logo

Debtconsolidationcare.com - the USA consumer forum

payday loans for military?

Date: Sun, 11/26/2006 - 16:05

Submitted by KYSIDE38
on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 16:05

Posts: 2477 Credits: [Donate]

Total Replies: 23


Guys am I reading correctly? Have they actually passed a law that goes into effect Jan 2007? That says you cannot give payday loans or title loans to military? It was in newspaper. Hope they take the same action on our part. It would be nice to see some lenders help people that are not trying to take advantage of people. KYSIDE38


This is what I found about the military and payday lending when I did a google search.



Quote:

One of the provisions of the FY 2007 Military Authorization Act, makes it illegal for creditors to grant payday loans and car title loans to military members.

The change also prohibits charging more than 36 percent interest to military borrowers. Fees, service charges, renewal charges, credit insurance premiums or any other product sold with the loan must be included when calculating the interest rate. In the past, there have been "horror stories" of military members paying up to 800 percent interest by using such gimmicks.

The new law is a result of Department of Defense recommendations made in a report to Congress last August.

The law will effectively close down payday loan operations around military bases. Such operations can currently be seen outside the gates of almost every U.S.

Military installation in the states. Under the new law, lenders will not be allowed to lend money to military members or their families using a check, or any other means of access to a financial account, as security for the loan.
The new law will take affect when the Department of Defense writes implementation instructions, or on October 1, 2007, whichever comes first. The law is not retroactive, which means loans that are made before it goes into affect are not covered. Lenders who violate the provisions of the law are subject to a fine and up to one year in prison.

The new law prohibits:


Requiring military members to set up an allotment as a condition of receiving a loan.

Requiring the use of a vehicle title as security for any loans made to service members and military family members.

Using a check or any other access to a member's financial account as security for a loan.

Lenders from renewing, repaying, refinancing, rolling over, or consolidating consumer credit using the proceeds of other credit granted by the same lender to the military member.

Requiring military members to waive their rights under the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act (SCRA), or any other federal law.

Denying the opportunity for military members to pay the loan off early, and any penalties for early payments.

Any unreasonable clauses in the contract designed to make it difficult for military members to take a creditor to court.

States from allowing creditors to violate state consumer loan protection laws for military members who are nonresidents.



usmilitary.about.com/od/millegislation/a/paydayloans.htm


lrhall41

Submitted by brownsugar on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 16:34

( Posts: 1389 | Credits: )


I had heard that the military was really raising a stink about the payday loan industry setting up shop all around the military bases and advertising that they cater to those in the military, etc.

It's great that someone is finally paying attention to the payday loan industry, but we need attention to ALL aspects of this industry, not just the ones that prey on the military personnel. I will say, though, for the PDL industry to be pursuing our military personnel when they risk their lives for us every day, is lower than low.


lrhall41

Submitted by SUEBEEHONEY70 on Sun, 11/26/2006 - 18:11

( Posts: 4583 | Credits: )


Jedi, Good point. If they had enough pay maybe they would not have to get payday loans. They sure never get the pay they deserve. KYSIDE38


lrhall41

Submitted by KYSIDE38 on Mon, 11/27/2006 - 05:49

( Posts: 2477 | Credits: )


Not from that post from sugar:

Quote:

The new law will take affect when the Department of Defense writes implementation instructions, or on October 1, 2007, whichever comes first. The law is not retroactive, which means loans that are made before it goes into affect are not covered. Lenders who violate the provisions of the law are subject to a fine and up to one year in prison.


lrhall41

Submitted by jedijeff13 on Thu, 01/04/2007 - 05:26

( Posts: 1734 | Credits: )


After lobby reform. The common US citizen is screwed mainly because of a lack of voice in Congress. It's big business that decides laws. How else can you explain some of the tax cuts, gun control (or lack of), failure of minimum wage increase, denial of cheap drugs and more. All these are widely supported by the US worker, but they lose out time and time again when votes come up. Why? Well, if you were a Congressman and you received $25 from Mary Doe to get elected and you also received $250,000 from ABC Company, which way would you vote when the bill came up?


lrhall41

Submitted by jedijeff13 on Thu, 01/04/2007 - 07:08

( Posts: 1734 | Credits: )


You're right Jedi. Although when things start happening at the federal level, states usually start falling into compliance. This will be a big hit on Utah PDLs because of Hill AFB. Also, Utah likes to follow federal law in regard to employment and wages, so I see this as the door opening for things to start changing at the state level. However, a louder voice is needed everywhere and I encourage everyone to get active in their communities. Seek out opponents of PDLs and do what you can to support them. Pass out flyers, write a letter to the newspapers. If you can afford it, take out a small advertisement and talk with your local representatives. It's up to us folks to do what we can to help people out of the PDL nightmare.


lrhall41

Submitted by DebtFairy on Thu, 01/04/2007 - 07:29

( Posts: 402 | Credits: )


I know I tend to overthink things ...

