Amigo Loans really are an evil company

DCFC79

Chantellekwx wrote: »

Amigo loans don’t give two flying pigs if you’re in debt and can’t afford to pay or not. This is what happened with me and my ex. He signed as the back up and I took the loan, we fell into troubled water and they still took us to court. I’ve made the court judgments payments as followed and amigo have now sent the account to a debt collect with enforcement agents and told them they never took me to court (despite me having CCJ paperwork and the judgment in the drawer!) just to get a higher payment from me than what I am paying. They are evil and I would advise everyone to avoid at all costs.

Its not Amigo Loans responsibility to show compassion, they just want the money paid back.

[Deleted User]

Samsung_Note2 wrote: »

People see it as an easy option or cant/wont simply wait and save.

Been there and done it...but we could also argue same for credit cards or loans,we insist we need and must have XYZ now this second and bang it on the plastic or ask Wonga.

We need to take responsibility for our actions.

Why stop there, people who take insurance and pay monthly are entering into a credit agreement....with an Apr.... Never come by a policy that hasn't had it's premium increased when choosing to pay monthly. (For all this site's egging on of people to claim back interest and fee's.) I mean perhaps we should tell everyone who cannot afford to pay a high policy in one go, that they should be walking...............

Samsung_Note2

Deleted%20User wrote: »

Why stop there, people who take insurance and pay monthly are entering into a credit agreement....with an Apr.... Never come by a policy that hasn't had it's premium increased when choosing to pay monthly. (For all this site's egging on of people to claim back interest and fee's.) I mean perhaps we should tell everyone who cannot afford to pay a high policy in one go, that they should be walking...............

Huge difference...if i cant afford my car insurance (assuming i was paying monthly..i dont as i save up during the year and pay it when due in full,its called saving) id simply cancel it and walk away without any debts.

Stop paying a loan and walk away..you still owe a sum of money which will increase as they still charge interest and all sort of fee"s for defaulting.

As said ive been there done it and ended up a bankrupt after being made redundant due to a medical condition and then not being able to pay the every day debts/commitments id run up,so lesson learnt the hard way and thats to try and stick a few quid away even though im classed as a low wage earner.

You cant compare the two situations as they are poles apart.

Malthusian

foxy-stoat wrote: »

Best to tell them that the call is being recorded for quality and training purposes.

Not essential. It is not illegal to record a phone call without the permission of the other person. It may be inadmissable in court, but the Financial Ombudsman isn't a court of law. Call centre staff working for financial companies will expect their calls to be recorded and kept for at least five years (longer for certain types of business) as it is a regulatory requirement. And no harm in the consumer doubling up.

Saying "this call is being recorded" is immediately going to put any call centre operative on their guard and make it even less likely that the call will achieve anything useful. They will look to either escalate or hang up as soon as possible, before the guy who is clearly trying to catch them out and get them in trouble succeeds.

PixelPound

Malthusian wrote: »

Not essential. It is not illegal to record a phone call without the permission of the other person. It may be inadmissable in court, but the Financial Ombudsman isn't a court of law. Call centre staff working for financial companies will expect their calls to be recorded and kept for at least five years (longer for certain types of business) as it is a regulatory requirement. And no harm in the consumer doubling up.

Saying "this call is being recorded" is immediately going to put any call centre operative on their guard and make it even less likely that the call will achieve anything useful. They will look to either escalate or hang up as soon as possible, before the guy who is clearly trying to catch them out and get them in trouble succeeds.

You can always request for transcripts of calls, especially if its a particular one as part of a DSAR request (it's quicker for them to give you that than saying "I want everything" where you will get a bunch of stuff mostly of no use), you also have to remember most call centre staff are there to do their job not trick you, but yes telling them you are recording it may make them cautious but at least they should be mindful of telling you the correct information.

T-G-C

antrobus wrote: »

Err, right. So now you want an "amicable resolution"? I'm not quite convinced that your tactic of ripping into them on the phone and making "the person want to sob" quite meets the definition of amicable.:)

I'd suggest a different tactic.
.


Paying your agreed instalments is what you are supposed to do. Failure to do so means that Amigo will simply turn to the guarantor.

What things do you think should happen?

1. I would only make them "want to sob" if they were as the OP has described. Unjustifiably rude and passive aggressive on the phone. There is no need for it and it would only be fair and self-gratifying to serve the same response back to them. If you don't agree with that "tactic" as you call it, then that is fine, I don't expect you to.

2. An amicable resolution means reaching a mutually workable agreement on the debt repayments without them turning to the guarantor. As a lender, there should be a protocol for those who cannot meet the full repayments and are having financial difficulties, but can pay enough out of their budget each month to avoid the guarantor being used. Hopping straight to the guarantor at the first sign of trouble is ridiculous. The OP is clearly in a vulnerable situation and is concerned about the end result if they stop paying completely. In simple words, I meant that pushing them into meeting that workable agreement with the direct debtor could pour more results than simply allowing them to speak to you like that and get nowhere closer to sorting the situation out. I didn't advise swearing or being abusive, I advised showing you are not taking nonsense from them and would like to sort it out rather than hide away. If they still refuse then take it from there.

