Satsuma Loans - Irresponsible Practice?

ReadingTim

From the screenshot posted, it looks like the OP's "friend" has tried to take out 4th loan, which has been rejected because they've got 3 loans outstanding already. Perhaps understandably miffed, they've looked into why, and seen they should only have been allowed 2 loans in total, rather than the 3 they actually have and the 4th they were trying to take out.

Personally, I think that the decline shows that Satsuma are a responsible lender, whereas this 4th application after an 'unexpected reduction in income' shows that the OP's "friend" is an irresponsible borrower

T-G-C

ReadingTim wrote: »

From the screenshot posted, it looks like the OP's "friend" has tried to take out 4th loan, which has been rejected because they've got 3 loans outstanding already. Perhaps understandably miffed, they've looked into why, and seen they should only have been allowed 2 loans in total, rather than the 3 they actually have and the 4th they were trying to take out.

Personally, I think that the decline shows that Satsuma are a responsible lender, whereas this 4th application after an 'unexpected reduction in income' shows that the OP's "friend" is an irresponsible borrower

The top bit about "not eligible" is shown to ALL customers who have a loan out with them, even if they haven't asked to check. It is one of their ways of enticing you into making another application - I am not disputing this practice, it is completely legal and I am the first to say that people need to have more self-control when it comes to credit. However, they didn't attempt a fourth. They took 3 out and then noticed the discrepancy on a random site visit, hence they asked me to check it out here, as I am a forum user and they aren't. They didn't make a fourth application, all 3 they made were accepted.

I'm not disputing whether or not the person is irresponsible, they probably are, but I personally thought, as a previous Satsuma customer myself (glad to have got rid of them) that they were more honest than that. When they tell someone 2 is the maximum and then entice them into a 3rd loan, which is easy to do if someone is in a bad place, it's quite poor practice and a bit irresponsible on their part. This is about the offering of a 3rd loan, not any more.

[Deleted User]

Have you actually asked Satsuma? If you are just talking about the principle and not a specific account I don't see why they wouldn't tell you.

boo_star

T-G-C wrote: »

Even if it is within FCA rules to grant a further two separate loans after the first one, totaling three, it is misleading for them to tell a debtor that the maximum is two at once and then entice them into more credit with a third after approval of the first or second.

If they are compliant with the rules, their wording should clearly indicate that affordability may allow up-to three active loans at once. This may allow consumers to make a more educated decision about whether or not to use that particular lender. Some people may avoid them if they feel a third loan would be too tempting, therefore they aren't being made aware of it, hence potentially ending up in three loans worth of debt down the line, when they were originally told that they don't offer more than two.

It's misleading in a way that isn't beneficial to the creditor though.

They're telling people they won't lend when they will.

I don't see why the FCA or the FOS would be interested in this.

fidget29

I am pursuing an unaffordable lending claim against Satsuna. Is there any precedent for this (success)

foxy-stoat

Good luck and report back...not sure on success rates but if it were me I would take action against myself for irresponsible borrowing.

ffacoffipawb

fidget29 wrote: »

I am pursuing an unaffordable lending claim against Satsuna. Is there any precedent for this (success)

Hopefully not.

DCFC79

fidget29 wrote: »

I am pursuing an unaffordable lending claim against Satsuna. Is there any precedent for this (success)

I hope you will check over the form before you post it etc, could get thrown out if against the wrong firm.

dealer_wins

Unaffordable lending, how does that work then lol

PixelPound

Does the Satsuma limitation only apply for loans from a specific date, or could it be the oldest loan isn't covered.
The loans/debts are still owed, so is the idea hoping for some compensation to use to repay the loans