loans 5.7% (Moneyback bank)

wrightm_2

I had exactly the same experience with A&L......... I have my own insurance for redundancy, sickness, death, etc. but that didn't seem to alter the A&L decision to offer me 6.9%........ Isn't there any legislation to protect consumers from this practice?

Incidently, I applied to Cahoot for the same loan and got the lowest rate without taking its own insurance products!!

Rafter

There is legislation - the consumer credit act - but it is tough to enforce.

I feel a letter to my local trading standard coming on though - I think A&L are really pushing the limit here.

R.

Debt_Free_Chick

Rafter wrote:

There is legislation - the consumer credit act - but it is tough to enforce.

I feel a letter to my local trading standard coming on though - I think A&L are really pushing the limit here.

R.

On the face of it, blatantly upping the rate if you don't take PPI would seem to be probably illegal. I seem to recall that shops had to stop offering discounts for cash for similar reasons.

However, I rather fear that the lender's defence will be along the lines of .... someone without PPI is a higher risk as the loan (or at least the repayments) are less likely to be paid if any of the situations covered by the PPI happens.

Now then ... I'm not saying that this is morally or commercially right, but I think there is some truth in the "higher risk" argument ... but it surely must be only marginal and, in any event, to accurately assess the level of risk, the lender would need full details about the applicant.

So ... worth a shot at TS .... but don't hold out much hope for a hugely positive response.

Good luck

Rafter

D_F_C

I think the lender gets caught by the advertising regulations though. If getting the typical APR is conditional on taking PPI, you have to either disclose this on the advert and/or include the PPI cost in the APR calculation.

Since most banks are underwriting the PPI through their own insurance divisions, I'm not sure the risk arguement holds true.

If PPI was priced fairly and the claims ratio (amount paid out versus premium charged) was greater than 25%, then I agree - taking PPI would reduce the banks risk.

At the moment though it is just a massive profit generator, subsidising really low APRs in adverts and A&L appear (on my first hand experience) to be stretching the rules to the limit.

R.

Sterlingtimes

My experience with Alliance and Leicester is the same. I applied for 5.5% and got offered 6.9%. I got many annoying telephone calls.

I then applied to Cahoot for 5.6% and got it immediately. No 'phone calls, no fuss, and the most simple and excellent documentation in the posts.

Having got life assurance, critical illness and permanent health, the insurance offered by A&L is of little value. The sales people do not seek to determine whether its potential customers are already insured in this regard.

Arc_eye

BLIMEY!!!! After 3 days of them calling me at work, they finally talk to me at home for 15 minutes asking how i can support my millionaire lifestyle without protection.
8.9% HAHAHAHAHAHA OOOH MY SPLITTING SIDES !!!!!!!!!
A&L= Always Lying.

as400

Why don't you all accept the protection insurance, get the cheaper rate then cancel the insurance within the cooling off period?

regularsaver1

Rates usually depend on balance and the terms - the larger balance and the longer terms usually get the best rates I think

Kevali

I've had the same problem, offered 6.9%. On questioning why it was suggested my credit rating through Experion could not be good enough. Now I am worried and checked, the report says excellent.

In the end I got my loan with Northern Rock @ 5.8%, they did not try to force PPI on me and did suggest life cover @ around £9.50 to cover the loan should I die in the time span of the loan.

Annando

Actually I have a question about AL and Money Back Bank.
We got a new car and have applied for a £8000 loan from AL at 6.1% (They tried to flog the insurance but we declined, after 20 minutes of hearing NO NO NO they seemed to finally understand that we didn't want the insurance!).
Over a 60 month period the monthly repayments come to £154.56 with AL.

I didn't know that Money Back Bank belonged to AL so I also applied to them, this isn't a problem with our credit history, their rate is 5.5%. The same amount over the same period at 5.5% has a repayment of £152.46 a month.
I thought the repayments to Money Back Bank at 5.5% would be at least £4 lower a month than the AL loan.
None of them has insurance. Are their calculations right?
I hope someone can clarify this for me, and sorry if I posted this in the wrong place!

Cheers!

PS I haven't signed either of the agreements yet, I was thinking about going with the MBB one. On the MBB paperwork the rate stated is 5.5% APR. On the AL paperwork the APR is 6.1%