On 26/04/18 10:16, wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 23:22:56 UTC+1, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/04/2018 11:15, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 07:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
[...]Its been my experience that high street banks are the
last place to look except for payday loan sharks of course.
Brian


Although I understand the payday loan sharks are used by the canny
poor because they know that if they get to the end of the month and
incur penalty charges on phone, loan, cards etc they will be fleeced.
Better to pay the outrageous fees to a payday loan shark than to let
the high street banks get at you.

It's a sobering thought but wonga exists because the likes of Barclays
and Lloyds are even worse.

TW

They exist because the likes of Barclays and Lloyds won't lend people
money that they can't afford to pay back
Lenders like wonga will lend money to almost anyone and send the heavy
mob around if they don't pay.
They are not in the same leagues.

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will start
to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can, knowing you
can't afford to pay it back.

TW

do they charge over 500%?

I don't know if I can keep repeating myself. a payday loan at 500% apr
for a a week or two is much less damaging and less expensive than
letting conventional banks, credit cards and utility companies fleece
you with late penalties, unauthorised od fees, increased rates, bad
credit scores etc. It might be suprising to you and me but for people
who struggle on low wages it's just part of life.
TW

On 26/04/18 10:15, wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 23:18:08 UTC+1, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:12, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 11:15:57 UTC+1, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 07:40, Brian Gaff wrote:

[...]Its been my experience that high street banks are the
last place to look except for payday loan sharks of course.
Brian


Although I understand the payday loan sharks are used by the canny poor
because they know that if they get to the end of the month and incur
penalty charges on phone, loan, cards etc they will be fleeced. Better
to pay the outrageous fees to a payday loan shark than to let the high
street banks get at you.

It's a sobering thought but wonga exists because the likes of Barclays
and Lloyds are even worse.

TW

I've never heard of high street banks charging anything like the crazy prices of wonga et al. They just refuse to loan. As bad as payday lenders are, they're still an improvement on illegal loan sharks, which is why they're permitted.


The point of the wonga loan is that it's available for a week or two.
The apr therefore looks crazy but that isn't what it's for. If you are a
bit skint you can get to the end of the month and have to pay late
charges on cards, on a phone account, at £10 or £20 a time, maybe
unauthorised overdraft charges, hiked interest as well, all for being a
week behind and you will pay a lot more in total than if you go to a
payday loan provider.

TW

Sure, but clearly there are a couple of things wrong with that picture.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, just that that is why there is a market
for payday loans.
TW

On 26/04/2018 09:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/04/2018 23:22, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/04/2018 11:15, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 07:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
[...]Its been my experience that high street banks are the
last place to look except for payday loan sharks of course.
Brian


Although I understand the payday loan sharks are used by the canny
poor because they know that if they get to the end of the month and
incur penalty charges on phone, loan, cards etc they will be
fleeced. Better to pay the outrageous fees to a payday loan shark
than to let the high street banks get at you.

It's a sobering thought but wonga exists because the likes of
Barclays and Lloyds are even worse.

TW

They exist because the likes of Barclays and Lloyds won't lend people
money that they can't afford to pay back
Lenders like wonga will lend money to almost anyone and send the
heavy mob around if they don't pay.
They are not in the same leagues.

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will
start to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can, knowing
you can't afford to pay it back.

I've often thought this too.

Loan companies have to provide an APR which includes any fees to setup
the loan.

I have never understood why banks seem to be immune to including these
fees in any APR calculation.

Same for mortgages too.


They all have to provide the figures, maybe you haven't looked/noticed?

On 26/04/2018 10:53, Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

TimWÂ* wrote:

if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will start
to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can

do they charge over 500%?
In marginal cases yes ... If you have a standard Barclays current
account, and daft enough to go £16 overdrawn for a year you'd pay
(365*0.75)/16 = 1710% of course they call it a daily fee not an interest
rate.

Does that take into account the monthly cap on fees?
Also that you have to do four unauthorised transactions to get to that
cap? So £16 + £1 + £1 + £1 to get the worst rate?

On 26/04/2018 14:06, TimW wrote:
On 26/04/18 10:16, wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 23:22:56 UTC+1, TimWÂ* wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/04/2018 11:15, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 07:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
[...]Its been my experience that high street banks are the
last place to look except for payday loan sharks of course.
Brian


Although I understand the payday loan sharks are used by the canny
poor because they know that if they get to the end of the month and
incur penalty charges on phone, loan, cards etc they will be fleeced.
Better to pay the outrageous fees to a payday loan shark than to let
the high street banks get at you.

