Pay Day Loans Repayment Vs Rent | Page 7 | Discuss

Welcome to the Property Forum where we can share our knowledge & experiences together to become better at what we do.

 Forum Terms & Conditions


Enlarge/Change font size here

A A A

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —





 

— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_Related Related Topics sp_TopicIcon
Pay Day Loans Repayment Vs Rent
17/09/2012
11:23 pm
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2890
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You say harsh words; I don't think so, it just brings fairness.

Why should feckless fathers be allowed to introduce more offspring without any trace of who they are and therefore complete abrogation of of their responsibilities;  essentially they get away with paying for those children and the burden then falls on the state.

It is estimated it costs about £382000 to bring a child up on the state!!

You could go to any council estate and see a male a female baby and guarantee that in 15 years time they will have bred.

They are just like rabbits, but they wait about 15 years before they will start breeding.

DNA would only be used in the event that a mother refuses to give the DWP the father's details or the supposed father requests to be checked if he has doubts over whether he is the father.

This would stop in one fell swoop feckless fathers getting away with paying for their children or being identified so that when they do have resources they will make payments to the child's upbringing.

Of course this has the unintended consequence of making work not pay.

What would be the point of a feckless father coming off benefit when all his additional income would be taken by the CSA!?

We have to find ways of preventing another generation of Vicky Pollards being produced.

The state cannot afford to pay for this lot.

I see nothing wrong in using a database of DNA for specific purposes.

Like crime.

Most criminals leave behind some DNA; over future years detection would increase.

If criminals knew this they would stop being criminals as they would know there would be a strong probability of being caught.

Of course Judges would have oversight of such a DNA service.

I cannot see why such data cannot be used from birth.

Todays babies will at some stage become tomorrows criminals.

Why deny the state to identify who the DNA is from if they have have never before been involved with the police.

Having such a database will by default impose responsibility; very few people will wish to engage in criminal activity if they know they will most likely be caught.

I see nothing Big Brotherish in this; the taxpayer should not have to pay for all these layabouts.

Why should we pay for this lot!?

There would be less need for payday loans as there would less people under financial stress as there would not be so many children in low income households.

It should really be if you cannot afford to have childrten then you should not have them.

Why should my taxes go to pay for your lifestyle choice to have children.

After all if you stopped everyone on benefit from having children would they be missed!??.............I don't think so........crime would be massively reduced and the welfare bill would the same.

I'm afraid Chinese solutions look very attractive when the state runs out of money to pay for the feckless.

Social engineering is called for, which is what China realised it had to do.

I see nothing wrong with doing the same.

After all don't we as a state want healthy, productive citizens who pay their way and contribute to society rather than be a burden on it!?

Immiigration is obviously another massive factor which need to be controlled as it is proven that the immigrants are having more babies than the indigenous population as a percentage of themselves.

If peoples' resources were not so stretched by unfotunate domestic circumstsances, like having children you can't afford why should the state pick up the tab.

Prevention, after all is better than cure.

It would save the UK billions infuture costs across the board.

Nonody has a human right to bring children into the world expecting the state will pay for everything with that child being a passport to nlots of faciliities and not having to work yourself.

These are the current state of affairs and I am afraid the country just cannot afford this anymore, or rather doesn't want to afford it anymore, which can only be achieved by borrowing.

Why should people be allowed to have children on state credit when hard working people make informed financial decisions as to how they will manage their domestic circumstances based on their relevant incomes.

18/09/2012
9:58 am
Paul Routledge
Admin
Forum Posts: 3415
Member Since:
20/05/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Maybe we should start a national poll Paul so the subject would not seem so un-PC.

The Question could be:

As a tax payer are you happy to continue to financially pay for the upbringing of children who are born from feckless, irresponsible, unemployable, drug or alcohol addicted mothers and fathers.

Yes or No.

Let the country speak Smile

 

Paul Routledge CEO
Tenant Referencing UK.Com
18/09/2012
9:59 am
stonehouse
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 68
Member Since:
20/08/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
18/09/2012
1:46 pm
Silverfox 4
Guest
Guests

PaulBarrett said
You say harsh words; I don't think so, it just brings fairness....etc...

I generally agree with your comments - but don't you think the mothers should be brought to task as well?? It takes two to tango as they say - regardless of whether the mother discloses the fathers name, she will still get state help.

How do you force men to take paternity tests? !

I cannot see how this would work - the only way to stop irresponsible "breeding" is to cut out state help. full stop.

