Sunny Mega-interest loan company targets teenagers!

Geodark

daveyjp wrote: »

Is he now on the electoral role? Companies trawl for newly added people on the role as chances are they are teenagers.

Exactly this - My daughter turned 18 back end of last year and has now started to get letters through the post from Capital One etc. They are targeting young people.

BaldacchinoR

It should be a criminal offence to charge interest of more than 25%. But typically, the Government fails to act in the interest (no pun intended) of the majority.


At least the EC (EU) makes some effort to protect consumers, so thanks to them for doing so. There are EC Regulations called something like the Unfair Trading Terms in Consumer Contracts, under which it is possible to take action in the courts if you think the terms are unreasonable. I don't know if there ever has been any case in the courts where an action against unreasonable interest (or other) charges has occurred.

dizzie

unholyangel wrote: »

Well the reason why they would is because its a parents job to get their child ready for the world. Not to wait till they're an adult and then teach them about responsibilities/dangers.

Just because they're currently dependent on you and living at home now doesn't mean they always will be.

Good judgement comes from experience. Sometimes experience comes from bad judgement.

Yep, point taken - and as I said, thankfully we have great dialogue and relationship with our kids and I consider them pretty well prepared for adult life (although undoubtedly I've not covered an exhaustive list).

Let me ask you: "Does EVERY parent always teach/warn their child about EVERY single risk/danger etc etc that exists?" Because frankly, the list is as long as both arms! You know, I think NOT....unless you presume all parents are perfect of course and equip their kids with 100% of the skills/knowledge they need to breeze through adult life. Perhaps you are one of the rare breed of perfect parents?

I'd suggest you have an idealistic view....not a realistic one. In my own life, there are certainly things that I was never "warned or taught about" and you learn these things through the sharp end of experience. All I am saying is I think it would be unfair for some young people to fall foul of this and have to learn by "being stung" because it's something they've never come across.

So I think the practice of actively promoting these scandalous high interest products and actively targeting those who will either still be a bit "green" having just entered into the realms of adulthood, or financially vulnerable is WRONG. Plain and simple!


Companies like SUNNY should be named and shamed!

unholyangel

dizzie wrote: »

Yep, point taken - and as I said, thankfully we have great dialogue and relationship with our kids and I consider them pretty well prepared for adult life (although undoubtedly I've not covered an exhaustive list).

Let me ask you: "Does EVERY parent always teach/warn their child about EVERY single risk/danger etc etc that exists?" Because frankly, the list is as long as both arms! You know, I think NOT....unless you presume all parents are perfect of course and equip their kids with 100% of the skills/knowledge they need to breeze through adult life. Perhaps you are one of the rare breed of perfect parents?

I'd suggest you have an idealistic view....not a realistic one. In my own life, there are certainly things that I was never "warned or taught about" and you learn these things through the sharp end of experience. All I am saying is I think it would be unfair for some young people to fall foul of this and have to learn by "being stung" because it's something they've never come across.

So I think the practice of actively promoting these scandalous high interest products and actively targeting those who will either still be a bit "green" having just entered into the realms of adulthood, or financially vulnerable is WRONG. Plain and simple!


Companies like SUNNY should be named and shamed!

You've taken my post the completely wrong way.

Not sitting in judgement of any parents and there is no need to teach your kids every danger out there. You teach them to approach situations logically and thats 80% of situations covered right there. Developing problem solving skills is much more useful than teaching them the answers.

You say they shouldnt be sent them as they're likely to be stung by it due to never coming across it. If they're being stung because they havent came across it.....what difference will it make if you're hiding it all away from them still?

The point of my post above was that as parents, you can only try and pass on as much knowledge as you can in the hopes that enough of it has sunk in for them to make it on their own. Some things really can't be taught and they'll only learn through experience. If the training wheels stay on, they'll never grow up.

