Amigo guarantor loan help

poppasmurf_bewdley

Smedders11 wrote: »

How can you possibly serious? There's a chasm of difference between a guarantor knowingly and willingly entering an agreement to guarantee a loan for a trusted friend or family member, and said guarantor stealing the loan from the original debtor.

Sounds ridiculous on Amigo's part. I can understand the reasoning for a guarantor, but why on earth does it need to go to the guarantor's account!?

I believe the reason for this is so that the Guarantor can not later deny knowing anything about acting as guarantor, and/or to prevent a borrower fraudulently using Aunt Gladys's name and address as a guarantor when she doesn't, in actual fact, know anything about it. The theory being that bank accounts in someone else's name are difficult to set up.

RuthnJasper

Have you supplied Amigo with copies of your bank statements, OP? That might back up your claim that you weren't paid the money... although I guess they could say that you used a different account.


Hope happier times lie ahead for you.

AnotherJoe

Alice_Walker wrote: »

It's no more "stupid" than a guarantor being liable for money they never had use of?

Its totally different because there is no expectation at all that the guarantor will have use of the money !! The guarantor does it for reasons unconnected with money, its all downside for them financially.

boo_star

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Its totally different because there is no expectation at all that the guarantor will have use of the money !! The guarantor does it for reasons unconnected with money, its all downside for them financially.

Well, except in this case obviously.

National_Debtline

It is industry-wide procedure for guarantor loans to be credited to the account of the guarantor. Nothing unusual about this at all - as others have identified above, it is intended to prevent or at least limit the scope for fraudulent borrowing.


Dennis
@natdebtline

kabayiri

National_Debtline wrote: »

It is industry-wide procedure for guarantor loans to be credited to the account of the guarantor. Nothing unusual about this at all - as others have identified above, it is intended to prevent or at least limit the scope for fraudulent borrowing.


Dennis
@natdebtline

This does surprise me somewhat.

Isn't there a duty of care argument to ensure that the actual customer receives the product he/she signed up for?

I think there is a flaw in the service delivery model here. You would not expect a bank teller to hand money over to your mate in the bank with a request to "pass it over to your friend, it's his withdrawal".

[Deleted User]

You might if the friend was also responsible for paying it back.

soolin

kabayiri wrote: »

This does surprise me somewhat.

Isn't there a duty of care argument to ensure that the actual customer receives the product he/she signed up for?

I think there is a flaw in the service delivery model here. You would not expect a bank teller to hand money over to your mate in the bank with a request to "pass it over to your friend, it's his withdrawal".

The 'mate' though is ultimately responsible for repaying the money if the borrower defaults so if the mate was in the bank guaranteeing the loan then yes, perhaps the teller would be expected to hand it to him as well.

It is not a withdrawal of funds, it is a loan .

kabayiri

soolin wrote: »

The 'mate' though is ultimately responsible for repaying the money if the borrower defaults so if the mate was in the bank guaranteeing the loan then yes, perhaps the teller would be expected to hand it to him as well.

It is not a withdrawal of funds, it is a loan .

Yeah, I get this.

It would be nice if they added some basic validation processes in, like a follow up call to ensure the money was received.

I guess it's a very marginal case though.

CHR15

The borrower isn't someone who could be trusted anyway.
The whole point of these silly loans is to enable people who would not stick a chance of being accepted anywhere a last chance.

The borrower very much plays second fiddle in this Orchestra, nobody is expecting the borrower to repay the loan, aside from the gullible guarantor (perhaps not in this rare case though!).

I think it entirely right and proper the money goes into the guarantors account, he/she is ultimately the one responsible for repaying the money to the lender.

Get rid of them I say, for the sake a all the gullible guarantors out there who get saddled with the repayments.