18/09/2012
2:04 pm
Paul Routledge
Admin
Forum Posts: 3415
Member Since:
20/05/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I don't think "to cut out state help. full stop". would make any difference at all they don't care one way or the other, they certainly dont care about a kid or supporting it.

The trouble is they don't even think of the consequences as long as they get a quick bunk up, that's all that matters to them and I should imagine most of them are steaming drunk or stoned while they perform.

The only answer for the future is for us to try and educate the next generations not to do what their parents did and not make available the support for them to do it (Not easy I know)  and while we are doing that wait for the last generations to pop off hoping that they don't produce to much before they go.Wink

 

Paul Routledge CEO
Tenant Referencing UK.Com
18/09/2012
3:53 pm
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2890
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If there was traceability of these feckless types and thier actions then I do belive behaviour would be modified.

If you know the social will find out whether you were the father and would be left with a lifetime of responsibility then I thinkl it this was advised at school age it would make some of them think before they do.

Yes it takes 2 to tango, but as it still stands the best way for a female to get away from their parents is to have a baby.

They can avoid work for years and will be given a 2 bed property al paid for.

If you are a low achieving female doing this can be a attractive lifestyle choice.

You could have a child every 5 years and avoid ever working.

Mind you I think that works out at 10 kids before the mother is retired on full state pension.

This type of household will always have financial pressures and paying the rent is not a priority as far as they are concened; paying the Sky bill is!

Pay day loans will be used by these types as their chaotic spending leaves them little choice.

This way of living doesn't make a LL life easy when rent is needed.

These social types just don't give paying rent as a priority.

If they can get away with it they will and the LL will suffer with very little chance of redress.

UC is going to make a LL's life a lot harder and I see CU's as the ONLY way a LL will stand a chance against these UC tenants.

This site is obviously heavily espousing the cause of CU's and I think that LL need to wake up to the impending problems that will be visited on them by their UC tenants.

CU's are a far better way of managing things than pay day loans.

Somehow UC ternants need to be encouraged to transfer their financial circumstances to CU's.

It would be to the advantage of all parties.

There will always be these tenant types with chaotic lifestyles.

We as LL do not wish to be continual victims of theirs and so we will have to set up reliable systems to ensure we recive our just due rent.

I see CU's as really the most effective solution.

06/03/2013
4:25 pm
Not green around the
Guest
Guests

 

 

 

For years the government had its own department that worked flat out,  with loads of overtime doing paperwork, sussing out, chasing and catching the illegal loans sharks, taking them to court and fining them.

The government decided that it would be cheaper and better to legalise them by making them become licensed and charging them every year for that license money . Easy money for the government. The loan sharks  are not allowed to beat people up anymore,  which is what they used to do.

But they can now advertise and charge a mint for providing a legal money lending service to people who cannot get a bank loan. 

Makes you wonder where our bank managers and CEO's used to work before they became big. 

20/07/2013
2:53 pm
Dud
Guest
Guests

If you take a pay day loan out you are more stupid then someone who maxes out their credit card! Don't spend money you don't have!

20/07/2013
3:53 pm
zepHYoRUS
Guest
Guests

Pay Day Loans and their like are part of the financial sector, they like links on pages giving debt advice.

Wolves in Sheep's clothing they target pages designed to help the vulnerable in managing financial needs. Deadly hooks disguised by the respectability of others.

Johnny Debt (an easy name to remember for those enamoured with celebrities, ie Johnny Depp) in my opinion has been one of them in the past if not now.

http://www.johnnydebt.co.uk/gu.....asy-loans/

03/10/2013
11:55 am
Cedric
Golders Green
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
15/12/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

So payday loan adverts could carry risk warnings? ; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busi.....s-24372134

 

I'll say it again! I am truly staggered how the world has moved on and allows this legal but blatant smash and grab culture.

 

I have had no choice but to issue eviction proceedings on a tenant recently as she has got herself mixed up with multiple pay day loan companies and hasn't paid the rent for over 5 months now!

I come from an age when we believed in saving our money and not getting into huge debit, but then when you look at what some high street banks charge for going slightly overdrawn they are not much better than companies like wRonga I suppose.
 
But hey, they do say there is no such thing as bad publicity so I wonder how many people will be taking out a pay day loan this Christmas? Yell!
03/10/2013
5:46 pm
PaulBarrett
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 2890
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I wonder how many LL won't be receiving their rent for December as the tenant has Christmas to pay for and the LL is a FREE overdraft facility!?

 Would it be worth a LL offering to receive half the rent for December with the  other half being paid in January in addition to the normal rent!!??

