Forum menu
Or providing a vital service?
I've got a friend who is going to do some work for one who can't decide if he has sold his soul to the devil and is going going to hell or it's just a firm selling a product and just get on with it. This firm specialise (i.e. only) provide loans to people (and self employed types for vans) with terrible credit history and only for cars and vans. Typically 38-40% apr kind of terrible. Very legitimate company with respectably shiny offices. He's trawled the publicly available accounts and they are not making stupid big profits - people with bad credit it seems often default (who knew) so the interest rates seem appropriate to the risk. They also have very good customer reviews - as much as you can trust customer reviews to be legit these days.
So a legitimate place to work for providing a needed service for people in dire straits or a grubby opportunists it would be embarrassing to have on your CV? I'm going with the latter - but then I've never been desperate for a loan and not been able to find someone legitimate to get it from who would not break my legs if I defaulted. Being a cyclist who does not see car ownership as vital does not help either.
Being a cyclist who does not see car ownership as vital does not help either.
No, it certainly doesn't.
Maybe if someone took your bike away, and set you down where a friend of mine lives, (she has a hotel/restaurant/tea-room) and said right, for the next month, you have to get everywhere by public transport, you might, just, begin to understand just [i]how[/i] important a car is to anyone outside of any given major urban centre.
Just to give you a clue, the nearest main road where you might catch one of the two or three buses a day requires walking along a narrow country lane, with no footpath, which drops into a valley with no clear view of the traffic, as there are bends, is a mile away. The other main road is nearly three miles away.
You could walk across country into Castle Combe, but that's nearly a mile away as well,
A friend of mine used to live in Colerne, and worked in Bath, there are two buses a day, one in the early morning, one around lunchtime.
It's a five or six mile walk along a busy but fairly narrow road.
How many average people are going to be able to manage without a car?
or presumably desparate for a job? I've employed people who worked for online gambling firms who hated it because it was screwing over people who usually couldn't afford it - I've never even considered that it was a blot on their CV.So a legitimate place to work for providing a needed service for people in dire straits or a grubby opportunists it would be embarrassing to have on your CV? I'm going with the latter - but then I've never been desperate for a loan
Now imagine you had a big chunk of spare cash and someone you knew but weren't good friends with asked to borrow some. What rate of return would you look for on it?
I can imagine several scenarios where you might find a need for a car/van and have poor credit - any cyclist who believes there is no need for a vehicle for many people is deluded or living in a very big city.
To me the question is not the APR it's both how they screen borrowers in the first place, and what they do with defaulters that determines the ethics of the company. Perhaps more likely to influence them from within if you are really that concerned.
or presumably desparate for a job? I've employed people who worked for online gambling firms who hated it because it was screwing over people who usually couldn't afford it - I've never even considered that it was a blot on their CV.
Showing you can work professionally in any environment is a great skill to have. Principles will get you so far but if the company is above board and properly within the law then go for it. It is always a good reason for a short stint on a CV.
Can't remember the exact figures (they actually exist) but it's something over 90% of the population in most countries in the developed world. With some obvious exceptions (US being the one that immediately springs to mind.).How many average people are going to be able to manage without a car?
Most of western/northern europe is well over 95%.
As to whether it's as [i]convenient[/i] without a car, that's another discussion.
Gostly machine. I want your source and definition of manage...
Whilst I appreciate the stats are skewed by those in big cities with good transport links. Can you stay in the same house (which may be governed by factors like cost, family support, etc) and work in the same job (for those with poor credit they presumably aren't working their for the money). The issue is not whether you can get to work, but whether you can do that in a timescale that fits with the reality of available childcare. And that ignores the fact the OP was also financing vans, presumably for tradesfolk who need a van rather than Middleclass MTB owners.
I live in a well connected area where people actually buy houses because of the transport links. Getting to the local hospital is only possible three times a day by bus. Likewise the nearest court, council hq, job centre, etc. If you don't have a car your choice is essentially to turn most half hour appointments into a full day trip or cough up 35 quid on taxis - something which many people needing those services on a regular basis can ill afford. We are a 1 car household and that is a ball ache often enough!
I'd be fairly surprised if it was >95% even if you exclude those where age or mobility makes public transport difficult or impossible. So it would be interesting to read...
I am very much pro-free markets, but in the case of credit I think that maybe there should be a law limiting the rate of interest charged over and above the base rate, to save people who would otherwise take pay-day and other extortionately high rates of interest.
The likes of Wonga, Brighthouse, etc just seem to feed off creating more misery for their clients.
Qv Cattles Plc...