It's a sobering thought but wonga exists because the likes of Barclays
and Lloyds are even worse.

TW

They exist because the likes of Barclays and Lloyds won't lend people
money that they can't afford to pay back
Lenders like wonga will lend money to almost anyone and send the heavy
mob around if they don't pay.
They are not in the same leagues.

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will start
to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can, knowing you
can't afford to pay it back.

TW

do they charge over 500%?

I don't know if I can keep repeating myself. a payday loan at 500% apr
for a a week or two is much less damaging and less expensive than
letting conventional banks, credit cards and utility companies fleece
you with late penalties, unauthorised od fees, increased rates, bad
credit scores etc. It might be suprising to you and me but for people
who struggle on low wages it's just part of life.
TW

Apples and oranges.
If you are the sort of person that is going to continue to make
unauthorised payments from your current account you aren't going to pay
the "wonga" loan back and stop borrowing.

Only an idiot would make continuous payments in an unauthorised manner
without phoning the bank and getting it authorised. The same sort of
idiot that borrows from "wonga" to pay "wonga".

At least the bank would stop their card at some point.

On 26/04/2018 15:29, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/04/2018 09:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/04/2018 23:22, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/04/2018 11:15, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 07:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
[...]Its been my experience that high street banks are the
last place to look except for payday loan sharks of course.
Brian


Although I understand the payday loan sharks are used by the canny
poor because they know that if they get to the end of the month and
incur penalty charges on phone, loan, cards etc they will be
fleeced. Better to pay the outrageous fees to a payday loan shark
than to let the high street banks get at you.

It's a sobering thought but wonga exists because the likes of
Barclays and Lloyds are even worse.

TW

They exist because the likes of Barclays and Lloyds won't lend
people money that they can't afford to pay back
Lenders like wonga will lend money to almost anyone and send the
heavy mob around if they don't pay.
They are not in the same leagues.

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will
start to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can, knowing
you can't afford to pay it back.

I've often thought this too.

Loan companies have to provide an APR which includes any fees to setup
the loan.

I have never understood why banks seem to be immune to including these
fees in any APR calculation.

Same for mortgages too.


They all have to provide the figures, maybe you haven't looked/noticed?

I have never seen APR to include the amounts of fees and other payments
for an bank overdraft or mortgage.

Yes I have looked, clearly you haven't.

The likes of Wonga have to include their fees in the APR calculation. I
suspect you haven't noticed that either?

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/04/2018 11:15, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 07:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
[...]Its been my experience that high street banks are the
last place to look except for payday loan sharks of course.
Brian


Although I understand the payday loan sharks are used by the canny
poor because they know that if they get to the end of the month and
incur penalty charges on phone, loan, cards etc they will be fleeced.
Better to pay the outrageous fees to a payday loan shark than to let
the high street banks get at you.

It's a sobering thought but wonga exists because the likes of
Barclays and Lloyds are even worse.

TW

They exist because the likes of Barclays and Lloyds won't lend people
money that they can't afford to pay back
Lenders like wonga will lend money to almost anyone and send the heavy
mob around if they don't pay.
They are not in the same leagues.

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will start
to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can, knowing you
can't afford to pay it back.

Quite. When looking into this, I was surprised just how much an
unauthorised overdraft could cost these days. Some certainly pay for
'free' banking now.

An unauthorised overdraft means in effect you are helping yourself to
someone else's money.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
I can afford a new car because I haven't spent 40 years of adulthood
buying new cars

Rather the same here. Never have bought a new car and doubt I ever will.

Haven't you? We've had 15 if you include my ex-demo Defender which had
10 miles on the clock and had never been out the showroom. If it weren't
for people like me there'd be no second hand cars for you to buy.

I very much doubt I'd be interested in the sort of cars you'd buy new.
Certainly not an agricultural vehicle like a Defender. But then I live in
London, not a farm.

But you own a BMW, one of the makes I have never bought as they are
absolute ****e. Like driving around in a bath tub.
--
bert

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert wrote:
I can afford a new car because I haven't spent 40 years of adulthood
buying new cars

Rather the same here. Never have bought a new car and doubt I ever will.

