Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Guy
    • By MSE Guy 15th Oct 10, 8:37 AM
    • 1,628Posts
    • 1,255Thanks
    MSE Guy
    MSE News: Government moves towards bank charges pledge
    • #1
    • 15th Oct 10, 8:37 AM
    MSE News: Government moves towards bank charges pledge 15th Oct 10 at 8:37 AM
    This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

    "It has launched a consultation on steps to be taken to ensure consumers get a better deal when they borrow money ..."

Page 1
  • paxon
    • #2
    • 15th Oct 10, 10:08 AM
    • #2
    • 15th Oct 10, 10:08 AM
    i will belive it when i see it.....
    • Alpine Star
    • By Alpine Star 15th Oct 10, 10:14 AM
    • 1,259 Posts
    • 611 Thanks
    Alpine Star
    • #3
    • 15th Oct 10, 10:14 AM
    • #3
    • 15th Oct 10, 10:14 AM
    The consultation documents http://www.bis.gov.uk/Consultations/consumer-credit-call-for-evidence
    • Joe_Bloggs
    • By Joe_Bloggs 16th Oct 10, 6:30 PM
    • 4,493 Posts
    • 1,583 Thanks
    Joe_Bloggs
    • #4
    • 16th Oct 10, 6:30 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Oct 10, 6:30 PM
    I have got up to page 15 of the consultation document. My will to persevere has gone as I can't find any jokes or pictures. I suspect that MSE Martin will want to read it if he has not done so already.
    J_B.
    • chattychappy
    • By chattychappy 19th Oct 10, 5:44 AM
    • 7,124 Posts
    • 3,963 Thanks
    chattychappy
    • #5
    • 19th Oct 10, 5:44 AM
    • #5
    • 19th Oct 10, 5:44 AM
    More taxpayer's money wasted on interfering initiatives and increased regulation. Worse, it will increase the cost of credit to people like me.

    I notice endless references to "responsible lending" - but nothing about responsible borrowing. It seems it will become even more difficult for companies owed money to enforce debts through the courts (ban on orders for sale for unsecured debts below 25,000, minimum debt thresholds for charging orders of 25,000). This will just licence more irresponsible borrowing by people who think they (and their houses) are untouchable. This will again increase the cost of credit to the majority like me who pay our debts.

    Yes to transparency and clarity. But it should also be clear, if you can't/don't pay your debts, then (after due process) your assets WILL be used to pay your debts. This warning should be put on all credit agreements. We've had a decade of people making huge tax free gains on property whilst running up consumer debt. Meanwhile others cannot get on to the property ladder. This is the real unfairness.
    Last edited by chattychappy; 19-10-2010 at 6:26 AM.
    • Alpine Star
    • By Alpine Star 19th Oct 10, 6:27 AM
    • 1,259 Posts
    • 611 Thanks
    Alpine Star
    • #6
    • 19th Oct 10, 6:27 AM
    • #6
    • 19th Oct 10, 6:27 AM

    I notice endless references to "responsible lending" - but nothing about responsible borrowing.
    Originally posted by chattychappy
    Two of the four bullet points summarising the purpose of the consultation are all about encouraging responsible borrowing:

    *introducing a seven-day cooling off period for store cards;

    *requiring credit card providers to make electronic statements available to enable consumers to judge whether an alternative credit card would provide better value for money.
  • opinions4u
    • #7
    • 19th Oct 10, 7:09 AM
    • #7
    • 19th Oct 10, 7:09 AM
    I haven't read the article or any attached document, and don't intend to.

    I think there is little point in government sticking its nose in to the price of loans. Market forces can determine these quite nicely, and the range of different prices for the same sorts of borrowers on the high street confirms this.

    What is more important is that the government ensures that the market is more open to new players. There is little point selling RBS branches to Sanatander if the intention is competiton. When the Lloyds and C&G branches hit the market in the next couple of years, do we really want Santander, Barclays or HSBC picking them up?

    It would be better to look at how to encourage new players in to the market. Looking at ways to give building societies the opportunity to progress in the market now dominated by massive banks, without weakening them financially. Looking at ways to enable credit unions to reach more people, without the excessive margin pressures that a high cost base / low customer base currently forces on to them.

    But polticians telling lenders what they should be charging when they don't understand how these businesses work is an absolute no from where I sit. A government created pricing cartel is in nobody's interests.
    Last edited by opinions4u; 19-10-2010 at 7:45 AM.
    • chattychappy
    • By chattychappy 19th Oct 10, 7:45 AM
    • 7,124 Posts
    • 3,963 Thanks
    chattychappy
    • #8
    • 19th Oct 10, 7:45 AM
    • #8
    • 19th Oct 10, 7:45 AM
    Two of the four bullet points summarising the purpose of the consultation are all about encouraging responsible borrowing:

    *introducing a seven-day cooling off period for store cards;

    *requiring credit card providers to make electronic statements available to enable consumers to judge whether an alternative credit card would provide better value for money.
    Originally posted by Alpine Star
    I see what you (they) mean, but I disagree that this encourages responsible borrowing. Both measures are making lenders more responsible for the borrower's decision making process.

    Responsible borrowers would need neither measure. The first in particular suggests that it is "OK to be irresponsible" - because you get a cooling off period. I doubt whether it will make any practical difference. In the case of the second, responsible borrowers would shop around or use sites such as this to decide the best deal.
    • chattychappy
    • By chattychappy 19th Oct 10, 7:47 AM
    • 7,124 Posts
    • 3,963 Thanks
    chattychappy
    • #9
    • 19th Oct 10, 7:47 AM
    • #9
    • 19th Oct 10, 7:47 AM
    But polticians telling lenders what they should be charging when they don't understand how these businesses work is an absolute no from where I sit. A government created pricing cartel is in nobody's interests.
    Originally posted by opinions4u
    Nicely put!
    • Alpine Star
    • By Alpine Star 19th Oct 10, 2:54 PM
    • 1,259 Posts
    • 611 Thanks
    Alpine Star
    I see what you (they) mean, but I disagree that this encourages responsible borrowing.
    Originally posted by chattychappy
    How can removing the ability to obtain credit on an impulse not encourage responsible borrowing when a 7 day cooling off period on store cards clearly actively discourages irresponsible borrowing?
    • chattychappy
    • By chattychappy 19th Oct 10, 3:03 PM
    • 7,124 Posts
    • 3,963 Thanks
    chattychappy
    How can removing the ability to obtain credit on an impulse not encourage responsible borrowing when a 7 day cooling off period on store cards clearly actively discourages irresponsible borrowing?
    Originally posted by Alpine Star
    It might reduce borrowing by those who can't afford it - but that's not the same as increasing responsibility. Responsibility is having the choice, making the decision, and being accountable for it - not having regulation move in to ensure you don't make the wrong decision.
    • Alpine Star
    • By Alpine Star 19th Oct 10, 5:56 PM
    • 1,259 Posts
    • 611 Thanks
    Alpine Star
    It might reduce borrowing by those who can't afford it - but that's not the same as increasing responsibility. Responsibility is having the choice, making the decision, and being accountable for it - not having regulation move in to ensure you don't make the wrong decision.
    Originally posted by chattychappy
    Discouraging one thing necessarily has the same overall effect as encouraging the opposite. Discouraging unhealthy eating encourages healthy eating and discouraging bad behaviour encourages good behaviour. The principle is the same.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

793Posts Today

6,933Users online

Martin's Twitter