Thanks for the speedy reply , though less than friendly. Intent to defraud is less ambiguous , so just stick with that. it would be remiss and ignorant though to assume it is not the case and that the blame for the entire payday lending situation is solely on all pda companies. If used correctly these loans can be helpful , the problem is not many people are using them correctly or are confused by terminology. No amount of jargon could disguise the fact that as a customer you simply should not be able to take more than one payday loan. By doing so you are blatantly misusing the system. I really would be interested to compare the applications for the person who had 6 at once , to see what was different and in what manner the loans taken were explained. Id also be interested to see the current products from the other companies compare. As for working for one , no , I have experience first hand of needing and using a loan company , maybe im one of the few that never tried to apply for more than one or bend any rules. I came out the other side of using the loan company into a better place. Not because of them but because I learnt to shop around and ask questions. Also avoided pressured sales people and stuck to what I needed and understood what I was using. With regulation im hoping the system gets tightened to give no option to misuse it but moreover the root need for desperate financial help should be addressed first. That is however a simple pipe dream as it will always be about the rich getting richer.

As a company that has loaned money they have a requirement to receive this money back, even the FCA wouldnt stop this unless there was cause to believe the loan was incorrectly sold or implemented. At least with the FCA in charge we should also see an end to the liars and cheats who take out multiple loans with intent to deceive. Knowingly taking more than one loan against a 'payday' already shows an intent to potentially defraud. It has been shown in several cases that people have taken loans with several companies. Although the systems themselves should not allow this , these people have to actually attend stores to take out these loans , knowingly taking money from a company with awareness of their own income and how much they can afford. Simply claiming ignorance is no excuse. So lets hope that these people now have to pay back what they owe too , as every penny they fail to pay is money lost from our already poor economy.(Sadly JSA sanctions are not covered by the FCA - though it should be as recovering money from people who dont have it is part of the reason people are desperate enough to chance multiple loans) Heres to the new way forward, hopefully tightening the reins on companies and people alike. Now if we could only sort out the banks, energy companies , bonus schemes and tories with the same passion and vigour then maybe we could start a proper recovery.

Hi - Dont have much of a post count but mainly lurk and take heed of the bountiful advice on here. I turned up for my 'usual' signing appointment but was unceremoniously left waiting for nearly an hour with no explanation or communication. When I was finally called over to another desk I was told that my jobsearch was too generic and vague. At this point I defensively retorted 'Well looking at the same relisted jobs over and over , in my field of work IS generic by its nature'. My jobsearch 'sheet' , as with many more at the Canning Town jobcentre , has been reduced to a single sheet , into which I have to shoehorn details of everything I do and look at - included in this weeks search was a screening interview for a job that I could prove I had attended. I have complied with everything the workplace has thrown at me and been very accommodating up till now but as I was not the only one having this done (seems like a chosen block of people going through the same wringer) I am assuming that this is an office wide response to the terrible statistics surrounding the workplace scheme. I said to the 'advisor' - 'what about the fact that you can clearly see from my other sheets that I am actively seeking work , in accordance with the agreement that was set out - as well as volunteering in a charity shop once a week and attending the workplace for a group jobsearch' - to which his response was 'we are not interested in the past weeks searches' ' really how convenient - can I have them back then please.' 'no we keep them for reference' 'but you just said you're not interested in the past weeks' Before long I could see I was getting nowhere and just asked him to get on with what he was obviously going to do - this turned out to be typing the few bits onto a template sanction letter that referred to me - oddly enough the dates didnt seem to be part of the user defineable text. No mention made of the changes to the rules / regulations. No mention of UJM. I hope someone can correct me , but based upon a 'clean' claim with no advice EVER given on improving my jobsearch or I will be sanctioned - surely to sanction as a first step is excessively harsh. Surely this must be contradictory to the agreement I entered into. So , to my main points/questions. 1) As I have somehow mislaid my agreement , is it feasible/legal to request to see my claim file and paperwork in person? 2) In obtaining a copy of my agreement and then appealing by way of proof of complying with the last agreement set out - would this be a good basis for appeal? Does the freedom of Information act allow me to do so and in doing so would it allow me to take copies of all related documents in my claim? 3) I shall also be making a formal complaint about the service standard in the branch. 54 minutes of being ignored leads to impatience and as the customer before me had to be led out by security with the same problem it seems this approach of cowardice is favoured in order to disarm claimants and lead to heated exchange and possibly more sanctions.Am I going too far or should I stand up for this too? If this information regarding data protection is available to read (and preferably understand) then it would certainly help. I am not legally savvy but I am willing to take measures against the jobcentre if they are legal.

Hi everyone I was signed up to the Newham borough Employment Zone - a 13 week 'course' for long term unemployed. They take over your JSA claim payments for the duration and then (allegedly) transfer you back onto proper JSA at the end if you dont get work. However,having complied with all requests made of me,I attended my 'final' session - to complete all paperwork and arrange return to JSA - only to be told my advisor was off sick and was given a new appointment 2 weeks later in date. During this time I took a little holiday (Sun 9.50 holiday to be precise) and promptly readied myself for my appointment. I turned up for the appointment only to find myself not only double booked with my advisor but also apparently 'signed off' with them. So my main concerns are 1) How am I signed off when my final appointment was rebooked? 2) That there is little to no communication within the office 3) That now my claim for JSA has ceased because I was 'signed off' and now I have to reclaim 4) That this may also happen to others 5) That my advisor has not actually provided any real help during this period. I am currently in possession of proof of my most recent appointments but am being fobbed off by those at TNG Stratford who are basically treating me like I am not their concern. Does anybody have any advice as to what I should do about this - I shouldnt have to re-claim something due to certain incompetent practices,nor should I have to wait constantly for responses from these people as I am without income.