Haven't you? We've had 15 if you include my ex-demo Defender which had
10 miles on the clock and had never been out the showroom. If it weren't
for people like me there'd be no second hand cars for you to buy.

I very much doubt I'd be interested in the sort of cars you'd buy new.
Certainly not an agricultural vehicle like a Defender. But then I live in
London, not a farm.

But you own a BMW, one of the makes I have never bought as they are
absolute ****e.

I don't own a BMW.


Like driving around in a bath tub.

The last BMW I had was reckoned by most authorities to be the finest car
in its class when released. And for once I agreed with them.

But describing near any car as a 'bathtub' when you bought a vehicle
designed just after WW2 and never meant to be used as a car anyway says it
all.

--
*Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law on a milk carton

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26/04/18 22:51, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
[...]


Quite. When looking into this, I was surprised just how much an
unauthorised overdraft could cost these days. Some certainly pay for
'free' banking now.

An unauthorised overdraft means in effect you are helping yourself to
someone else's money.

This could be entered in the 'stupidest post of the year' comp.

You seem to imply it's some kind of theft. Way off the mark and not very
nice.

Besides overdrafts are repayable on demand, so the bank can just declare
your arranged overdraft to be 'unauthorised' double the rate and start
slapping penalty charges on your stos to increase it further. Is that
'helping yourself to someone else's money' Yes, the bank is doing it.
tw

bert wrote:

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/04/2018 11:15, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 07:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
[...]Its been my experience that high street banks are the
last place to look except for payday loan sharks of course.
Brian


Although I understand the payday loan sharks are used by the canny
poor because they know that if they get to the end of the month and
incur penalty charges on phone, loan, cards etc they will be fleeced.
Better to pay the outrageous fees to a payday loan shark than to let
the high street banks get at you.

It's a sobering thought but wonga exists because the likes of
Barclays and Lloyds are even worse.

TW

They exist because the likes of Barclays and Lloyds won't lend people
money that they can't afford to pay back
Lenders like wonga will lend money to almost anyone and send the heavy
mob around if they don't pay.
They are not in the same leagues.

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will start
to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can, knowing you
can't afford to pay it back.

Quite. When looking into this, I was surprised just how much an
unauthorised overdraft could cost these days. Some certainly pay for
'free' banking now.

An unauthorised overdraft means in effect you are helping yourself to
someone else's money.

Not at all. While the bank may not have specifically authorised the the
overdraft, they are fully in control of whether they allow you to have
it or not.

--

Roger Hayter

On 27/04/2018 00:55, TimW wrote:
On 26/04/18 22:51, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
[...]


Quite. When looking into this, I was surprised just how much an
unauthorised overdraft could cost these days. Some certainly pay for
'free' banking now.

An unauthorised overdraft means in effect you are helping yourself to
someone else's money.

This could be entered in the 'stupidest post of the year' comp.

You seem to imply it's some kind of theft. Way off the mark and not very
nice.

Besides overdrafts are repayable on demand, so the bank can just declare
your arranged overdraft to be 'unauthorised' double the rate and start
slapping penalty charges on your stos to increase it further. Is that
'helping yourself to someone else's money' Yes, the bank is doing it.
tw

Do you want to name a bank that has done that to anyone you know?
Its in the terms and conditions so that they can get their money back if
you decide to close the account not to just put the charges up for
customers.

On 26/04/2018 20:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 26/04/2018 15:29, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/04/2018 09:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/04/2018 23:22, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/04/2018 11:15, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 07:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
[...]Its been my experience that high street banks are the
last place to look except for payday loan sharks of course.
Brian


Although I understand the payday loan sharks are used by the canny
poor because they know that if they get to the end of the month
and incur penalty charges on phone, loan, cards etc they will be
fleeced. Better to pay the outrageous fees to a payday loan shark
than to let the high street banks get at you.

It's a sobering thought but wonga exists because the likes of
Barclays and Lloyds are even worse.

TW

They exist because the likes of Barclays and Lloyds won't lend
people money that they can't afford to pay back
Lenders like wonga will lend money to almost anyone and send the
heavy mob around if they don't pay.
They are not in the same leagues.

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will
start to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can,
knowing you can't afford to pay it back.

