Online loans advertised rates are simply a phishing con trick

kwame41

The advertised rates are not 'mythical' you have already been told 51% of applicants do get them.

nubian

Strangely they meet the criteria in both cases, they live at home for free have only a phone contract and both disposable income over £1000 one would pay £250 per month and the other £238 per month.


I appreciate what you are saying and I am not so naïve to think they don't have more parameters around which they calculate risk but its the lack of clarity and openness that appears so unnecessary. If the industry were directed to be more open, then maybe the wider population could work their finances more effectively towards meeting the affordability and credit ratings rather than relying on the somewhat flawed MSE application process and companies like Experian etc.

nubian

Who says so? where is the evidence? where is the data? its not available to me, is it available to you?because when I asked the lender, they said its confidential and commercially sensitive information. Well wouldn't you know!

[Deleted User]

nubian wrote: »

Strangely they meet the criteria in both cases, they live at home for free have only a phone contract and both disposable income over £1000 one would pay £250 per month and the other £238 per month.

Lack of credit history is the obvious thing that stands out there.

[Deleted User]

nubian wrote: »

Who says so? where is the evidence? where is the data? its not available to me, is it available to you?because when I asked the lender, they said its confidential and commercially sensitive information. Well wouldn't you know!

They're right - it's commercially sensitive. The evidence is available to the lender in question, the auditors and the FCA.

nobblyned

If they live at home for free and only have £1000 per month disposable then it sounds like a £12k loan would be a very high loan to income ratio. That combined with their lack of credit history makes them poor risks.

foxy-stoat

Bottom line is, its not a scam and its not phishing.

kwame41

Respectfully, I dont think the OP is interested in the facts. Just ranting at a perceived slight.

bigisi

kwame41 wrote: »

Respectfully, I dont think the OP is interested in the facts. Just ranting at a perceived slight.

Exactly, there's none so blind as those who won't see.

His lovely little darlings are obviously perfect so how dare any company suggest otherwise :mad:

nubian

Yes I guessed that. Slightly perverse that lack of debt does seem to equate to no record of regular debt payment. They both saved for things were taught to be prudent and because of this and by having the disposable income, they were both able to do, see and experience many things in their young lives and now they are penalized for doing exactly what the government, the banks and the industry have crowed on about for years keeping you personal debt low and saving more! what a strange world we live in.