From the involvement I've had in the sector, default rates are very very high. 30-40% Apr doesn't strike me as being that high either... Companies like this (like the one mentioned above) made/make their money from add-ons as far as I know. Met some decent people there. Met some sharks there too.
Another company who had a fair bit of exposure to the non-prime market was BOS - and didn't they do well too.
It's a job. Fight the good fight and try and help people. Then move on.
In which case some folk would just never be offered credit and that might prevent them from getting out of long term debt (let's say you're a tradesman needing a loan to rent a van while your own is being repaired).I am very much pro-free markets, but in the case of credit I think that maybe there should be a law limiting the rate of interest charged over and above the base rate, to save people who would otherwise take pay-day and other extortionately high rates of interest.
As for cars being unnecessary, some folk need to get out of their bubble and look around more.
These loans companies satisfy a market demand and the rates highlight the risk they take. I think the rates are scandalous but if you're desperate then folk have no option.
But at least they are regulated (in some shape or form). Better to borrow money from one of these places rather than "Dodgy Joes Loan Shark" where the penalty for missed payments is a broken leg...
[quote="poly"]Gostly machine. I want your source and definition of manage...It's not "my" source. It's something that the entire automotive and transport industry is looking at and researching, along with the EU and most governments. It crops up in strategy discussions fairly regularly. And as for definition of manage, who knows, i'd be more interested in what excuses or reasons people come up with for [i]not[/i] managing. I'd suspect that a huge chunk is down to laziness and bad planning.
This is just a thing that crops up, not as many people [i]in the developed world[/i] are as dependent on ownership of a car as they say/think they are.
[quote="poly"]I'd be fairly surprised if it was >95% even if you exclude those where age or mobility makes public transport difficult or impossible. So it would be interesting to read...95% for most of western/northern europe. The specifics by country are something that someone who has the actual report/s in front of them could tell you. Not me.
It's a similar thing to the breakdown of average journey/commute distances by car across europe. Almost everyone claims that they absolutely need to travel by car as it's so far to work. Maybe 8-10% (more in cities) "manage" without. But when you actually look at the data it bears almost no resemblance at all to what people tell you. i.e. those who simply cannot reasonably commute by alternative methods are actually in a tiny minority.
It's all about convenience.
In which case some folk would just never be offered credit and that might prevent them from getting out of long term debt (let's say you're a tradesman needing a loan to rent a van while your own is being repaired).
True, no intervention in a market exists without some negative, unintended, perhaps unforeseen consequences, but I think that capping interest rates would reduce the overall amount of misery caused by people taking out unaffordable credit.
But at least they are regulated (in some shape or form). Better to borrow money from one of these places rather than "Dodgy Joes Loan Shark" where the penalty for missed payments is a broken leg
Any change would need to be be accompanied with very strong laws to protect people from non-high street loan sharks.
Any change would need to be be accompanied with very strong laws to protect people from non-high street loan sharks.
The solution is more likely a mix of credit co-ops rather than laws. Give people better access to affordable credit (within their means).
Combined with a proper living minimum wage and decent benefits for those who can't work.
ie remove the need to visit a loan shark in the first place.
There's a disparity that needs to be addressed. Interest on savings is virtually zero, possibly negative when you take into account the performance of the pound.
Then you have companies charging 3000% on short term loans to vulnerable people, which are basically designed to make them miss a payment so further charges can be levied.
Something is broken.
You can't have "affordable" credit for all if you're bearing the costs of defaults - unless you want some state-controlled bank and for the defaults to be paid out of general taxation?
not as many people in the developed world are as dependent on ownership of a car as they say/think they are.
those who simply cannot reasonably commute by alternative methods are actually in a tiny minority.
I'm not sure it's a [i]tiny [/i]minority, but it is a minority, and it's true that many people cannot see how they would cope, because they've never had to think about it.
A friend of mine very stupidly lost his license for a year after getting caught drink driving. Still managed for the next year by using the bus, to travel the 22 miles each way to work (from city to rural town) at inconvenient times, added over an hour a day to his commute and was a ballache but it was possible.
If he had had childcare issues I'm sure it would have been a different matter, he probably would have had to change job, because for him he [i]couldn't [/i]drive, even if he could afford it.
I also have numerous friends and colleagues who either don't have a license*, or simply don't own a car. I may live in a city but it's not a big one, and many people commute in and out from/to the rural surroundings.
Necessity vs compromise. You might need a car for your current situation, but to some degree you've probably arranged your situation around being able to drive, if you were unable to for legal or medical reasons what would you do, curl up into a ball and give up? or change circumstances to adapt?
Those changes could be significant, costly, and massively inconvenient, but I bet you'd find a way, just like all the other people in the country/world who can't or don't drive for various reasons.
