Seems pretty straightforward to me. It’s been misaddressed, and ought to go to the producers, not to the presenters.

As plastic puppets of corporate celebomercials, I doubt Ant & Dec have any say whatsoever, and if they showed the slightest hint of going offscript, they will go offair pretty quick.

Also, with megabucks in their own offshore bank accounts, do you seriously think they care that many of their viewers have to go to wonga.com to pay for a loaf of bread?

The fact that wonga.com is allowed to charge the same interest as a dodgy geezer who would kneecap you, says a lot about the kind of government this country has had over the past few decades too. After all, why distinguish between Blue Labour and New Tory, when they are about on the same level as Ant & Dec (see above)

I seem to remember reading something about Ant & Dec’s supposed status as producers being a vanity thing somewhere like Private Eye some time ago. Unless this really kicks off I doubt they’ll respond.

I’d like to know more about the alleged debts run up through payday loan companies. Credit cards are expensive enough, the rates they charge seem astonishing. Still, despite being highly dubious they remain legal. Have they used inappropriate methods to seek repayments that would justify calling them loan sharks?

My only complaint so far is the awful advertisements. I’d suggest we need more than allegations from an MP who may be simply attention seeking in lieu of having a moral and ideological base to defend.

Cherub

Maybe they use bailiffs & police, as they are legal(istic). I bet the felt experience for the victims would resemble a visit from your friendly neighbourhood loan shark & his enforcer though!

Besides, charging thousands of % interest, what more evidence do you need for them been loan sharks? A soon as I saw their first adverts on telly, I read the smallprint at the bottom, and thought uh-oh….

Difference is, 2 years ago they were ‘only’ charging 2193% pa, now it is 4112% – I wonder how long it will be before they can get away with 10,000+%, and how devastating that will be for everyone on the receiving end of austerity.

@4

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like these companies. I also dislike grandstanding MPs who ” make the tough decisions” as soon as they’re ministers.

After all, why distinguish between Blue Labour and New Tory, when they are about on the same level as Ant & Dec…

Indeed.

Also this country seems to be adopting US ideas and laws all the time, could we adopt some of their usury laws?

@ 5

tough for who? are you implying (perish the thought) that if Stella was in the government, that she would blithely ignore the reality her constituents face as they end up been charged 10,000+%?

I won’t even get a loan at 29%, even if it means missing out on the latest must-have gizmo that I don’t need!

@ htrskuyhf

We once had a Usury Act, which reduced interest charges from 8% to 6% way back in the 1660′s. Far from copying US laws, we would instead abolish the repeal of once existing UK law.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury_Act_1660

The US of A actually built its own laws upon good practice elsewhere! Why this country repealed The Usury Act I will leave for you to guess…

…the cynic in me has an all too persuasive answer though.

Whilst it wouldn’t bother me if Ant and Dec were eaten alive by hedgehogs, the fact that an obviously immoral practice is allowed to continue is the fault of our elected legislators, (who may or may not directly benefit from companies such as Wonga).
The last lot did nothing and you can hardly expect the Tories to.
For the time being we should be grateful that Dave hasn’t promised Wonga that in the event of ‘non payment’ they can crucify your first born – it’s only a question of time.

Barrie J

shhhh, don’t give dodgy Dave ideas!
he’d improve on it anyway, you would have to get a loan out to pay for the cross…

The figures in the image seem wrong to me, so I went to the Wonga site, and checked.

For £65, they’re charging 70p interest per day. Which, after 3 years, is £766.50.

A lot of money, to be sure, but quite a bit short of the £5million mentioned above.

Of course, Wonga will only loan you the cash for 30 days anyway (basically until your next payday), so 70p per day for a quick, no-questions-asked loan doesn’t seem _that_ unreasonable.

“For £65, they’re charging 70p interest per day. Which, after 3 years, is £766.50″

You are forgetting to take into account compound interest, which is when you have to pay interest on the interest on an exponentially increasing debt.

Given that the Tories are actually connected to this firm through their donors, I’m amazed that Labour haven’t taken them on yet.

Jeez, Stella comes across like someone who doesn’t understand the answer to her question even if it’s repeated an infinite number of times. She keeps asking the same question in different ways because she hasn’t got the answer she’s looking for.