Pixie5740

T-G-C wrote: »

1. I would only make them "want to sob" if they were as the OP has described. Unjustifiably rude and passive aggressive on the phone. There is no need for it and it would only be fair and self-gratifying to serve the same response back to them. If you don't agree with that "tactic" as you call it, then that is fine, I don't expect you to.

2. An amicable resolution means reaching a mutually workable agreement on the debt repayments without them turning to the guarantor. As a lender, there should be a protocol for those who cannot meet the full repayments and are having financial difficulties, but can pay enough out of their budget each month to avoid the guarantor being used. Hopping straight to the guarantor at the first sign of trouble is ridiculous. The OP is clearly in a vulnerable situation and is concerned about the end result if they stop paying completely. In simple words, I meant that pushing them into meeting that workable agreement with the direct debtor could pour more results than simply allowing them to speak to you like that and get nowhere closer to sorting the situation out. I didn't advise swearing or being abusive, I advised showing you are not taking nonsense from them and would like to sort it out rather than hide away. If they still refuse then take it from there.

It's not ridiculous, it's the whole point of having a guarantor. Amigo know that the sorts of people who will turn to them for a loan are crap at borrowing money and repaying it that's why they ask for a guarantor. Other lenders won't touch these borrowers with a 10' barge pole otherwise the borrowers would go elsewhere, somewhere that doesn't involve dragging a family member of friend into their financial toxic slag heap.

T-G-C

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It's not ridiculous, it's the whole point of having a guarantor. Amigo know that the sorts of people who will turn to them for a loan are crap at borrowing money and repaying it that's why they ask for a guarantor. Other lenders won't touch these borrowers with a 10' barge pole otherwise the borrowers would go elsewhere, somewhere that doesn't involve dragging a family member of friend into their financial toxic slag heap.

Quite an interesting use of words to describe it at the end.

You do not think that a guarantor lender like Amigo should work with the direct borrower to the fullest extent, even if it means a payment arrangement, before demanding repayment from the secondary contact? It puts the borrower under enormous stress from knowing the person who put trust into them is now going to foot the bill and could be avoidable if the borrower is able to still pay an amount monthly out of their tight budget towards the repayments?

Pixie5740

T-G-C wrote: »

Quite an interesting use of words to describe it at the end.

You do not think that a guarantor lender like Amigo should work with the direct borrower to the fullest extent, even if it means a payment arrangement, before demanding repayment from the secondary contact? It puts the borrower under enormous stress from knowing the person who put trust into them is now going to foot the bill and could be avoidable if the borrower is able to still pay an amount monthly out of their tight budget towards the repayments?

No I don't. That's the whole point of having a guarantor. When the borrower fails to make the repayments in full and on time why should Amigo fanny around trying to agree a repayment plan when there is a guarantor available. If Amigo wanted to mess around with high risk borrowers and debt management plans they wouldn't bother asking for a guarantor in the first place. Why delay the inevitable?

Hard cheese if the borrower is stressed out about letting the guarantor down. They should have thought about that long and hard before asking someone to be their guarantor. Amigo knew there was a high chance of the borrower defaulting, the borrower ought to know it otherwise why is Amigo the least bad option available to them, the guarantor should know it too.

T-G-C

Pixie5740 wrote: »

No I don't. That's the whole point of having a guarantor. When the borrower fails to make the repayments in full and on time why should Amigo fanny around trying to agree a repayment plan when there is a guarantor available. If Amigo wanted to mess around with high risk borrowers and debt management plans they wouldn't bother asking for a guarantor in the first place. Why delay the inevitable?

Hard cheese if the borrower is stressed out about letting the guarantor down. They should have thought about that long and hard before asking someone to be their guarantor. Amigo knew there was a high chance of the borrower defaulting, the borrower ought to know it otherwise why is Amigo the least bad option available to them, the guarantor should know it too.

In the situation that the OP is in, such as losing a child among other things, it is "hard cheese" and needs to take these consequences on the chin; allow the guarantor to foot the repayments and have that added stress on top rather than try to appease Amigo with a 1-2-1 payment arrangement out of their current budget? It might be protocol but it is wrong and someone in that situation should have more options to clear their own debt rather than "pass the buck" straight to the guarantor. The correct approach should be that guarantors are used as an absolute last resort, where the debtor has refused to repay the debt and is not willing to make any arrangements - not immediately used as collateral damage with no 1-2-1 options if you are struggling and cannot afford the full repayment amount each month.