permanent tsb only do loans - must earn 30k a year?

lightspeed

Hi i have been with permanent TSB for about a year and a half. I am in full time employment with a reliable multinational company and earn about €1900 a month with overtime though my basic net without overtime is €1535 per month.

I pay €400 in rent at home and petrol to and from work costs about €200, €45 on phone credit. I have €3000 in savings and i want to get some dental work/holiday costing about €5500 including spending money and accomadation and im in college part time which costs €2095. So i was going to get a loan of €4000 which would be €190 over 2 years or €135 over 3 years. They would not even entertain the idea as im not earning 30,000 a year which is the minimum requirment.

They flatly refused before i even specified the amount and said that it would not mattter whether it was €4000 or €400 it would be highly unlikely that their underwriters would approve my loan application. It seems that the banks are so worried about their share price they dont want to lend out money at all as it would only add to their list of debtors.
Aside from the above I had an existing loan with bank of ireland which i restructured in 2009 when i lost my previous job and then paid back in full a few months later with my redundancy money.

From what ive been told before it is a black mark that i restructured the loan despite the fact that i repaid it in full just a few months later, its as if there was no point in repaying the previous loan as they consider a loan restructuring to be equal to a loan default. If only the taxpayers could behave the same towards the banks. I set up a direct debit with the credit union only 2 months ago and they require a longer saving history so just wondering if anybody else got a loan in credit union with just a few months savings?

hmmm

No bank is obliged to give anyone a loan - particularly for lifestyle expenses, and yes, a "restructuring" is obviously a black mark against you.

lightspeed

then why should the taxpayer be obliged to pay for them to continue to have hoarding money to encourage a higher share price for rich people to make money betting on bank shares? Clearly i could afford a loan and the idea that i could not even get a €400 even though i gross over €20,000 is not improved banking regulations or debt management, clearly the bank would make their money from me with interest. Can anybody explain why restructing a bank loan AND PAYING IT BACK 100% IN FULL is a black mark? i would have thought they would look at my loan history and say this guy had a loan of over €4000 and had to restructure when unemployed and still payed it back in full in just a few months. So the hypothetical risk of what would happen if i lost my job is not a hypothetical at all because they already know what i would do in such a scenario based on my exceptional paying loan back in full history so if anything would i not be less of a gamble? This makes me regret paying my previous loan back because if paying a loan back earns you nothing but a bad credit rating than why should anybody repay their loans? if i didnt i would be in the same situation now except id have the money from the previous loan i repaid.
I love the way my payslip gets raped each month to oblige the banks and when they have the money to loan out to people which they claim to badly need they dont loan out any money to credible debtors. Instead they give large bonuses to their staff and shareholders. Its great when democracy works it really is :mad:

hmmm

lightspeed wrote: »

then why should the taxpayer be obliged to pay for them to continue to have hoarding money to encourage a higher share price for rich people to make money betting on bank shares?

They're a business, they're not a charity.

clearly the bank would make their money from me with interest.

Clearly the bank think otherwise.

Can
anybody explain why restructing a bank loan AND PAYING IT BACK 100% IN FULL is a black mark?

Because you made an agreement with a bank to repay a loan on a particular schedule and you broke that agreement.

Its great when democracy works it really is :mad:

:rolleyes:

TheInquisitor

What the bank are saying in a round about way is they have no money!

unclebill98

No, what the bank are telling the op is that they do not meet their lending criteria.

lightspeed

all they are saying is that they needed to be bailed out by the taxpayer so they would have money to lend but thats not really true at all and the shareholders just didnt want to go broke after a frenzy of making big bets so the taxpayer will have to pay and the actual money wont be lent to customers at all. The bank could not possible see me as a risk in reality. as i said they would have refuse me taking a loan of €400 despite the fact that i gross over €20,000, So the educated bankers that were stupid enough to bankrupt the couintry have the intelligence to actually believe i am a liability despite previous paying off a loan in full in the past i would not even get €400? They cant be that stupid , it does not make logical sense. the obvious answer is all that makes sense which is the bank dont want to lend money even if they know people can pay it back because they want to retain a healthy cash reserve to look more stable on the stock market. that makes sense.refusing a small loan from someone in my position does not clearly.

kerosene

I reckon I will have close to 20000 euro in savings this time next year, and I feel it would be a good time to purchase a property. I see suitable properties that I would be interested in at 100,000 euro, would the credit union be my best bet for a loan, I have a good savings record with them.