Wonga.com £220 Million Write-Off + Personal Responsibility????



just a quick one about personal responsibility and how some adults expect to have their hands held and their arse is white for I society either by the government or by the organizations that they deal with I just been reading the professional loan shark organization sorry I mean payday lender wonka com that lends money at extortionate apr's nearly 6,000 % APR but over a short period of time you're only supposed to borrow the money from them for a few days they are having to write off 220 million pounds in bad debts now I'm sure they the nature of their business is that they are going to accumulate bad debt but it seems that they've kind of got their fingers burnt because they haven't been checking people out well enough from their perspective it makes sense to check people out and look I'm all for Responsible banking right don't lend money to people that cannot afford to take out that loan but if you lie to the bank don't lie to a bank and then go oh my god it's all the bank's fault they shouldn't have allowed me to lie and I want to just point out in this BBC article Kim or sure one good customer kimmel show I don't know where that some man or woman 33 years old not 12 years old not just become an adult 18 years old 33 years old this is what Kim oh sure had to say I'm currently in arrears for 564 pounds with Wanda for a loan that started in 2012 I got caught up in the whirlwind of being able to have money deposited in your account within minutes right listen to this I was allowed to exaggerate my income on the application forms they weren't checked to be sure I wasn't giving false information I should never have been lent the money so this is an adult talking here who hasn't been who hasn't honestly given their information to allow it to a lender who should know better they are fabricated their circumstances to the lender and the lender in good faith has except did what they've said and lent them the money and they abdicating their personal responsibilities are holding the lender responsible for not sufficiently wiping the off their asses so I just wonder how this is supposed to pan out generally you're expected to take personal responsibility for what you write down on forms if it was an insurance form and you made an insurance claim for something which wasn't actually damaged you would be taken to court for it most of us would agree of course you should be because you're lying you're falsifying on a document here this is exactly what Kim oh sure is done here and yet rather than being punished for lying as well as having to pay the dead off Kim oh sure is actually going to be let off the debt get off scot-free and in many ways justified for the abdication of personal responsibility that led this to happen in the first place certainly not teaching kimmel share any kind of a lesson here can't really get my head round that one interested to know what you think about it thank you for watching and by fellow


Sorry! No related Post.

Comments
  1. This kind of thing is a double edged sword…

    While I completely agree that people should not be lying to loan companies, if you dangle a carrot in front of someone that's desperate they're very likely to grab it with both hands, and while I accept that the general nature of payday loans makes them a bit harder to scrutinise than longer term loans where affordability checks happen, if you make it as easy as Wonga did to falsify that information then it's always going to be a magnet for desperate people.

    And while I can totally accept the argument that it's silly to take out loans that you cannot afford, again, with this current climate in which the poor and vulnerable are again being squeezed it's natural that they're going to grab any lifeline they can, even if it does inherently come with risk. Being desperate is often more than enough to over ride people's common sense as their survival instincts kick in and they do whatever is necessary to save themselves.

    Ok, it's probably going to make "loans in your bank in 15 minutes" no longer possible but more loan companies, including payday loan companies should carry out proper affordability checks.

  2. I got late to this particular vid, but I got around to it after all. ^^
    I agree with you on this issue, although I wasn't aware of it before the vid, and for that you have my thanks.
    Although clearly the people lending the money aren't angels, when someone lies on an official form about how much money they receive every so and so, and therefore by association how much money they can reasonably afford to borrow, they're entirely responsible for their own misery when they end up being, obviously, unable to give it back.
    I'm seeing people in the comment section below arguing about how Wonga's evil cause if they don't check it's obviously that they want people to lie, but perhaps it's also that if people have half a bit of sense, they'll realize that the amount of money they get each month or however long, impacts how much they can repay, after all they don't just pop a number for how much can be lent out of thin air, and so if they exaggerate how much they get and take a bigger loan than what they should, well, yeah, they're most likely not gonna be able to give the money back, clearly.
    It's like a kid complaining that the store clerk wasn't watching him as he stole every bit of candy in the place. Gotta take some responsibility for our own actions at some point.

  3. Given the typically deceitful and unethical behavior of the "lenders" who specialize in preying on the disadvantaged and financially unsophisticated borrowers, coupled with the operator's clear understanding of the credit worthiness of those requiring payday loans, I would, in this case, say it's a wash.

    It is likely that they collected money far in excess of the original loan, as do all such lenders and is, in fact their business model. It is predatory by nature.

    When government action, saying in forgiving the debt of those you manipulated, catches you during a non-liquid period, your business may fail.

    There's a reason it's called usury. I have no sympathy for them or their business model.

    I suppose a Libertarian might argue "caveat emptor" or "survival of the fittest", but healthy civilizations care for the less advantaged and less those with less sophisticated minds.

  4. I think a better analogy would be legalising contract killing. Society has to be governed by the enforcement of natural law as it has been for much of history. Even anarchists would agree with this. Usury of the 100% + APR variety is a violation of natural law. It is the opposite of what you would find in a free society. It can not help the majority of the borrowers, it can old get them hooked on permanent debt and minimum payments.

    Clearly the man who hired the contract killer is in the wrong, as is the killer but if you are looking for a root causes of the problem it is not free market capitalism, it is a corrupt  society. It is the last days of the Anglo-American empire and it is a financial orgy free for all.

  5. In the case of "Kim", you're spot on, but this is a single case. I'm not sure whether you're arguing that ALL usury is acceptable, and if you fall victim to it, you are still personally responsible for the "loan shark" interest rates. If you are then I can't agree. There's a reason usury is illegal, unethical and immoral.