There is a big difference between convenience, ease/enablement and necessity. I have a car, I often use it for things, but I am under no illusion that it is [i]necessary[/i].
On the topic of the OP though, I don't think the fact that the loans are for cars or vans is of any relevance here as that's a fairly normal thing for people to spend their money on, it's not like they're selling loans for drug habits is it. Judge the company on the way it conducts itself and the service it offers.
* I'm going to go look up some figures for this as I have a general impression that fewer young people are bothering to learn to drive and pass their tests than in the past, I could be wrong but it [i]seems [/i]like there is a downward trend in the 17-25 age bracket.
in the case of credit I think that maybe there should be a law limiting the rate of interest charged over and above the base rate, to save people who would otherwise take pay-day and other extortionately high rates of interest.
Nothing to do with base rate, but there is regulation in place limiting interest rates in short term lending. No idea if car finance comes under the same banner (I'd assume not), but near-prime finance products (including loans and credit cards) is often used to describe those up to 100% APR. It's a big market.
I'm of the opinion that if it's appropriately regulated then it's fine. It hasn't been previously, but that's changed. Better to have access to (expensive) credit than nothing at all a lot of the time.
those who simply cannot reasonably commute by alternative methods are actually in a tiny minority.
I'd say it depends entirely on the definition of "reasonably". Plenty of places round here (West Sussex, so not exactly in the middle of nowhere) that have no regular public transport service (ie more than one service per day). Take the village of [url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Kirdford ]Kirdford[/url], has 4 buses per week. Otherwise you need to get to Billingshurst, which has both a station and more buses. So yes, if you're prepared to walk 5 miles in each direction (very doable for someone able bodied) on unlit roads with no pavements then you're away.
For some a car is definitely necessary, i live in a rural village, nearest train station is 21 miles away, no buses other than twice a week for the elderly to get to nearest town, you pretty much have to drive.
I went without a car for 14 months, and that involved cycling 9000 miles.
I have had 3 sets of elderly neighbours in the bungalow next to me in 4 years, each has moved from other parts of the country to live in an area they holidayed or fell in love with, then after a year of living here or a period of ill health, moves closer to town or away as public transport doesn't exist.
But what i don't understand is feeling the need to have a new car at high interest, plenty of reliable little "run abouts" at £400-500, buy with a long MOT and even if they run for 18 months don't owe you anything
Brief googling suggests it might be true, so interesting side topic there as all these young people must be managing without cars, and if the trend increases then maybe there are new generations coming through already who will be less car dependant.
The number of 17 to 20-year olds taking lessons has dropped by 21 per cent in the past nine years and now make up just a third of today's first time drivers.As many as 44 per cent are over the age of 25 before they learn to drive and most young adults do not take to the road until the age of 26.
[url= http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-3698959/Are-young-people-priced-driving-Average-age-drivers-taking-test.html ]link here[/url]
although they don't cite the source of their data
The Department for Transport’s recent National Travel Survey shows a sharp drop over the past 18 years in the number of young people holding a full driving licence. While in 1995, some 43% of 17- to 20-year-olds held a full driving licence, that has plunged to just 31%. The fall is sharpest among young men, where it has dropped from 51% to 30%, while the percentage of young women with a full driving licence has slipped from 36% to 31%. Over the same period the proportion of 21- to 29-year-olds with full driving licences has also fallen
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2014/sep/16/cost-driving-young-people-off-road ]from here[/url]
[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-survey-2013 ]National Travel Survey[/url]
@Njee and Scud, how much of that though is because of easy and cheap access to a car?
if you for example were not able to drive (legal/medical) would you live where you do? I'm not suggesting you give up your car, change your job and move or anything, but there's probably a certain amount of your life situation being [i]enabled [/i]by the use of a car.
And that's exactly why all the rural areas have such poor transport links, decades of more and more car reliance has meant that people have built their society and lives around that enabler, I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing, the choice and freedom is great, but the necessity that people speak of is a kind of manufactured necessity.
It would be like the Clearances all over again - but across the whole of rural Britain - and there'd be no one to tend the countryside/serve ice cream to the visiting city dwellers (assuming they could find their way via bus or train).
As I said, not necessarily a good thing, but it doesn't [i]have [/i]to be like, it's reliance on private cars that has enabled the decline in public transport.
If it was recognised as such (reliance not necessity) and decent public transport was demanded and supplied then it would still be possible live geographically dispersed and commute.
If you think about it the demand is for [b]transport[/b], it's just that it's been supplied by private car ownership via a mix of policy, economics and ease.
