pslewis

What the foook is wrong with people??

Always looking for someone else to blame for being stupid!

They don't know what they have spent the money on!

Well, its been written-off!! Take their bloody house off them!

Why must it ALWAYS be someone elses fault?? FFS!!

Pete

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

evenin lewis

Jap2Scrap

I agree with Lewis on this.

******* disgraceful that it got written off despite the bank's irresponsible lending. These people had this money - where the **** is it now?
The very best they should have got was an order to repay it with no interest.

ajm

Beat me to it! For once we are in agreement Pete!

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425734

paulr

Apparently they bet 100k on the Tories to win.

dpb

could have been out the same box........

The Zohan

LMFAO!

TBH
the first couple should never have been lent the money, she earns £ 5k per annum and he is of work with a mental dissability. Having seen her interview she came across as a bit of a moron as well.

Don't know what they spent the money on, well they are either really smart or just dim-wits and i know what my money is on having seen the interview

I ask you - Would you have lent these people money?

Looks like Lloyds TSB did so, so their people meet their targets and get bonus; Looks to me like LLoyds TSB systems to are just geared to lending money under any circumstances event to people who cannot pay it back.

Yes the peole are wrong to try for a loan but they should never have qualified, just greed on behalf of the banks employees and a crummy system andd managers that let it happen

All IMHO

ajm

LOL! Wash your potty mouth out!

Tim-Grove

im going down the bank tomorrow I WANT MY FREE £100K

ajm

Same here... I don't owe anyone a penny... maybe its time I did!

Just need to think of a way of not knowing what I spend a hundred grand on!

douglasb

Another "this time, and just this time, I agree with Pete" from me

No matter how stupid someone is, surely they must realise that when a bank lends them money then the bank will want the money back? I agree that Lloyds don't come out of this too well as they should never have lent the money to people who never had a prayer of repaying it, but the couple need to accept responsibility for borrowing far more than they could ever repay. Surely they must have realised that they couldn't repay it?

So, Lloyds write off £100K. Couple end up £100K better off and anyone with a Lloyds account isn't going to see their bank charges going down any time soon....

gsm1

P*sses me right off. I had a business account with Lloyds for many years and always kept a very healthy balance. The day came when I asked for a 3k overdraft facility and my area business manager refused! Yet they hand out dough to these morons.

dpb

It all sounds a bit like our very own government........

pslewis

I was TRYING to keep politics out of this .... but, as you ask, it was the TORIES who abandoned all credit controls!!

Controls are there to protect idiots from themselves!!

Not everyday I get everyone agreeing with me, makes me feel really uneasy

Pete

SD

Missed the show but ******* astounded that I'm agreeing with Pissy Pants Lewis.

They'll be employing a 'no win no fee' lawyer next to sue Lloyds TSB for the 'emotional distress'.

Simon.

Freak

Its chav society I am afraid..........

this is precisely why i think lewis is right about some things he predicts for the future (although it pains me to say it )

richiewong

Evening Pete, one of my brother in laws is a futures analysts and £100K is nothing compared to some of the millions a company is prepared to right off

Leslie

So why have NL not reinstated credit controls?

Les

NewLabour

Remember freedom and democracy Leslie? That's why.

Anyway don't any of you budding capitalists see a good business plan here? Borrow heavily, pay some of it back, default, go bankrupt/make a payment plan paying back a fraction of what you owe. Spend the cash over the next 6yrs (who needs a credit rating) then repeat until the law is changed.

pslewis

Because Chavs like you would cry and bleet and moan and whinge EVEN MORE!!

Better to concentrate on more important issues I think, don't you??

Pete

Leslie

In that case PSL then you cannot infer any sort of criticism of the Conservative party in this respect.

Yes NewLabour your point is absolutely correct, I was not implying criticism of the politicians here but exposing PSL's original comment for what it was worth, ie zero!

I must have touched the nerve there PSL since you have had to resort to puerile insults yet again as ever.

Les

GarethE

iTrader: (1)

PSL is off the mark on this one - I photographed the couple last week and spent a few hours looking at bank statements and credit agreements, and although I only saw part of the programme, so I'm not sure how it was actually reported when edited, they never actually received £100,000 to spend.

They took out agreements equivalent to approx £100,000 in total loans, but the salesman was using the new loan to repay the exsisting loan and adding more on with the new loan. Their monthly repayments were restructured and exended and added Payment Protection ( to which they weren't entitled). He used the premise that it would work out cheaper in the long run, and Mr Dickerson, being mentally unwell, had no reason to doubt him.