I've often thought this too.

Loan companies have to provide an APR which includes any fees to
setup the loan.

I have never understood why banks seem to be immune to including
these fees in any APR calculation.

Same for mortgages too.


They all have to provide the figures, maybe you haven't looked/noticed?

I have never seen APR to include the amounts of fees and other payments
for an bank overdraft or mortgage.

Yes I have looked, clearly you haven't.

The likes of Wonga have to include their fees in the APR calculation. I
suspect you haven't noticed that either?


You are of course wrong as the banks and building societies do have to
include the fees.

On 25/04/2018 23:22, TimW wrote:

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will start
to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can, knowing you
can't afford to pay it back.

I once went overdrawn with RBS and according to them for around £3 for 2
days and the penalties reached around £50.

It took a while to get this money back and to persuade them that I had a
"free" £200 overdraft facility on my account. The local branch refused
to acknowledge that my on-line bank statements for many years actually
stated that I had this facility and it had been automatically enabled.
They also refused to acknowledge that interest was paid on the account
even though the statements carried the word "interest account" and a
recent interest payment was shown in the statement.

I no longer bank with RBS. However there were other issues with them
such as issuing multiple replacement debit cards but voiding them before
I could use them.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 27/04/2018 09:33, alan_m wrote:
On 25/04/2018 23:22, TimW wrote:

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will
start to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can, knowing
you can't afford to pay it back.

They are all much of a muchness. Worth having a small overdraft facility
even if you never expect to use it to avoid being stung for unauthorised
overdraft fees (ISTR £12 for every letter they send and £3/day or
something even if the account is overdrawn by a couple of quid).

I once went overdrawn with RBS and according to them for around £3 for 2
days and the penalties reached around £50.

It took a while to get this money back and to persuade them that I had a
"free" £200 overdraft facility on my account. The local branch refused
to acknowledge that my on-line bank statements for many years actually
stated that I had this facility and it had been automatically enabled.
They also refused to acknowledge that interest was paid on the account
even though the statements carried the word "interest account" and a
recent interest payment was shown in the statement.

I no longer bank with RBS.Â* However there were other issues with them
such as issuing multiple replacement debit cards but voiding them before
I could use them.

RBS have become a toxic brand with their now infamous Global
Restructuring Group and selling SME's dodgy rate-hedging bets.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/common...ngGroupAndSmes

It won't be long before that brand vanishes forever and good riddance.

I hope that the business owners whose lives they wrecked do eventually
get some compensation (unfortunately it will be the taxpayer who pays).
That is the trouble with banks - they are too big to fail and play a
heads we win and tails you lose game with their customers.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 25/04/2018 11:56, whisky-dave wrote:

Don't think its me, but I did 'win' £5.20 two weeks ago.

Is the same kind of 'win' people have when they get their money back
with a £2 win on a ticket costing £2?

I wonder if the odds on a win on lottery scratch cards stated as, say,
2.65:1 include those wins where the amount is equal or less then the
stake?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Friday, 27 April 2018 09:49:31 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 25/04/2018 11:56, whisky-dave wrote:

Don't think its me, but I did 'win' £5.20 two weeks ago.

Is the same kind of 'win' people have when they get their money back
with a £2 win on a ticket costing £2?

yes in gambling any money you recieve is classed as a win and they can include that in the odds especailly with scratch cards if you buy a £2 card and win 50p that is classed as a win, and is included in the odds calculation which is why such things are classed as fixed odds.

I wonder if the odds on a win on lottery scratch cards stated as, say,
2.65:1 include those wins where the amount is equal or less then the
stake?

Yes they do, look in the T&Cs.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
yes in gambling any money you recieve is classed as a win and they can
include that in the odds especailly with scratch cards if you buy a £2
card and win 50p that is classed as a win, and is included in the odds
calculation which is why such things are classed as fixed odds.

Ah - right. Spending 2 quid to get 50p back is classified as a win. No
wonder I don't gamble. ;-)

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 27 April 2018 17:06:39 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
yes in gambling any money you recieve is classed as a win and they can
include that in the odds especailly with scratch cards if you buy a £2
card and win 50p that is classed as a win, and is included in the odds
calculation which is why such things are classed as fixed odds.

