borrower can fulfil the committment they are taking on. This would include credit checks, requesting information about outgoings, checking bank statements. They did none of this.

Did i borrow responsibly - no i didn't but in my head the only way i could get out of the situation was to carry on borrowing and borrowing. Many others have fallen into the trap.

This site has spoken about PDLs many times and about how they need stricter controls and regulation. Yes it may make it harder for people to borrow from these companies but they may not get into as much trouble moneywise

simonp96

Powered_By_Pies wrote: »

It's an interesting debate actually - morally any amount someone borrows from any lender should be paid back as you're effectively borrowing money that otherwise you wouldn't have. You're essentially utilising someone's trust in your ability to pay any amount borrowed back, and not doing so can be considered a breach of said trust.

That said, PDL's charge incredible amounts of interest which means anyone who gets into trouble with one of this loans can easily tail-spin and end up chasing their tails trying to repay the interest more than the capital. Ergo, the PDL's get a nice fat profit from it.

It is ludicrously easy to get 'quick-fix credit' from these companies because they don't necessarily perform credit checks to the same extent as a standard high street lender does, so those who get caught in the trap continue to utilise this and end up spiralling the debt because it's so easy to get the cash for a short term fix. I certainly have experience of that, about 4 of the 7 creditors on my DMP are PDL's.

That said, I intend to pay what I owe in full as I accept it was my own stupidity that resulted in the debts racking up. If they decide to scrap any debts outstanding or refund any interest, I'd consider it a very generous bonus. But I certainly don't expect them to do that. My only main gripe with the OP is his admission he was a compulsive gambler and effectively has laid part of the blame at the feet of the PDL's for 'allowing him' to take out the credit. I have no knowledge of the effects of a gambling addiction and I understand it can be a debilitating condition, but the key is to learn and accept the mistakes made and work towards making amends, not look to make claims and effectively point fingers when it was your own fault.

Overall though, I guess the ombudsman obviously feels differently if they've managed to get these companies to pay some money back.

Hello,

Thanks for your comments. I have learnt much from my experience and i'm continuing to stay gamble free.

I have paid back all of the original amounts borrowed but its just the interest part that i am getting back. Yes i'm pretty lucky as to what has happened and i cannot put all the blame in the hands of the PDLs companies but they have to take a shared responsibility in the overall borrowing/lending process.

Maybe the PDLs will change their application process in terms of checking outgoings, credit checks etc. Surely that can be seen as a good thing.

I wish you all the best too in becoming debt free - it's the first time in my adult life that i am finally there and i don't want to go back.

Powered_By_Pies

simonp96 wrote: »

I borrowed and paid back every month for an 18 month period. Would the PDLs not realise that i had become reliant on borrowing from them each month? It was obvious the way this was going to end.

That's not the PDL's priority though. They have no idea what you're spending the money on. That would be like me lending a tenner to my mate who then goes and racks up thousands of pounds worth of debt by gambling, and blaming me for lending him a tenner which kicked it off. I'd have no idea what he was spending it on, so how is it my fault?

PDL's systems are all automated. Unless they had a tick-box question on the application saying 'will you be using these funds to gamble?' Then they don't know what the money's being spent on. And even if they did, if you were so hell-bent on getting the money to gamble, you'd lie and tick 'no' anyway. And not just solely you, I mean gambling addicts in general.

There's a review left on William Hill's Trust Pilot page where the reviewer was waxing lyrical about WH allowing him to open a second account and rack up further gambling debts after his initial account was shut down at his request for racking up £200k's worth of debt with them. How is that their fault? He went out of his way to exploit a loophole in their system. Are they suddenly liable to repay his debt because he was stupid enough to go back and rack up further debt?

FireWyrm

Powered_By_Pies wrote: »

That said, PDL's charge incredible amounts of interest which means anyone who gets into trouble with one of this loans can easily tail-spin and end up chasing their tails trying to repay the interest more than the capital. Ergo, the PDL's get a nice fat profit from it.