To be honest their accounts were in a right mess, and it was only when the neice got involved that the true situation came to light. Even now there isn't a definative figure for the amount they owed, despite financial advisors looking at it - again this may not have been fully reported last night in order to make the story easier to follow.

This boils down to a mentally ill man being exploited by a salesman only thinking about his bonuses, and having seen the effect that its had on them I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Being stupid is one thing, but being conned and exploited because you don't have the mental ability to deal with the situation you are in is something else.

I really hope no one reading this falls foul of a similar situation.

Gareth

scoob_babe

Even so, the original amount that they requested must have been above the amount that they brought in??
I tried to get a loan for a car as it was looking at being cheaper to do that than take money out of savings instead. Despite my credit rating being way off the scale at the good end, I was denied a poxy £15k loan with a low interest rate. I was then put through to the bank itself (Lloyds TSB) instead of the card issuer, who offered me said loan at 18% interest!!!!!!!! I think the salesman was a bit surprised when I said 'you're joking' and politely declined all incentive to take it!!!!!!!!!!
In fact, I was denied a loan at all of the major low-interest rate companies - it would appear that because I could afford it, they wouldn't make any cash out of me above the basic APR so therefore declined it - responsible lending my foot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GarethE

iTrader: (1)

s_b - I don't know what was reported, and I have to be careful saying too much without their permission, but there were savings available to them which would have covered the original amount - they went for the original loan to save touching it, as you did.

Gareth

The Zohan

Gareth
If you can answer this with any compromise then i would be grateful.

If the couple only have income of £ 5k + any dissability then how did they qualiify for a loan in the first place.
It appears they have on single income of 5K which equates to £ 350.00 take home per month. Assume dissability of similar then £ 700.00 per month is not alot for a couple to live on assuming the dissability benefit is taken into account.

I cannot understand how this was allowed to go on.

I am not trying to pry and i feel the bank is more at fault than the couple (read my earlier post)

I do not feel the couple are completely blameless, although they seem not too bright (i know the male has mental problems, not trying to be unkind) and the bank have completely 'abused' them for want of a better expression.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

I'm guessing a large part of the 100k is payment protection (like Gareth pointed out, this was useless to them), interest on the original loans, probably fees for missed payments etc.

Yes, they have some responsibility in what happened, but the bank manager has also taken advantage of the couple.

Surely, the only reason the first loan ever went through was that the bank manager wanted to line his own pockets? Perhaps the fact that they had enough savings to cover the first loan (going on Gareth's post here) reassured the bank that they would get their money back, but the second, third and fourth loan should never ever have been allowed.

GarethE

iTrader: (1)

Paul,

I understand the thinking, and as I mentioned I didn't see the whole report so don't know what figures were given for income - as I understand their income at the time of the original loan was higher than the figures you mention, including all totalled benefits.

On top of this there was a reasonable amount of money in savings which would have been know to the advisor when considering the family for the original loan, so I'm sure the loan was made under proper proceedure. IMHO the advisor probably realised the couple would be a soft target and made the most of it.

I'm fairly certain that most people would have realised that something wasn't right, but he trusted the advisor to give him advice that was in his best interest.

To me this is similar to an elderly person being conned out of money because they're told they need a new roof/plumbing/windows - they trust the person offering advice and go with it, the only difference is the guy is wearing a suit sat behind a desk, rather than in overalls at your door.

From meeting the family it seems that most of the loans were made as a result of an offer by the bank, not at the request of the Dickersons - in other words they didn't walk in and ask for a loan, he was rung and asked to go in - if that is the case then if thats not inappropriate lending, I don't know what is.

I can appreciate that they may have come accross as not being too bright, but I don't believe they deliberately ran up the debts and are now trying to get out of repaying it - he got into a situation he couldn't deal with and buried his head in the sand.

At the end of the day the lending system is supposed to prevent these situations arising.

Edited- I changed a few details and wording on the original post as I don't want any legal problems, either for myself, the family or the advisor concerned. I'll also say that obviously this has come as a result of me meeting the family and although they have proof for a lot of the situation, it is only their version of events. I don't want to, and won't, provide any info which may be confidential, and if any of the Moderators think that anything I've mentioned is legally problematic, feel free to edit.

matchmaker

SWMBO, who is a housewife with an income of about £110 per month Child Benefit, keeps getting offered a pre-approved Lloyds TSB Platinum credit card with an 8k credit limit.

SWMBO, being a sensible lass, keeps feeding the shredder