 

03/10/2013
6:40 pm
David Price
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1641
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I prefer half in January in advance for the next December.

13/12/2013
2:49 pm
kayla
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 12
Member Since:
01/12/2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....96574.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....96574.html

As a single mum I can vouch for this! It should be illegal for these adverts to be aired before the watershed Yell

13/12/2013
5:27 pm
Paul Routledge
Admin
Forum Posts: 3415
Member Since:
20/05/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Kayla,

The adverts and the companies I reckonLaugh

 

Paul Routledge CEO
Tenant Referencing UK.Com
03/01/2014
12:21 pm
Cedric
Golders Green
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 476
Member Since:
15/12/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
04/01/2014
11:57 am
David Price
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 1641
Member Since:
12/10/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Paul R, going back to your entry No 19 on this blog, did Shelter ever get back to you to define a bad landlord?

What is the maximum a landlord can charge in interest on outstanding rent?  My tenancies specify a small percentage above NatWest base rate but could a landlord legally charge the same as Wonga?  Additionally since this is interest and not rent could the landlord use Wonga tactics to collect the interest?

Just asking I have no intention of implementing.

04/01/2014
12:58 pm
Mary Latham
Member
Suporter
Forum Posts: 2188
Member Since:
17/05/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

David I am interested in you comment "I prefer half in January in advance for the next December".  I have heard a Guru suggesting that it is good practice to take a small amount of extra rent each month and give the tenant a rent free month in December.  In my opinion this would be a deposit (taken to protect the landlord from rent arrears before the rent is due for payment) Which would mean that the money must be protected at each payment or fall foul of Deposit Protection legislation.  I realise that landlords who do this do it to help the tenant to budget but once again landlords need to protect their own backs first - one good turn can get us into trouble & cost us up to 400% of the amount paid (ie 4 months rent!!)

 

Follow me on Twitter@landlordtweets  

The perfect present for property investors @ £4.64. My book, where I warn about the storm clouds that are gathering for landlords is available on Amazon title.  Property For Rent – Investing in the UK: Will You Survive the Mayhem?  http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1484855337

Follow me on Twitter @landlordtweets

04/01/2014
1:19 pm
Paul Routledge
Admin
Forum Posts: 3415
Member Since:
20/05/2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

David Price said
Paul R, going back to your entry No 19 on this blog, did Shelter ever get back to you to define a bad landlord?
What is the maximum a landlord can charge in interest on outstanding rent?  My tenancies specify a small percentage above NatWest base rate but could a landlord legally charge the same as Wonga?  Additionally since this is interest and not rent could the landlord use Wonga tactics to collect the interest?
Just asking I have no intention of implementing.

David

I don’t need shelter to reply their opinion of a bad landlord is one that charges rent lol Laugh

On the subject of interest I do not think you can charge any interest on outstanding rent because it is not classified as an agreed loan and if you tried to get the tenant to convert it into to a loan you would need a consumer credit licences and would probably need to be registered with the FCA.

Would make a good new thread - What can a landlord charge a tenant in interest on rent arrears – who wants to start it off?..

 

Paul Routledge CEO
Tenant Referencing UK.Com
13/01/2014
12:27 pm
Devonian
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 67
Member Since:
17/09/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

If you have a clause in your tenancy agreement that states exactly how much interest will be chargeable upon default of rent and the tenant has signed this, then it is a perfectly legal agreement and no reason why he shouldn't pay up.  You have private agreements between parties all the time and if you're not making your living from it (because in reality it's only pennies a day and you're in the business of renting properties not giving loans) then I don't believe you have to be registered with the FCA.  I am, of course, willing to be corrected on this.

28/03/2014
11:56 am
trudy
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 133
Member Since:
23/07/2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

MoneyShop SmashImage Enlarger

No wonder they're behind glass at these places!! Yell

Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 755

Currently Online:
22 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

PaulBarrett: 2890

Mary Latham: 2188

LyndonBaker: 1805

David Price: 1641

Patricia A: 986

DATA CONTROL: 967

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2528

Members: 6261

Moderators: 6

Admins: 1

Forum Stats:

Groups: 1

Forums: 3

Topics: 4435

Posts: 30904

Newest Members:

hipro20, papsshaikh, disichei, cornwallroomlets, pip1970, paulbright

Moderators: SamiiB: 441, News @ Tenant Referencing: 1567, laura: 15, Chloe: 107, lucybarr: 0, jaswhite: 20

Administrators: Paul Routledge: 3415

/* ]]> */