However I would say that given the culture we live in (its described as a throw away culture, as we buy new things instead of fixing old ones), it should be something every parent teaches their child. To live within their means.

dealer_wins

BaldacchinoR wrote: »

It should be a criminal offence to charge interest of more than 25%. But typically, the Government fails to act in the interest (no pun intended) of the majority.

Loads of things we buy have 100%+ markups, such as birthday cards, dining out, designer goods drinks esp in hotels etc

Should they all be illegal too?

dizzie

Yes fine Unholyangel.....but you presume that other people are naturally as savvy and switched on as you and I....and that's not really fair. And being in my 40's, I know that I am far wiser and far less gullible now than I was at 18.

Even if we get off the subject of teenagers, how many adults fall victim to scams....and then feel too embarrassed to admit it? Not everyone is as "switched on" as another person. People of all ages can be vulnerable for many reasons: e.g. inexperience of life, general differences in how gullible people are or what they are capable of understanding, or perhaps dementia or memory loss in the elderly. And as far as sharks like Sunny are concerned, they know that people are more likely to be "financially vulnerable" at certain phases in their lives too.

Don't we have a collective social duty to protect people from falling prey to unscrupulous companies? We are very good at regulating lots of industries in an attempt to protect the general public. Is this really any different?

If we can ban cigarette advertising on the grounds that is is bad for medical health why on earth can we NOT ban companies from mail-shotting people with financial offers that can be catastrophic for financial health. Offers that seem on the surface to offer answers to a problem....when in fact, these colossal interest rates can trap people in debt (and haven't we all learnt our lessons yet as a nation?).

PS To the poster who said that physical products can have a 100% mark up on them. True, but there are some differences:

1. If a person has concerns about their finances... receiving a friendly letter which offers you money could tempt a person to make a rash decision without looking at the small print of the agreement. Whereas if your telly goes on the blink, you are probably not going to feel quite so desperate! You are much more likely to browse stores or the internet and make a more informed decision about what to buy.

2. And if we could get rid of irresponsible credit out of the equation, the consequences of buying a flash telly are not as likely to be as far-reaching as trapping yourself in a debt cycle with a loan product whose interest accumulates faster than you can actually repay the capital.

Morglin

Some of these companies do seem seem to target vulnerable groups - I used to do some benefit stuff at local centres, for people with learning difficulties, elderly folk, and at the local food bank (where people tend to be desperate!)

It was astonishing how many times, leaflet distributors left their guff at these places, or handed them out. :mad:

Lin

wealdroam

dizzie wrote: »

If we can ban cigarette advertising on the grounds that is is bad for medical health why on earth can we NOT ban companies from mail-shotting people with financial offers that can be catastrophic for financial health.

Possibly because it is not yet proven that taking out a loan at an exorbitant interest rate can kill you.

dizzie

Actually it can wealdroam.

Did you know that when the Greek financial crisis hit, the suicide rate increased markedly?

Never underestimate the psychological effects that can be caused by a spiralling debt trap!

Just for example, student Toby Thorn killed himself a couple of years ago because of an £8000 debt he had been agonising about...

....and according to the debt support trust, over 50% of people struggling with debt consider suicide.

http://www.debtsupporttrust.org.uk/debt-advice/debt-and-suicide

I think this is a pretty serious matter!

wealdroam

dizzie wrote: »

Actually it can wealdroam.

Did you know that when the Greek financial crisis hit, the suicide rate increased markedly?

Never underestimate the psychological effects that can be caused by a spiralling debt trap!

Just for example, student Toby Thorn killed himself a couple of years ago because of an £8000 debt he had been agonising about...

....and according to the debt support trust, over 50% of people struggling with debt consider suicide.

http://www.debtsupporttrust.org.uk/debt-advice/debt-and-suicide

I think this is a pretty serious matter!

And crossing the road can kill.
That too is a pretty serious matter.

Most parents will teach their children that crossing the road can be dangerous.

Sorry, nothing more to say.