Claiming back from Amigo Loans

[Deleted User]

JimmyTheWig said:

Surely a gambling problem is an indication that they shouldn't have been borrowing money, isn't it?
Whether that is deemed the lender's problem or not, I don't know.

The OP is making a complaint about irresponsible lending not his own borrowing. The lender would not be aware of his gambling addiction and it certainly wouldn't form part of any affordability criteria. 

[Deleted User]

sourcrates said:they will charge you 35%, weather you are successful or not, if you want to throw your money away, then go ahead.

Actually, claim companies are now regulated and can "only" charge a maximum of 25% (plus VAT) of any redress. They also do not charge if the complaint is unsuccessful. 

Other than those inaccuracies, I totally agree they are a waste of money and do nothing to enhance the chances of success.   

jefaz07

Go onto the Debt Camel website....there is a whole dedicated section about this, with templates and tips. Regardless of what people have said (wrongly) on this post gambling is a big issue, so don't worry about it. 

90% of claims are being upheld at FOS if it gets that far. So do it yourself but it seems there is a wait. 

jefaz07

Moneyineptitude said:

JimmyTheWig said:

Surely a gambling problem is an indication that they shouldn't have been borrowing money, isn't it?
Whether that is deemed the lender's problem or not, I don't know.

The OP is making a complaint about irresponsible lending not his own borrowing. The lender would not be aware of his gambling addiction and it certainly wouldn't form part of any affordability criteria. 

You’re very very wrong with that statement. Proven on the website I have mentioned and by the FOS themselves. 

[Deleted User]

jefaz07 said:

Moneyineptitude said:

JimmyTheWig said:

Surely a gambling problem is an indication that they shouldn't have been borrowing money, isn't it?
Whether that is deemed the lender's problem or not, I don't know.

The OP is making a complaint about irresponsible lending not his own borrowing. The lender would not be aware of his gambling addiction and it certainly wouldn't form part of any affordability criteria. 

You’re very very wrong with that statement. Proven on the website I have mentioned and by the FOS themselves. 

So you are saying that the level of gambling was checked by the lender as part of the affordability criteria in 2016? 

I don't think that was ever the case, though they've certainly tightened up now, but most of the time only the most perfunctory "checks" were carried out. Hopefully, it is this aspect which the OP has  stressed  as well as his financial situation requiring a guarantor at the time. 

Any reason why you referred the poster to another website for templates? The template on this site  has already been used by the OP to instigate a complaint and Amigo now simply want statements to support the concerns he has raised. 

jefaz07

It probably wasn’t checked...although it should’ve been taken into account. 

 And the reason I have referred the OP to the other site is because it’s dedicated to that topic, and that topic alone. I have missed the template already used so please disregard my comment about that. 

We are here to help each other and in recommending that website (like many have in here before) I believe the OP will gain a whole better understanding of what’s going on and what is needed. 

John_

Mulldog10 said:

Hi I'm wondering if anyone can help me. I've recently seen Martin post about claiming back from Amigo Loans and instead of using a 3rd party company, I've decided to use Martin's free template online. I've sent this off to amigo Loans and had the response of they want to see my bank statements to investigate there claims further. The thing is the loans date back to 2016 and I've had a bad gambling problem, I'm wondering and worries if I send my statements to them they will be used against me. If anyone's got any advice at all it would go a long way. Thanks 👍

Why should they not have lent the money? You seem to be implying that your income and expenditure covered it, but that you gambled away the money that you should have paid them. How are you planning to claim that this is Amigo’s fault?

JReacher1

jefaz07 said:

Moneyineptitude said:

JimmyTheWig said:

Surely a gambling problem is an indication that they shouldn't have been borrowing money, isn't it?
Whether that is deemed the lender's problem or not, I don't know.

The OP is making a complaint about irresponsible lending not his own borrowing. The lender would not be aware of his gambling addiction and it certainly wouldn't form part of any affordability criteria. 

You’re very very wrong with that statement. Proven on the website I have mentioned and by the FOS themselves. 

Is this true?

ive borrowed money before and never provided bank statements. How would the loan company know whether I gambled or not? 

[Deleted User]

JReacher1 said:

jefaz07 said:

Moneyineptitude said:

JimmyTheWig said:

Surely a gambling problem is an indication that they shouldn't have been borrowing money, isn't it?
Whether that is deemed the lender's problem or not, I don't know.

The OP is making a complaint about irresponsible lending not his own borrowing. The lender would not be aware of his gambling addiction and it certainly wouldn't form part of any affordability criteria. 

You’re very very wrong with that statement. Proven on the website I have mentioned and by the FOS themselves. 

Is this true?

ive borrowed money before and never provided bank statements. How would the loan company know whether I gambled or not? 

Same as people who accept a black box to track their driving and it turns out they aren't as good a driver as they think.
Same as telephone calls unrecorded can be denied.
Whilst different, same as a credit card company I had the misfortune of speaking to many times in February who now needs 40 days complaint response time to listen to calls where I dispute I was ever reasonably 'verbally' explained by the card provider's call centre I was in paydown plan status - they had me believing something else and kept playing down the letters not just once but a multitude of times which is silly and would always have caught up with them as there was no room really to tell me what I wanted to hear but they certainly had a good go. If someone needs to keep calling, shouldn't sirens have gone off that I wasn't understanding something, (...after all aren't calls recorded and monitored in the financial sector) and time to put things in writing but, oh no. Like when I last called the credit card provider after deciding to make a complaint and quoted the formal complaints address showing on the it's website to the agent who answered, it was almost like she spat her tea out, she didn't know the address details were on there! I wouldn't want to believe for a minute in some 40 days, a complaint response it going to turn up somehow in my inbox written informally by their 'team leader aka senior'.
I would like to know why someone doesn't sign to understand/accept they are in a paydown plan.
I would like to understand how paydown plans happens as you could surely easily get someone on 16k and someone on 36k- both could end up on paydown plans yet neither are asked for their income and outgoings but shall be eventually treated in the same manner of this paydown plan if neither actively looked to get rid of the credit. Either way in paydown you become some 3rd class citizen not bad when two months ago I was thanked for my account conduct, never got behind on paying the min payment, didn't ask for increases, never said I couldn't pay, despite what people like to think about me in having a shot. I have (did have) one credit card but I'm sure they are probably people out there the same-ish to me who have 4 different cards.
This is the confusing fca rules which are forever changing no doubt so I wouldn't like to say whether anything was true or false anymore.   

[Deleted User]

JReacher1 said:Is this true?

ive borrowed money before and never provided bank statements. How would the loan company know whether I gambled or not? 

This is a pay day lender remember? The current focus on these in recent times has been that they very often failed to do proper affordability checks  and were therefore guilty of irresponsible lending. 

The only reason statements were mentioned earlier in the thread is because the OP has made a complaint about such lending and the lending  company want to see statements to investigate whether the complainant should have been allowed a loan in the first place.

I agree that statements would not have been requested at the time of the loan and it would therefore be unlikely that the lender would know anything about any gambling problem the customer may have had unless he told them so himself. 

Most on this thread believe as I do that the gambling is a separate issue and the lender can't be held responsible if they were not aware of that issue. 

However, the OP may yet win on the general affordability of the loans he was granted without any checks of substance being made.