Ah - right. Spending 2 quid to get 50p back is classified as a win. No
wonder I don't gamble. ;-)

No as I don't mind giving money to charity either. I really don't expect to win either, I donlt expect to win when I donate £10 a month to the RSPCA or oither charities I give to.
I consider as soon as I place my bet that I have lost the money in the same way it goes out of my account for buying charities , food or beer the money goes end of storey.
I only think I gamble if I spend my last pennies on a ticket while I haven't enough to live for the rest of the week.

I also walk out of teh door and every step is a gamble I cross the road will I get knocked over, will I get cancer, lifes a gamble and a coup,e of quid a week for me is NOT a gamble, becuse I wonlt notice the loss when I lose..

On 27/04/2018 09:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/04/2018 20:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 26/04/2018 15:29, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/04/2018 09:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/04/2018 23:22, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/04/2018 11:15, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 07:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
[...]Its been my experience that high street banks are the
last place to look except for payday loan sharks of course.
Brian


Although I understand the payday loan sharks are used by the
canny poor because they know that if they get to the end of the
month and incur penalty charges on phone, loan, cards etc they
will be fleeced. Better to pay the outrageous fees to a payday
loan shark than to let the high street banks get at you.

It's a sobering thought but wonga exists because the likes of
Barclays and Lloyds are even worse.

TW

They exist because the likes of Barclays and Lloyds won't lend
people money that they can't afford to pay back
Lenders like wonga will lend money to almost anyone and send the
heavy mob around if they don't pay.
They are not in the same leagues.

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will
start to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can,
knowing you can't afford to pay it back.

I've often thought this too.

Loan companies have to provide an APR which includes any fees to
setup the loan.

I have never understood why banks seem to be immune to including
these fees in any APR calculation.

Same for mortgages too.


They all have to provide the figures, maybe you haven't looked/noticed?

I have never seen APR to include the amounts of fees and other
payments for an bank overdraft or mortgage.

Yes I have looked, clearly you haven't.

The likes of Wonga have to include their fees in the APR calculation.
I suspect you haven't noticed that either?


You are of course wrong as the banks and building societies do have to
include the fees.

They do, yes. But the likes of Wonga have to include these fees in their
APR calculation as well. Banks don't. If they did, they would make Wonga
APR rates for small loans look low in comparison to their overdraft APRs.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Ah - right. Spending 2 quid to get 50p back is classified as a win. No
wonder I don't gamble. ;-)

No as I don't mind giving money to charity either. I really don't expect
to win either, I donlt expect to win when I donate £10 a month to the
RSPCA or oither charities I give to.

You are equating bookies to a charity? Sounds like denial to me. ;-)

--
*I never drink anything stronger than gin before breakfast *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 30/04/2018 12:08, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/04/2018 09:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/04/2018 20:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 26/04/2018 15:29, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/04/2018 09:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/04/2018 23:22, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/04/2018 11:15, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 07:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
[...]Its been my experience that high street banks are the
last place to look except for payday loan sharks of course.
Brian


Although I understand the payday loan sharks are used by the
canny poor because they know that if they get to the end of the
month and incur penalty charges on phone, loan, cards etc they
will be fleeced. Better to pay the outrageous fees to a payday
loan shark than to let the high street banks get at you.

It's a sobering thought but wonga exists because the likes of
Barclays and Lloyds are even worse.

TW

They exist because the likes of Barclays and Lloyds won't lend
people money that they can't afford to pay back
Lenders like wonga will lend money to almost anyone and send the
heavy mob around if they don't pay.
They are not in the same leagues.

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will
start to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can,
knowing you can't afford to pay it back.

I've often thought this too.

Loan companies have to provide an APR which includes any fees to
setup the loan.

I have never understood why banks seem to be immune to including
these fees in any APR calculation.

Same for mortgages too.


They all have to provide the figures, maybe you haven't looked/noticed?

I have never seen APR to include the amounts of fees and other
payments for an bank overdraft or mortgage.

Yes I have looked, clearly you haven't.

The likes of Wonga have to include their fees in the APR calculation.
I suspect you haven't noticed that either?


You are of course wrong as the banks and building societies do have to
include the fees.

They do, yes. But the likes of Wonga have to include these fees in their
APR calculation as well. Banks don't. If they did, they would make Wonga
APR rates for small loans look low in comparison to their overdraft APRs.


