Wonga repayments

Clive_Woody

dave.ck wrote: »

have received and email saying £0.43 to the pound
staying i was due £752.83 ? don't where that came from as miss sold loads of times being on benefits and having to go into nearly a dozen payment plans
due £32.45

How did you plan on repaying the original loans you took out, if your only income was benefits?

dave.ck

anngerrish wrote: »

I have had an email asking for me to upload a picture of my bank card with the card number removed and of my driving licence. I am a little bit worried about doing this - I am planning to remove my date of birth and address from my driving licence. Is this ok to do, is it normal to do this as I am worried about my details being copied and used by another party or to try and gain access illegally to my bank.

i removed my date of birth from my driving license and number let them see photo, name and address only. They were fine with me.

sassy_one

Regardless, don't go thinking you'll treat yourself to a holiday on the money you'll (maybe) get because it's already been confirmed you'll get around £5-10 !/ most, a very tiny payment.

On that basis I'm surprised you say it'll be nice to get some money, barely be enough for two wetherspoons meals.

sassy_one

Wonga was one of those things people abused and used and never paid back.

An awful outlet but it's those people who took these loans knowing full well they had no intention or capacity to repay the money who ruined it for the other side who used and repaid a PayDay loan the next day.

I'm surprised at the financial authority allowing these claims to happen because those who took the loans are basically be rewarded for not paying, absolutely madness.

sourcrates

sassy-one wrote: »

Wonga was one of those things people abused and used and never paid back.

An awful outlet but it's those people who took these loans knowing full well they had no intention or capacity to repay the money who ruined it for the other side who used and repaid a PayDay loan the next day.

I'm surprised at the financial authority allowing these claims to happen because those who took the loans are basically be rewarded for not paying, absolutely madness.

And no doubt there credit files reflected previous such bad behavior, and yet Wonga still lent to them, knowing full well they may not repay their borrowing, would you not agree that too is absolute madness ?

The reason why people are been redressed now, is not for loans they didn't repay, but for those that they did repay, you don`t get redress for a loan you did not repay, you may have it written off, but no redress is payable under those circumstances.

It appears the minority are engrossed in offering their opinions of people who are more dis-advantaged than themselves, when they obviously do not understand the redress process, because they have missed the point of the redress scheme entirely.

Only people who have repaid there loans, but should not have been lent too in the first place, due to affordability issues are being redressed, not those who didn`t.

Takmon

sourcrates wrote: »

And no doubt there credit files reflected previous such bad behavior, and yet Wonga still lent to them, knowing full well they may not repay their borrowing, would you not agree that too is absolute madness ?

The reason why people are been redressed now, is not for loans they didn't repay, but for those that they did repay, you don`t get redress for a loan you did not repay, you may have it written off, but no redress is payable under those circumstances.

You are all engrossed in giving us your opinions of people who are more dis-advantaged then yourselves, you missed the point of the redress scheme entirely.

Only people who have repaid there loans, but should not have been lent too in the first place, due to affordability issues are being redressed.

I think it's madness that people think responsible adults should get redress for being given loans they shouldn't have. If an adult responsible for their own finances wants to borrow money and the loan company is happy to lend it to them then there shouldn't be any issues.

The rules on affordability are getting tighter and tighter and all that means is people responsible with money are more likely to get turned down and lose out.

sourcrates

Takmon wrote: »

I think it's madness that people think responsible adults should get redress for being given loans they shouldn't have.

Thankfully the FCA take a more benign approach to the matter than you do.

Takmon

sourcrates wrote: »

Thankfully the FCA take a more benign approach to the matter than you do.

It's certainly not benign when they are telling adults what they can and can't afford to be borrowing.

How would you feel if this was applied to other areas such as restaurants. Would you be grateful if a restaurant legally had to limit the food they could serve you based on your weight/health. How would you react to "I'm sorry sir but your BMI means that we have to reject your dessert order for your own good".

If you feel you can't be trusted to make your own financial decisions then that is a valid choice and you can have someone else manage your finances. But that doesn't mean everyone should have the choice taken away from them.
It's already gone too far in this direction and people seem to be encouraging more and more restrictions.

On_my_way

In my mind the main issue is that if people have 1 loan they can't afford it ends up putting them in a spiral of debt and this is especially true with "short term debt".

Overdrafts are much cheaper now than they used to be too.

sourcrates

On_my_way said:

Overdrafts are much cheaper now than they used to be too. 

Not after April they won`t be, 39.9% is due to become the norm for most borrowers.