They dont charge 'incredible amounts of interest' at all. They charge somewhere between 21 and 25% for a month which is fair, considering you are only supposed to borrow it for a month. The clue to the lending model is in the name. This is short term lending and the customer is well aware of the Ts&Cs, they dont hide them. In fact, PDL interest is considerably better than an unauthorised overdraft for instance...would one consider going into unauthorised overdraft at the bank also 'irresponsible lending'?

Powered_By_Pies wrote: »

It is ludicrously easy to get 'quick-fix credit' from these companies because they don't necessarily perform credit checks to the same extent as a standard high street lender does,

They dont because they are niche lenders. They cater to those who cannot or will not prove their income to the satisfaction of a more mainstream lender.

I guarantee that the second they are forced to 'means-test/credit score' people, there will be howls of protest.

Powered_By_Pies wrote: »

so those who get caught in the trap

What trap? You are describing this as though they lay in wait to ambush a poor unsuspecting borrower and force them at gunpoint to take out a loan at 'extortionate' rates. Like STIs, no one in the western world can claim they do not know what a PDL is and what interest rates are likely to be charged.

Powered_By_Pies wrote: »

That said, I intend to pay what I owe in full

Exactly. The OP has got away with it.

Powered_By_Pies wrote: »

as I accept it was my own stupidity

In a nutshell, exactly.

simonp96

Powered_By_Pies wrote: »

That's not the PDL's priority though. They have no idea what you're spending the money on. That would be like me lending a tenner to my mate who then goes and racks up thousands of pounds worth of debt by gambling, and blaming me for lending him a tenner which kicked it off. I'd have no idea what he was spending it on, so how is it my fault?

PDL's systems are all automated. Unless they had a tick-box question on the application saying 'will you be using these funds to gamble?' Then they don't know what the money's being spent on. And even if they did, if you were so hell-bent on getting the money to gamble, you'd lie and tick 'no' anyway. And not just solely you, I mean gambling addicts in general.

There's a review left on William Hill's Trust Pilot page where the reviewer was waxing lyrical about WH allowing him to open a second account and rack up further gambling debts after his initial account was shut down at his request for racking up £200k's worth of debt with them. How is that their fault? He went out of his way to exploit a loophole in their system. Are they suddenly liable to repay his debt because he was stupid enough to go back and rack up further debt?

No matter what i was spending the money on each month, the ombudsman felt that the fact i was borrowing each month should have been obvious that i was relient on PDLs.

Yes i admit i would have probably lied at the time in terms of what the loans were for if ask but i didn't lie on any of the appplications.

It probably became too easy to borrow from these companies.

I hold my hands up in that i'm responsible for borrowing these amount but there is also responsibility on the companies lending the money too

Kate_fixing_it

simonp96 wrote: »

No matter what i was spending the money on each month, the ombudsman felt that the fact i was borrowing each month should have been obvious that i was relient on PDLs.

Isn't that the case for every other PDL user then? I'm ashamed to admit I got into the cycle too, the fact that I didn't use it to gamble is immaterial. As others have said the lenders are very transparent on what will be repaid and how much is interest. Me skipping over the box containing the warnings doesn't mean they were irresponsibly lending - you can lead a horse to water...

I hate myself for getting into that situation but I'm out now, the thought of the wasted money makes me feel physically sick but the blame is on the borrower IMO. Yes, the pattern is obvious but we can't expect a company we've only dealt with online to take action on one of 1000s of cases if we don't notice or take action to break the pattern ourselves.

Kate

chanz4

oh well he will never get payday loans again, as for sure he will be blacklisted. Im not so sure the ombudsman should be looking at yourself more.

Powered_By_Pies

chanz4 wrote: »

oh well he will never get payday loans again, as for sure he will be blacklisted. Im not so sure the ombudsman should be looking at yourself more.

This is what I've been thinking, with the Ombudsman seemingly able to record such landmark victories in this case, surely more people would be doing it and saying 'Oh, they're irresponsibly lending me money'...?

Loads of people get into a month-to-month cycle with these guys. I was using them at one point probably 10 months in a row. Does that then mean I'd have a case based on the FOS's findings as recorded in OP's post? Probably. Would I pursue it? Absolutely not, it was my decision to go down that path of stupidity and I'm soon to be paying the price with a DMP and watching my credit file get torn to shreds.