Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Oh The Irony !....
19 Answers
https:/ /news.s ky.com/ story/1 0m-cash -call-r escues- payday- lender- wonga-f rom-ins olvency -114603 32
Hahahaha....anybody else not too bothered if they go under ?...shame for some of their employees(mainly down the lower end of the payroll) if it happened but these companies are no more than parasitic shysters and if it wasnt for being reigned in legally would run amok with their interest rates and advertising con tricks...
Hahahaha....anybody else not too bothered if they go under ?...shame for some of their employees(mainly down the lower end of the payroll) if it happened but these companies are no more than parasitic shysters and if it wasnt for being reigned in legally would run amok with their interest rates and advertising con tricks...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by The_Rim_Greaper. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ."....would run amok with their interest rates and advertising con tricks..."
I once had a look at the Wonga website when this was suggested before. I found it as clear as crystal and not at all misleading. I've just had another look. Here's what it says under an example (borrowing £150 for a fortnight):
Borrow: £150 over 14 days
Interest rate: 292% pa (fixed)
Total amount payable: £166.80
Representative APR: 1,509%
Tell me how that is misleading or a con trick. Yes it's very pricey, but they are lending to high risk borrowers and probably suffer a fair bit of non-repayment. Personally I would not lend 150 quid to somebody I didn't know for just £16 return.
I once had a look at the Wonga website when this was suggested before. I found it as clear as crystal and not at all misleading. I've just had another look. Here's what it says under an example (borrowing £150 for a fortnight):
Borrow: £150 over 14 days
Interest rate: 292% pa (fixed)
Total amount payable: £166.80
Representative APR: 1,509%
Tell me how that is misleading or a con trick. Yes it's very pricey, but they are lending to high risk borrowers and probably suffer a fair bit of non-repayment. Personally I would not lend 150 quid to somebody I didn't know for just £16 return.
Once again Gulliver you contribute nothing other than drivel to a discussion. why?
Wonga loans and the other pay day lenders do charge sky high interest but they are quite up front on fees and default charges.
I had heard, but don’t know it is true, that the big banks underwrite them knowing they will get paid at least what is owed and a bit even if they do default.
Wonga loans and the other pay day lenders do charge sky high interest but they are quite up front on fees and default charges.
I had heard, but don’t know it is true, that the big banks underwrite them knowing they will get paid at least what is owed and a bit even if they do default.
The business model of Wonga and Brighthouse is horrible and predatory.
The Financial Conduct Authority were forced to legislate against these companies who exploit the poor and vunerable. The FCA i troduced new measures and warned at the time...
// Nearly all of Britain’s hundreds of payday lending companies will be wiped out once new regulations come into force early next year, the Financial Conduct Authority said on Friday, days after Wonga was forced to write off the debts of 330,000 of its customers. //
And good riddance.
The Financial Conduct Authority were forced to legislate against these companies who exploit the poor and vunerable. The FCA i troduced new measures and warned at the time...
// Nearly all of Britain’s hundreds of payday lending companies will be wiped out once new regulations come into force early next year, the Financial Conduct Authority said on Friday, days after Wonga was forced to write off the debts of 330,000 of its customers. //
And good riddance.
agreed
I initially thought ( few years ago) that the 3296% interest was a typo and photographed it ....
it wasnt- - - - I cdnt believe it was lawful ( laws against usury from the 13th century)
BUT - can make sense - if you are in employment and will get your moolah at the end of the month - then a payday loan makes sense better than an unnegotiated overdraft for certain things for a week or so before pay day
I initially thought ( few years ago) that the 3296% interest was a typo and photographed it ....
it wasnt- - - - I cdnt believe it was lawful ( laws against usury from the 13th century)
BUT - can make sense - if you are in employment and will get your moolah at the end of the month - then a payday loan makes sense better than an unnegotiated overdraft for certain things for a week or so before pay day
// The Financial Conduct Authority were forced to legislate//
erm no I wish people wouldnt do this
Parliament legislates not the FCA
The FCA who are all in all a crowd of useless winkers were bullied by threats of loss of job, inflated pay and mega-pension to bring in conditions/ regulations for pay day loan companies.
[ which they did slowly and with ill-grace ]
erm no I wish people wouldnt do this
Parliament legislates not the FCA
The FCA who are all in all a crowd of useless winkers were bullied by threats of loss of job, inflated pay and mega-pension to bring in conditions/ regulations for pay day loan companies.
[ which they did slowly and with ill-grace ]
"Cassa 333, 21.45 . Read Grim Reaper, 11.54 "Robinson wins appeal Ok" Wednesday 1st Aug, WHY ? OK."
If you'd read the ruling you would know. But to put you out of your undoubted misery, Lord Chief Justice Burnett and two colleagues found that after Mr Robinson deleted the video, there was not "sufficient urgency" to justify proceedings being taken against him.
There was also a "muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered" and "the process was flawed", they added.
Mr Robinson has been released from prison but faces a fresh hearing at a later date.
How does that grab you?
If you'd read the ruling you would know. But to put you out of your undoubted misery, Lord Chief Justice Burnett and two colleagues found that after Mr Robinson deleted the video, there was not "sufficient urgency" to justify proceedings being taken against him.
There was also a "muddle over the nature of the contempt being considered" and "the process was flawed", they added.
Mr Robinson has been released from prison but faces a fresh hearing at a later date.
How does that grab you?