While this is a great start, there is a downside to it as well. PDLs may be prohibited from doing loans with members of the military, but what about military dependents? There are a lot of husbands and wives who are not with their spouses overseas. Military dependent pay isn't a lot and dependents use PDL's a lot.


lrhall41

Submitted by DebtFairy on Thu, 01/04/2007 - 21:12

( Posts: 402 | Credits: )


This is true--and the only way they can see that they are dependents is by showing their ID. And I'm confused what you mean by dependent pay, unless you're talking about allotments members have established for their families when they are deployed. This is especially true in the Navy, where most sailors do this for their families when they are out to sea.
And hopefully the political environment will be changing, now that the Democrats have the House and Senate again.


lrhall41

Submitted by kscornell on Fri, 01/05/2007 - 05:50

( Posts: 4407 | Credits: )


I believe we're talking about the same thing. My daughter's married to Air Force and she gets BAH for housing and the FSA (Family Separation). He cut all of he dependent pay off after he filed a divorce on her two years ago (contrary to Air Force policy). The dependent money became an issue and prolonged the divorce for over 2 years. While she was going through this she took out a couple of PDL's that she couldn't pay back. Her attorney eventually helped her to get over $17,000 in reinstated benefits and in benefits owed to her. But ... that's another story.

The point is that the first place she went for money was to the PDLs. It's just too darn easy and tempting to get them.


lrhall41

Submitted by DebtFairy on Fri, 01/05/2007 - 07:07

( Posts: 402 | Credits: )


You're right. But, our experience is that the military protects it's own. My son-in-law would have been kicked out of the military a long time ago if his command had not banned together to protect him. We had to go as far as to complain to our Congressman's office. His staff took the issue to the Pentagon and some of the money was back in 24 hours, but we also complained about his command and nothing was done at all. And, I really don't get it because it's not like my son-in-law has a high priority job. He drives a poop truck and empties the lavatories on the airplanes of waste and discards it. Great job for when he gets back into the civilian world, huh? :?


lrhall41

Submitted by DebtFairy on Sun, 01/07/2007 - 13:03

( Posts: 402 | Credits: )


lol. something like that, having been through a divorce in the military is wrong. My former spouse cheated on me but i lived up to my required responsibilities till the divorce was done. And hell she was living with another man while i was in iraq. To me its a matter of following regs and do whats right even if you are being screwed. If one of my troops did this, i would burn him. My command wouldnt have to. Also there is a federal law that a spouse can actually get a percentage of retirement as well.


lrhall41

Submitted by ssgnewtonj on Mon, 01/08/2007 - 02:48

( Posts: 70 | Credits: )


It is 10 years, but he's not participating in retirement anyway. Technically the whole thing could have been ended a couple of years ago because he left right after they got married and filed the paperwork 3 months later. It could have been annulled. But, because he had his mother file the paperwork she did a petition for divorce and had him sign it. I'm a paralegal and I just groaned when I found out what was done because the petition meant several court hearings and motions flying back and forth. I told my daughter to file an Answer and Counterclaim with an At-Fault claim because we had evidence of his cheating with an officer. Even the Pentagon won't chase that one. We got a judgment on him in May and then he scooted off to Afghanistan. She had to call him in at Camp Kandahar and we thought it was a hoot because the first time she called she told the operator his wife was calling. Apparently he was standing nearby and we heard the operator say "Dude, you're married?"


lrhall41

Submitted by DebtFairy on Mon, 01/08/2007 - 16:26

( Posts: 402 | Credits: )


Ya think?!? Now here's the real hoot. My daughter found his on MySpace representing that he was single. So she signed up on MySpace under and assumed name and using a friend's picture. He's already told her everything she needs to know to nail him in court. And, here's the ironic thing. He's technically cheating on his wife ... with his wife. It is a hoot to see the e-mails he's writing to her thinking she's someone else.


lrhall41

Submitted by DebtFairy on Mon, 01/08/2007 - 21:46

( Posts: 402 | Credits: )