Irresponsible lending complaint

Kentish_Dave

Willing2Learn wrote: »

Why are so many of you, so quick to judge?

Because if the loan company had held a gun to their head the OP would have mentioned it. The fact that they entered into a simple contract of their own free will makes it de facto irresponsible borrowing.

The borrower knows far more about their own situation than the loan company, the borrower gets the loan company’s money, and the borrower knows how likely they are to no our commitments.

It was irresponsible borrowing, and you do the OP and people like them no favours by feeding their delusion.

Willing2Learn

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

It was irresponsible borrowing, and you do the OP and people like them no favours by feeding their delusion.

I guess the OFT was 'deluded' when they produced a their 80 page document - Irresponsible lending - OFT guidance for creditors


And were the FCA deluded when they issued the rules of exactly how firms should lend responsibly?
Consumer Credit sourcebook - Chapter 5 - Responsible lending

sourcrates

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

Because if the loan company had held a gun to their head the OP would have mentioned it. The fact that they entered into a simple contract of their own free will makes it de facto irresponsible borrowing.

The borrower knows far more about their own situation than the loan company, the borrower gets the loan company’s money, and the borrower knows how likely they are to no our commitments.

It was irresponsible borrowing, and you do the OP and people like them no favours by feeding their delusion.

Dave,

I’m sorry but it’s not that simple.

Most of these fly by night payday loan companies were set up just to take advantage of lax legislation in this country, they milked people dry, quite literally, some people had their bank accounts emptied by these thieves, thousands of pounds, they were lending to anyone and everyone, it was a massive scam truth be told, with little regulation of the industry, everyone was caught hopping.

Interest rates in thousands of percent were common, these are the companies who operated from Gibraltar or Malta, so were outside UK enforcement, and who disappeared overnight taking everyone’s money with them.

A lot of people were affected, even the British based lenders took advantage until the FCA caught up with the times and introduced legislation to curb interest and charges, some people were charged more in fees than they actually borrowed, this is what people are complaining about, excessive charges, they repaid the capital borrowed, plus the advertised interest, but lots were charged fees for failed direct debits, that were never set up, late payments that were not late, interest charged on fees, it’s not about the actual loan, so much, it’s the unfair interest and charges th@t everyone wants to reclaim.

This subject goes far beyond just borrowing money, it was an organised onslaught by criminal gangs taking advantage of those least able to take the hit.

Les79

Kentish_Dave wrote: »

Because if the loan company had held a gun to their head the OP would have mentioned it. The fact that they entered into a simple contract of their own free will makes it de facto irresponsible borrowing.

The borrower knows far more about their own situation than the loan company, the borrower gets the loan company’s money, and the borrower knows how likely they are to no our commitments.

It was irresponsible borrowing, and you do the OP and people like them no favours by feeding their delusion.

Seems a bit closed-minded of you to dismiss the concept of "irresponsible lending" out of hand.

You do actually have a point about "irresponsible borrowing" to be fair, but I think where you've gone wrong is not discussing the potential impact of "irresponsible lending" as well as the borrowing one.

If the company is guilty of "irresponsible lending" then, irrespective of the "borrowing" element, they have some liability in the matter.

That's why, despite it probably being classed as "irresponsible borrowing", people ARE getting refunds in certain circumstances with these payday loans. Hell, I've successfully fought two (one had to go to Financial Ombudsman) and I'm working on a third right now.

Kentish_Dave

sourcrates wrote: »

Dave,

I’m sorry but it’s not that simple.

Most of these fly by night payday loan companies were set up just to take advantage of lax legislation in this country, they milked people dry, quite literally, some people had their bank accounts emptied by these thieves.

Where to start?

I suppose the first pint is that no, they were not “quite literally” milked dry, they perhaps were metaphorically milked dry, but not literally.

