No loans for disabled people....

faithcecilia

I would imagine that part of the problem is to do with banks being very restricted in how they can use income from benefits to cover debt repayments

PeacefulWaters

The benefits in question are not provided on the basis of giving the recipient a few extra quid to cover interest costs.

It's pretty poor that, historically, our banks have been so keen to advance loans to people who's only income is state benefits.

The change in lending policy is sensible and fair.

If benefit payments give you enough to afford loan repayments they give you enough to save up for something.

That's generous, not draconian.

Helvetica_Van_Buren

adenufnow wrote: »

Hi

I am writing this rather than getting angry with the world.

...

You do seem pretty angry at the world.

As much as this forum is about support and not judging people, it would be unwise for everyone to band together and appear to lower their intelligence and compromise on common sense to sympathise with your apparent injustice when no such injustice has occurred.

ViolaLass

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Perhaps they would rather lend money to people who actually need it, rather than those with money in the bank they choose not to use it?

Probably vice versa, actually. The banks don't care whether you need the money, they care about whether it will be repaid.



OP, the idea of your wife lending herself the money is a good one.

wiltsguy_2

ViolaLass wrote: »

OP, the idea of your wife lending herself the money is a good one.

probably be the best way forward, could she not borrow the money from 'herself' and pay it back at the rate/amount lloyds would of charged over s set period of time? therfore saving herself a tidy income instead of the bank making a profit?

robber2

Given the tile of this thread I'm suprised that no one has yet pointed out that many disabled people actually have jobs, earn a wage and are therefore as likely to get a loan as an able bodied person.

robber

Paully232000

OP, do you have a CCJ?

This could be a reason you cannot get a loan.

27col

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

The benefits in question are not provided on the basis of giving the recipient a few extra quid to cover interest costs.

It's pretty poor that, historically, our banks have been so keen to advance loans to people who's only income is state benefits.

The change in lending policy is sensible and fair.

If benefit payments give you enough to afford loan repayments they give you enough to save up for something.

That's generous, not draconian.

How very true. Though the thought probably does not feature in the logic of the OP.

27col

wiltsguy wrote: »

probably be the best way forward, could she not borrow the money from 'herself' and pay it back at the rate/amount lloyds would of charged over s set period of time? therfore saving herself a tidy income instead of the bank making a profit?

So obvious that it is unlikely to be accepted as a solution by the OP.
I have lent myself the money to buy a car several times in the past.
I was a good lender as I didn't charge myself a high interest rate.

wiltsguy_2

27col wrote: »

So obvious that it is unlikely to be accepted as a solution by the OP.
I have lent myself the money to by a car several times in the past.
I was a good lender as I didn't charge myself a high interest rate.

and i bet you didn't default once lol! i dont understand why take a loan out when you have the funds???