OK..

so compare an unauthorised £500 overdraft from Barclays to an
unauthorised loan £500 from "wonga" and tell me what the APRs for each are.

Now do the same for an authorised overdraft and a loan from "wonga".

Can you see a difference?

dennis@home wrote:

On 30/04/2018 12:08, Fredxx wrote:
On 27/04/2018 09:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/04/2018 20:20, Fredxx wrote:
On 26/04/2018 15:29, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/04/2018 09:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 25/04/2018 23:22, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 14:41, dennis@home wrote:
On 25/04/2018 11:15, TimW wrote:
On 25/04/18 07:40, Brian Gaff wrote:
[...]Its been my experience that high street banks are the
last place to look except for payday loan sharks of course.
Brian


Although I understand the payday loan sharks are used by the
canny poor because they know that if they get to the end of the
month and incur penalty charges on phone, loan, cards etc they
will be fleeced. Better to pay the outrageous fees to a payday
loan shark than to let the high street banks get at you.

It's a sobering thought but wonga exists because the likes of
Barclays and Lloyds are even worse.

TW

They exist because the likes of Barclays and Lloyds won't lend
people money that they can't afford to pay back
Lenders like wonga will lend money to almost anyone and send the
heavy mob around if they don't pay.
They are not in the same leagues.

Actually if you are getting into trouble Barclays and Lloyds will
start to increase your costs and rob you as fast as they can,
knowing you can't afford to pay it back.

I've often thought this too.

Loan companies have to provide an APR which includes any fees to
setup the loan.

I have never understood why banks seem to be immune to including
these fees in any APR calculation.

Same for mortgages too.


They all have to provide the figures, maybe you haven't looked/noticed?

I have never seen APR to include the amounts of fees and other
payments for an bank overdraft or mortgage.

Yes I have looked, clearly you haven't.

The likes of Wonga have to include their fees in the APR calculation.
I suspect you haven't noticed that either?


You are of course wrong as the banks and building societies do have to
include the fees.

They do, yes. But the likes of Wonga have to include these fees in their
APR calculation as well. Banks don't. If they did, they would make Wonga
APR rates for small loans look low in comparison to their overdraft APRs.


OK..

so compare an unauthorised £500 overdraft from Barclays to an
unauthorised loan £500 from "wonga" and tell me what the APRs for each are.

Now do the same for an authorised overdraft and a loan from "wonga".

Can you see a difference?

No, not really. If the banks did not wish to make ad hoc loans without
formal authorisation available to their customers they wouldn't allow
them. Simple enough.


--

Roger Hayter

On 30/04/2018 14:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
8
655
so compare an unauthorised £500 overdraft from Barclays to an
unauthorised loan £500 from "wonga" and tell me what the APRs for each are.

Now do the same for an authorised overdraft and a loan from "wonga".

Can you see a difference?

No, not really. If the banks did not wish to make ad hoc loans without
formal authorisation available to their customers they wouldn't allow
them. Simple enough.



So they should bounce all the payments and let the customer suffer more
charges from them and from the entity they were paying, sounds a good idea.

On 30/04/2018 13:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Ah - right. Spending 2 quid to get 50p back is classified as a win. No
wonder I don't gamble. ;-)

No as I don't mind giving money to charity either. I really don't expect
to win either, I donlt expect to win when I donate £10 a month to the
RSPCA or oither charities I give to.


But most of the time you are not giving that much money to charities.
They employ third parties to raise money and most is never seen by the
charities. It is spent paying the chuggers, on endless snail mail
begging letters, TV adverts requesting ONLY £3 for a cuddly toy or a
letter written by a dog in an animal refuge, paying large salaries to
the CEO if these third party companies etc.

If you gambled on the National Lottery more money would go to good
causes than to the parasites associated with the charity money making
machine.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:42:08 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Ah - right. Spending 2 quid to get 50p back is classified as a win. No
wonder I don't gamble. ;-)

No as I don't mind giving money to charity either. I really don't expect
to win either, I donlt expect to win when I donate £10 a month to the
RSPCA or oither charities I give to.

You are equating bookies to a charity? Sounds like denial to me. ;-)

I've only once ever used a bookies and it was when I was at school my nan asked me what horse I'd like to bet 50p on (she'd pay, was that gambling).
I bet on the grand national on a horse called sleeping partner (because she woke me up to ask) and I won a couple of quid I think I was about 8 or so. I've never betted on a horse since or been intoi a bookies.