Second, the terms were written there plain as day for people to read. The APR was not in the small print, the companies honoured their contracts to the letter, the borrowers chose to apply, and as the accounts show, all too few of them repaid in full and on time, and many even lied about their income, committing fraud to obtain the loan by deception.

So no, I am going to disagree with you. None of this is irresponsible lending, it’s all irresponsible borrowing.

I’d accept that the banks were foolish, lending money to the sort of people who’d not pay it back, but being the sort of person who does this doesn’t then entitle you to compensation, too.

Kentish_Dave

Les79 wrote: »

S
That's why, despite it probably being classed as "irresponsible borrowing", people ARE getting refunds in certain circumstances with these payday loans. Hell, I've successfully fought two (one had to go to Financial Ombudsman) and I'm working on a third right now.

That the government has decided to make the banks give some money to the section of society that are certain to waste it up the wall immediately says more about their attitude to fiscal stimulus and less about what they feel about who’s on the right side of the discussion.

No-one is going to complain about the banks being made to fork out money to the poorest in society, the government knows that it ends up straight back in their coffers, and they never had to put up any taxes to get the windfall.

The compensation is about one thing, and one thing only, and that is pumping someone else’s money into the demographic where the multiplier effect is the greatest.

It’s quite clever as policies go, but you must never, ever confuse any government or regulator’s decision with where morals lie.

sourcrates

Kentish Dave,

May I remind you of the forum rules :

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/site/forum-faqs/?_ga=2.250953605.2058702211.1560627052-1750279330.1544909106

Takmon

The problem with people like sourcrates is that they are very anti-bank and if someone makes a bad financial decision it's always the banks fault. In the past they probably got into loads of debt because they managed their money so poorly and want to blame it on the evil banks for lending them the money.

I can never understand why people like this want to be treated like children by lenders and they want the lenders to tell them they can't afford to borrow more when they apply for credit.

I much prefer to be responsible for my own financial decisions and i know what i can afford and i know that if i apply for a product i agree to all the terms and conditions and repayment terms. I've made a lot of money over the years by understand financial products and the best way to exploit them.

So i am very against anyone who wants more regulation and more restrictions to stop people from being able to make their own financial decisions.

Paul_DNAP

My initial feeling would have been an "irresponsible borrowing" type response, which may have been facilitated by the OP finding a lender with a much lower-than-average definition of who they feel they ought to be lending money to.

I infer (with no proof) that to end up borrowing money from an outfit called "Speedy Cash Loans" then the OP has already exhausted all the people with higher levels or responsibility who, probably rightly, refused to deal with them.

And so there's a conundrum isn't there? The responsibility of the responsible lenders only ends up pushing more people who are desperate to make a mistake into the hands of the people who are more than willing to help them make that mistake.

So yeah, irresponsible borrowing facilitated by people who are more than happy to allow the borrower to do it.

As for getting money back off them, there's nothing written about what money is sought and for what reasons, so we can't really address that.

But it does sound like the OP is emailing a company with a similar or same name as the one he took the loan from, and not the actual company he took the loan from if they can't find his details on their system.

sourcrates

Takmon wrote: »

The problem with people like sourcrates is that they are very anti-bank and if someone makes a bad financial decision it's always the banks fault. In the past they probably got into loads of debt because they managed their money so poorly and want to blame it on the evil banks for lending them the money.

I can never understand why people like this want to be treated like children by lenders and they want the lenders to tell them they can't afford to borrow more when they apply for credit.

I much prefer to be responsible for my own financial decisions and i know what i can afford and i know that if i apply for a product i agree to all the terms and conditions and repayment terms. I've made a lot of money over the years by understand financial products and the best way to exploit them.

So i am very against anyone who wants more regulation and more restrictions to stop people from being able to make their own financial decisions.

I am VERY anti scam, and 100% for the consumer, so I see that as a positive, not a negative.

And you still don’t get it do you, it’s not banks we are taking about,

READ THE POST CORRECTLY!!

Banks do not provide payday loans, they are private equity companies.