The situation we're discussing here I guess is that some people are choosing high cost credit as the fix for a situation rather than looking at changing circumstances or alternatives like
But what i don't understand is feeling the need to have a new car at high interest, plenty of reliable little "run abouts" at £400-500, buy with a long MOT and even if they run for 18 months don't owe you anything
It could be that for every single one of those people it is also the [i]right decision[/i] to take that loan and get the car, but still interesting to think about alternatives isn't it?
if you for example were not able to drive (legal/medical) would you live where you do? I'm not suggesting you give up your car, change your job and move or anything, but there's probably a certain amount of your life situation being enabled by the use of a car.
Yes, I would. But it would involve compromise. I don't consider myself in the minority of people who would struggle to live without a car though.
I'm not sure about the idea that people only live in rural areas because car use is cheap. These settlements pre-date car use, and I'm not sure that saying "you don't need a car, you can just move to a big city" is justification that people don't need a car. By extension of that logic no one needs a car at all. Scotland also doesn't need any investment, ever, because everyone could just move to London.
I'm not sure about the idea that people only live in rural areas because car use is cheap
I'm not saying it so black and white by taking it to extremes like that, it's just that there is a factor at play whereby people/society have either consciously or unconsciously structured life around the common availability of cars. It's an enabler in more ways than one.
It's more like and insidious creep that has driven some changes slowly, it's not total nor would it ever be, but it is a contributing factor.
As I said, not necessarily a good thing, but it doesn't have to be like, it's reliance on private cars that has enabled the decline in public transport.
I don't disagree with you at all, i moved to London as a lad with a car, got rid of it after 3 months as i used public transport all the time or cycled. Again with the village in live in now, people tell me there used to be buses regularly running and i can point to at least 8 houses that used to be train stations, cars killed public transport in a lot of places in the 60's and 70's.
In an ideal world, i'd love to split my journey between cycling and public transport instead of the 56 mile round trip now, but the infrastructure isn't there, and i actively campaign for cycle routes and inclusion by planners when they propose new roads and routes.
CountZero - Member
Being a cyclist who does not see car ownership as vital does not help either.No, it certainly doesn't.
Maybe if someone took your bike away,
Maybe I'd buy another bike if my credit history was that poor.
Anyway, to the OP, nothing wrong with it, they're charging an appropriate rate, if you don't pay they'll take the car away, and you're back where you started.
Returning the the original topic, and the OP's friend, I've interviewed for and been offered jobs by various socially unattractive businesses, including:
BAE - arms manufacturer
Arrow Global - buy debt from credit card companies and then collect
BetFred - gambling
Each of them asked me directly what my attitude was to their businesses and the sectors they operate in. One learns to be diplomatic while assessing if it's just a job, or whether there is a social responsibility in choosing not to work for them.
Fortunately, those above didn't offer me the job (for a variety of reasons) so my conscience wasn't sufficiently tested - in reality, I'd have probably taken a pragmatic view on all of them. But that says more about me than them.
Should the OP's friend take the job? Maybe, if nothing else to speak from experience when determining the role companies like this play in our society.
And he should cycle to work.
I'm not sure about the idea that people only live in rural areas because car use is cheap.
I live in a rural area. I don't live there because cars are cheap to use but I wouldn't live there without a car.
Used to sometimes get bus and then walk to work 10 miles away many years ago when bus was at 07:10 and 08:00 but now there are just 3 buses a day, first one out at 11:00, last one back at 17:00.
providing a needed service for people in dire straits or a grubby opportunist?
People with poor credit are high risk, the rates reflect this, just as your insurance does if you've had accidents or penalty points.
I think the only real answer to your question comes from the results of the company performing the "service"...are they raking it in or just making a reasonable profit?
Thanks for the interesting input.
Yes, my ' Being a cyclist who does not see car ownership as vital does not help either' sounded a bit over zealous. I acknowledge there are people who have little choice but to have a car to function and whilst in an ideal world we should all be trying to arrange our life to make car travel less essential (like try and live near your work or the other way around etc) for lots of reasons we don't live in an ideal world. I also like cars - our car is far from sensible but I guess that was a decision based on my circumstances meaning I'm in a time in my life where I could justify it - there have been plenty of times when we could not and buying one would have been highly irresponsible.
I hope firms like these don't get used for 'frivolous' car purchases - people buying not what they need to get by at painful interest rates but being given the opportunity to put themselves in proper debt for nice to haves they may live to regret. But is the responsibility to do the right thing the individuals or the company giving them the opportunity? A bit like the online betting firm that accepts the mortgage repayment money for a bet with an unlikely payout or the off licence specialising in selling diamond white at 10am to dishevelled men.