I do have some £1 premium bonds is that gambling too. ?

If I walk home and there's a thunderstorm is that gambling with my life as more people die from lightning strikes than win the jackpot.

On Monday, 30 April 2018 15:53:00 UTC+1, alan_m wrote:
On 30/04/2018 13:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Ah - right. Spending 2 quid to get 50p back is classified as a win. No
wonder I don't gamble. ;-)

No as I don't mind giving money to charity either. I really don't expect
to win either, I donlt expect to win when I donate £10 a month to the
RSPCA or oither charities I give to.


But most of the time you are not giving that much money to charities.

Depends on the charities I do mine via DD so no chugger involved.

They employ third parties to raise money and most is never seen by the
charities. It is spent paying the chuggers, on endless snail mail
begging letters, TV adverts requesting ONLY £3 for a cuddly toy or a
letter written by a dog in an animal refuge, paying large salaries to
the CEO if these third party companies etc.

If you gambled on the National Lottery more money would go to good
causes than to the parasites associated with the charity money making
machine.

But what he can't work out is whether or not it is gambling.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:42:08 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Ah - right. Spending 2 quid to get 50p back is classified as a win. No
wonder I don't gamble. ;-)

No as I don't mind giving money to charity either. I really don't
expect to win either, I donlt expect to win when I donate £10 a
month to the RSPCA or oither charities I give to.

You are equating bookies to a charity? Sounds like denial to me. ;-)

I've only once ever used a bookies and it was when I was at school my
nan asked me what horse I'd like to bet 50p on (she'd pay, was that
gambling). I bet on the grand national on a horse called sleeping
partner (because she woke me up to ask) and I won a couple of quid I
think I was about 8 or so. I've never betted on a horse since or been
intoi a bookies.

Thought you liked online gaming? Who do you think owns those sites?

I do have some £1 premium bonds is that gambling too. ?

A form of gambling - but at least you don't lose 2 quid to win 50p which
you think is a win. ;-) But then any form of investing money is a gamble
to some extent.

If I walk home and there's a thunderstorm is that gambling with my life
as more people die from lightning strikes than win the jackpot.

Yet you still hope to win the jackpot. ;-)

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 30 April 2018 17:05:40 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:42:08 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Ah - right. Spending 2 quid to get 50p back is classified as a win. No
wonder I don't gamble. ;-)

No as I don't mind giving money to charity either. I really don't
expect to win either, I donlt expect to win when I donate £10 a
month to the RSPCA or oither charities I give to.

You are equating bookies to a charity? Sounds like denial to me. ;-)

I've only once ever used a bookies and it was when I was at school my
nan asked me what horse I'd like to bet 50p on (she'd pay, was that
gambling). I bet on the grand national on a horse called sleeping
partner (because she woke me up to ask) and I won a couple of quid I
think I was about 8 or so. I've never betted on a horse since or been
intoi a bookies.

Thought you liked online gaming?

Liked No any more than I lioke paying for anything on-line, it's convient and I don;t have to check my tickets.

Who do you think owns those sites?

Irrelivant.


I do have some £1 premium bonds is that gambling too. ?

A form of gambling - but at least you don't lose 2 quid to win 50p which
you think is a win. ;-) But then any form of investing money is a gamble
to some extent.

Yep and investing in the lottery rather than spending in the is more less likkely to harm my health too.


if I would have invested that £1 in 1968 in beer how many pints could I have brought how many can I buy today with £1.
How about gold ? a £1 woirth of gold in 1968 is worth how much now.
Do the same for oil, gas, diamonds, fine wine, shares, a single malt ?

If I walk home and there's a thunderstorm is that gambling with my life
as more people die from lightning strikes than win the jackpot.

Yet you still hope to win the jackpot. ;-)

I also hope not to be hit by lightening or get bombed on the tube, but for me a fiver a week is not a lot of money and worth the risk, I might not win the jackpot but on the 2nd ticket I ever brough just after the lottery came out I bet £2 one week £2 quid the next and got 4 numbers , they could give me my winning that day I had to return and I was handed £138 in CASH.

Tel, me how would yuo invest a few quid and be sure yuo'll, get the money bakc or more rather than less. ?