Payday Loans - Peachy Credit check

Lioness_Twinkletoes wrote: »

Every single person on this forum that is looking to take action for irresponsible lending is a gambler/ex gambling addict. It's always "Yeah, I borrowed the money, but it's not my fault cos I have a gambling addiction - they should never have lent me it". Why does having an addiction mean that people can no longer take responsibility for this actions? Seriously, I've not seen a single post where someone has admitted that they simply cannot handle credit.

To try to be impartial here, its not always people who have gambling addictions that use payday lenders, and people default on their loans for any number of reasons.

People make mistakes, fact, sometimes they drive recklessly, sometimes they borrow recklessly, we have all done stupid things, the difference between a responsible lender, and an irresponsible lender is whats key to this.

Lots of payday lenders were out to make as much money as possible, and they did not care how this was done, or what laws were broken in the process, or who suffered along the way, it was purely driven by greed at any cost.
This has not just happened to a handful of folk, its happened to millions.


Lenders have a code of conduct to follow, its called the lending code, most failed to do so, they did not follow due diligence when they should of done, the result was lots of people were given loans they could never afford to pay back, and these were people who would roll over there loan, month after month, or take out new borrowing to repay existing borrowing.

A responsible lender would recognize this behavior, and stop all further borrowing, the payday lenders did not, in fact they increased the amount they lent, in order to make as much money as possible from fines/interest etc for as long as the sun shined, this is the point where it turned sour, and why many of those lenders are now out of business, they pocketed the money and did a runner to places like Malta.

There is a whole lot more to this than just than irresponsible lending, it was fraud on a massive scale, the lenders broke every rule in the book where collection was concerned from emptying peoples bank accounts by creating false direct debts, calling debtors places of work telling their bosses they were responsible for paying the debts, threatening to use bailiffs before a debt had been to court, the list goes on.

A lot of those reclaiming have been victims in all of this, these things are never as clear cut as some like to make out, it was not simply a case of the odd loan slipping through the net, it was company policy to sell as many loans to whoever wanted them, as many times as possible, in order to make those people default, so they could rack up the fee`s and interest against them, that is the point the FCA made when introducing new regulation.


A typical loan of £200 would rocket to over £2000 on occasions, as there was no cap on the interest and charges that could be added, some people resorted to suicide when faced with bills like this, they were evil, nasty people running these companies, most were just one step up from a loan shark.


I`d like to see their directors put away personally, they deserve all they get.

Tarambor wrote: »

Yeah really impartial. These people willingly borrowed money without a gun being put to their heads, they knew what their income was, they knew what their outgoings were, they knew what the monthly payment was, the interest rate and the amount payable. The only reason that we have this whole irresponsible lending rubbish is because we apparently now seem to exist in a society where your personal responsibility is now someone else's job to exercise for you on your behalf.

If anything needs to be done it needs to be a big red flag put on the borrowers credit file for irresponsible borrowing. They should have a CIFAS marker put on their file for fraudulently applying for a loan knowing they couldn't afford it and ticking the box to say they could.

It was the blatant disregard of the rules by deliberately continuing to lend to people who could not afford it, in order to pocket interest and fee`s from them, that is fraud in my book, and was committed on a massive scale.

John_Jones wrote: »

That makes no sense at all. If you lend to someone who can not afford it you do not make money from it, you lost the interest and the principal.

And I think that you do not understand what fraud is. If the terms are all set out clearly and then stuck to it cannot be fraud.

Oh they made lots of money, because people were scared to default, they borrowed elsewhere to repay the loans they already had.


People who usually side with lenders often have a vested interest in doing so, i suspect a few of you may work for payday lenders, or have done in the past.



Anyway, this is all irrelevant, as the FCA (thankfully) took a more liberal minded view, and closed down the worst offenders, fined the ones who intended to stay in the business, and introduced better regulation for all concerned.

John_Jones wrote: »

No, there is not.

I am not sure who told you this, but they were misinformed, or pulling your leg.

They still have a responsibility to make sure you can afford the loan repayments, or have you not read the lending code ?