DTel: Woman to lose home after loan for kitchen soars

Granted, and by the same token we can assume the criterion for claiming "more than 25" or even just "for 25 years" is not met. So she could have been there for 24 years, i.e. since (perhaps early) 1980. That could be more than 7 years before she ordered the kitchen in (perhaps late) 1987.

Knowing it's more than 3 and less than 8 is a far cry from it being "safe" to assume it was less than 6.

I do concede, though, that if it had been 23 or 24 they'd probably have said "almost 25".

I don't think they wanted to give the impression she had been there for ages before getting the kitchen (thereby trying to justify her decision to renew it on the grounds that it was old -- that point is not necessary since the kitchen could well already have been old when she moved in, and in any case even if she had been there for ages, who's to say she had not already renewed it a few years prior and was just tired of the colour?).

I think all the report wanted to put across is that she was losing what has (now) been her home since time immemorial.

Quite frankly, I think the lenders should be strung up by their goolies. Such high interest rates may be all very well for very short-term debts (like on credit cards) which are expected to be settled within a few months, but this case reported scheduled repayments of £240pm, which on £10800 at 29.3% works out [whirr, grind, click] at a planned term of about 20 years. For that sort of term, the rate is usurious, and to have let it run in arrears for this long is at best sharp practice.

"Tim" wrote in news:co46m5$b2e$ snipped-for-privacy@sparta.btinternet.com:

I think how long she lived there is irrelevant. Unless there's a real crisis (kitchen is totally non-functional), you have to wonder about the judgement of anyone who, in the midst of financial crisis, takes out a large loan at 30% interest. It would have been cheaper to just eat out.

Sorry, but I though by now everyone was aware of Magnets reputation. I've never heard of a satisfied Magnet customer, and it aint the customers.....

Daytona

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I only said "pretty safe" - not "fully safe" (gosh, I'm sounding like Troy now!).

If it were at least 6 years "in 1987", then it would have been at least six at the *end* of 1987 (possibly then nearly seven). This would make it **at least** 23 years at the end of 2004 (as we are now).

My suspicion is that, had it been over 23.0 years, they would have said "nearly 25 years" ...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Exactly! That means that it was "probably" less than 6 years at the end of

1987!!

I do believe that there should be basic limits imposed by law. In this case, because a financial product was involved (the customer wanted a loan) I think, ideally, a fact find, and from that, a budget should have been drawn up by a suitable qualified person. If the total budgeted outgoings (including the proposed loan)(variable interest loans calculated at current interest rate times 1.5) were over, say

60% of gross salary, as mortgage payments alone have been during times of high repossessions, she should have been advised, in writing, not to go ahead. She could of course ignore that if she wished, or refuse to participate. Culpability is then clear, without infringing upon a customers right to do what they want.

A procedure like this would make it crystal clear and almost certainly prevent people like kitchen salesmen giving what is essentially financial advice. And yes, the independent financial advisor network currently may not be very good, but that's another issue.

Daytona

Yes, I know all that. My point was that she didnt think further than 'I want a Kitchen'

So far there have been more than thirty replies in this thread but no one has offered to send the woman a penny.

If someone will supply her address, let us see how many of those who have expressed an opinion will come up with some cash to help the lady.

PJ

Scripsit "Peanutjake"

Naturally so. All of the people who replied seem to agree that she does not *deserve* to be sent a penny.

Why dou you think such an experiment would be interesting?

No, thats one persons hyperbole.

Some One Else

I think one person has expressed an opinion that the company making the loan was Out Of Order, and I cant imagine why they would want to give such a company More Money. The others including me appear to think she was a Dumb Bitch (or more likely a Greedy Bitch) who deserves what she has got, Her Just Deserts.

..or maybe not .....

Well, obviously the Friendly Lender was. Duh!

There was a program on TV studying those that were living on a mainly benefits estate.

I think the lady knew what she was getting into, but she had no choice as banks would not offer her a loan.

I guess that is true today and so people with lower incomes have to go to places like Ocean Finance etc.

AMO

The choice she had was to live with kitchen doors she didnt particularily like the colour of. Even if nothing in her kitchen worked, 11k was about

10x what she had to spend to get a kitchen she could use. Dont forget this was someone who was 'financially struggling'.

"AMO" wrote

"had no choice" ? - Rubbish!

Even if she did *need* a new kitchen, she certainly did not *need* to spend 10,800 on it (in 1987) !!

If she couldn't afford the 10,800 without a loan, she could have got a perfectly adequate new kitchen for a LOT, LOT LESS than that...

She had no choice about remodeling her kitchen?

So the idea of NOT remodeling the kitchen is entirely beyond the pale? Is your name possibly Jonkler?

It is possible to conclude BOTH that the woman was stupid to spend a whole lot of money that she didn't have AND that the loan company are scum. There's no law to say that only one of them is at fault.

Cbeers,

Ross-c