And another thing which needs to be put in front of her in words of single syllables. The interest rate that Wonga charge is not the classic interest rate. It is the APR (Annual Percentage Rate). A method of comparing interest rates and charges for long term loans. Like mortgages. It does not work for short term loans of a month or less. APR is a measure of *annual* interest and assumes theoretical compounding. Wonga’s actual rate of interest is around 1% per day. Or 360% per year.

http://www.wonga.com/money/is-this-apr-expensive/

Wonga is not a loan shark. The give customers a reasonable amount of time to pay, and they will only allow interest to accrue for 60 days before stopping the amount increasing but passing on the debt for collection. Loan sharks would allow the amount to keep increasing. Also, I understand that if you inform Wonga of a change in your circumstances they will freeze the interest and rearrange payments. So the debt does not increase, unlike banks and credit card companies who are more like loan sharks in that they keep increasing the amount.

What people like Stella Creasy want is to make companies like Wonga illegal. They think that will make the problem disappear. But it won’t. It’ll just make the problem bigger. People will always want short term loans for many reasons. Either they will try the bank (which aren’t lending) or they try the pawn shop (if they’ve got something to pawn). If Wonga isn’t around then people will go to the real loan sharks who aren’t regulated like Wonga are. So by banning Wonga people like Stella Creasy actually make the problem worse. But that’s becasue they are driven more by dogma than by brains.

@Bob

Yup, compound interest would indeed result in £5m debt on a £65 loan, when the interest is a 4 digit number! As sadbutmadlad points out, it is a good job it is only a short term loan. Unfortunately, it is easy to understand that one short term loan can lead to endless loans. That is the biggest danger of borrowing money in the first place. The worry is wonga.com starting to lobby to reduce the regulations so they can take advantage of the compound interest equation you pointed out.

On her website it says she’s a fan of Satuday night TV:

http://www.workingforwalthamstow.org.uk/pushing-people-from-black-to-red-ask-ant-and-dec-to-say-wonga-is-wronga-and-help-end-legal-loan-sharking/?from=campaigns

If she is, why in the name of sanity did she think that Ant and Dec were “executive producers”?

I suspect that in reality she absolutely hates the shite that passes for entertainment on a Saturday night in this country, but feels she must try and look more “down-to-earth” in order to appeal to the plebs.

She gets thumbs up from me for the title of that page, though:

“Pushing people from Black to Red: Ask Ant and Dec to say Wonga is Wronga and help end legal loan sharking!”

there are real solutions rather than engaging in some silly celebrity Vs politician issue. in my local area the local community center offers loans to get people away from door step lenders – not much better than wonga

better funding for these groups and more volunteers/state subsidized employees for credit unions would be a far more productive answer

You need a Wonga loam to keep up with your Brighthouse payments…

Loam? Loan.

“Cherub
I seem to remember reading something about Ant & Dec’s supposed status as producers being a vanity thing somewhere like Private Eye some time ago.”

The Private Eye story was actually the complete opposite of this. When one of their shows ran into a phone scandal (still taking premium rate calls after the competition was over) A&D’s PR people insisted that their producer status didn’t mean they had any hand-on involvement in running the show and so they could not possibly have been implicated in the scandal. Private Eye then reproduced many press profile quotes from before the scandal to indicate the A&D were heavily involved in the detailed operations

If the Government had any joined up thinking about them then they would put a stop to these types of Wonga companies. They bleat about the dangers of debt and how it ruins us and puts pressure on future generations yet they a very glad that the debt problem transfers to individuals.

@Andrew Ducker

Why would you take out a £65 payday loan for 30 years?

They’re short term loans – that’s the point. You take them out for a week or so, and pay them back.

If they charged normal bank interest rates, they’d be making pennies on loans – and there’d be no incentive to do it. People may be using legitimately using these loans to, for example, pay their mortgage on a month where they’ve run short of cash. If these companies disappear, what’s the alternative? Defaulting and losing your home? Considering the debate is around protecting the vulnerable, this all sounds pretty ridiculous – people don’t go to Wonga for fun, they do it because they have no other (legal) options.

The issue isn’t the interest rates – the issue is Wonga et al are giving loans to people who can’t even afford to pay that £65 a week, let alone the interest. Loan companies need to be forced to be more careful with who they loan to, not stop loaning.

@ 21 Chris

Agreed generally, but there’s also the possibility of restricting these companies to a set fee system. For example, if you want to borrow £100 for up to a month, you agree a fee up to a set amount. If you’re late on repayment, they can add half that fee again each month. This way, they still create an incentive not to put off paying for months on end, but because you don’t have cumulative interest they don’t end up with debt on a different order of magnitude to what they borrowed.

It’s probably a good thing that people can borrow small amounts to tide them over till payday. And obviously, as you say, no company is going to do that for sixpence, short of a pre-agreed overdraft. The problem is when it becomes a snare for pulling people into huge debts and bankrupting them.