  6. I don't know why we're blaming the woman who took out these loans.

    What if she was mentally ill? Hell what if she is mentally ill? For all we know she has a gambling addiction personality. What if they aren't intelligent and they think they're getting in on a good investment but it's actually some pyramid scheme.

    It's totally their fault. No point in blaming the person taking the loan. You gotta have personal responsibility as a business first. You gotta expect people might try to steal or cheat you.

  7. Lying is lying and should have consequences.  That said a lender who has power through the law has the power to ruin a person;s life by allowing that person to over extend themselves.  They should have an obligation to check on a person's ability to pay back.  It is not black and white…

  8. I understand your point, and you're probably right, but, if Kim had been cleverer and stung Wonga for a couple of hundred million, ending up in BA, rolling in money, I wouldn't have wept for long.  It begs an action flick, this company.  Robin Hoodagain!

  9. I am proceeding on the assumption that you are talking about a lender like "Payday Lenders" in the USA. John Oliver did a piece on them recently. http://youtu.be/PDylgzybWAw. 
    Don't feel sorry for these usurers. Losses like this are built into their business plans. If they seed their money at the ragged end of society, they can harvest the blood, sweat and tears of the working poor perpetually. .

  10. It is difficult to have a system that endorses bad behavior. No one is held accountable at the top. So, some use this excuse to be shamefully irresponsible. She has 4 Kids. Why in Groot's name doesn't she have 5?

  11. +Jeff Brasfield 
    In terms of the loss Wonga suffered then I'd be inclined to agree. In just the same way if I tried to become best friends with someone I knew was highly violent and unpredictable then I have not looked after my interests and hae myself to blame if I take a kicking. However, that does not exonerate the violent chap for beating me up.
    Similarly, this Kim character seems annoyed at Wonga for not unearthing their deception, as if they did nothing wrong themselves. Lie about your earnings and, lo and fucking behold, you will have access to money you won't be able to pay back. That applies to anyone, from the poorest to the richest. IF Kim had been honest and Wonga had not responsibly assessed their ability to repay THEN I would have sympathy with Kim – as it stands this is deception and I totally dispute your suggestion that such deception is in any way justifiable.

  12. come on-   They charge usurious rates and therefore Let the seller beware-  Its like a carny complaining that you won the big prize despite the unfair rules–     So sad, i will have to get another kleenex  

  13. Sometime ago, the financial institution that works with my supermarket sent me a message asking me whether or not I was interested in having an extra 2 000 € in my plafond. I didn't ever answered the message… A coupled days after, I went to the supermarket and I had an extra 2 000 € in my plafond. The question itself is just a meaningless procedure. They don't care, they don't wanna know, all they want is YOU to take that money. 

  14. Still not as ridiculous as the time they were worried about people's children bullying them into taking out loans.

  15. The problem is that banks, and presumably Wonga in this case don't just fail to check into the loan, they actively encourage people to lie. The reason they do this is because loan officers, and executives receive bonuses based on the number of loans they issue. If ultimately these loans aren't paid back it's not the bank employees who suffer, they've already cashed their checks, it's the stockholders or the government when the bank deducts those losses from their taxes. If someone is desperate (and it's mostly the poor, and desperate who get these loans) to buy food for their kids, or fix their car so they don't lose their job, do you really blame them when the loan officer tells them they won't get the money if they tell the truth? Of course they are going to lie, and understandably in my opinion. They aren't getting these loans to take a vacation to Disney-world, they are getting them to survive.

  16. I totally agree with you. I am sure that there are many happy users of Wonga type loan companies who understand the rules and take out a loan and realise that it is their responsibility to pay it back. I do get sick of hearing that people have run up their loans and then claim that they can't pay it back (after spending it on god knows what)  and then blaming the institutions who they chose to go and borrow it from in the first place.

  17. It's a tricky one. On one level, everything Noelplum says is correct. On the other… I know some of the people who loan money like this. If I was to lecture them on personal responsibility, they would most likely raise their eyebrows and agree with everything I said in a slightly breathless voice. And then nothing would change.

  18. If the banks are lending fiat currency based on a fractional reserve and consumers are not paying the loans back, than the system is corrupt start to finish. So who is screwing who if the position is sixty nine?

  19. A lot of people, perhaps most people, seem to live by a "philosophy" that if you're allowed to get away with something, it's OK. 

    Consider speeding, for example.  Don't tell me you don't do it.  Even I do it.  At some point you have to, or you'll be run down, and from there on it just becomes a part of driving.

    Or consider computer programming.  Ever read the API manuals to some of these things?  Some of them practically beg you to violate the "rules" just to get things done.

    And then look what happened to the people who crashed the world economy in 2008.  Basically, nothing. 

    There's a strong societal message that if something is designed or implemented so that you can do it "wrong", then it's not really wrong.  In fact, they lied about it being wrong.  It's right.  Because that's how it works.  Look, everyone else is doing it. 

    How can anyone really argue with that? 

    One thing I love about Dallas (does it happen elsewhere?) is that downtown, the left turn lanes aren't separated by a mere line.  No.  They use large metal things sticking out of the pavement, guaranteed to harm your car (maybe not an SUV) if you decide at the last moment that you really didn't want to make that left turn.

    Now that is traffic enforcement I can get behind.  The rules are clear.  Follow them or leave the bottom half of your car on the road behind you.

  20. I don't know what the laws covering such things are like in the UK, but falsifying information on official documents is definitely a considered fraud under US law.

    Though, I must agree with another commenter who expressed that defrauding a loan sharking business is a lot like slugging a pedophile in the face. Yes, it is unambiguously against the law… but almost no one is going to give a shit because the offense of being lied to (or punched in the face) seems negligible compared to the other offenses committed by the "victim". No one is gonna feel sorry for a pay day loan place. Those guys are total scumbags.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *