Credit union wont let me witdraw my own money.

DeantainEirinn

Can anybody give me some advise on what to do.I have14000 euro in the credit union I owe them 4000 I went up to them for a loan of 10000 last week and was refused I am a guarantor for two people seven years and they owe them 39000 euro between them, I have never had a problem getting a loan or my money out in the past as I have been with them 17 years and never missed a payment in fact they called me their best member, when they refused the loan I asked could they take the 4000 I owed them out of my shares and give me the rest of MY money they refused and told me I would not be getting a loan or my money out until the two people I went guarantor for have paid the 39000 back I find this unfair as I did not sign for the whole lot of the 39000 when I told the credit union this I was told that once I signed for one loan I took on anything else they owed I wasnt made aware of this,they keep mentioning a section 35 brought in by the central bank on the 7th of April so basically I will not get my money out or a loan until the 39000 is paid back most of the money I have in there is my pension as I turned 60 year I think I will be dead before I get MY money somebody please help.

amdublin

Issue as I see it.

You have loan of 4k, shares of €14k. I'd think if this was only the caese you could take your €10k.

Problem is you actually have:
Loan of €4k, plus you are guarantor for another loan (39k)??
I'd assume that is why credit union want you to keep your €14k on deposit as collateral.

Was it an understanding of the loan and the guarantor agreement that this amount would be held as collateral?


It's a difficult one...

fizzles

I'm in the same situation, as in a guarantor for my daughter.

I can't withdraw my savings or get a loan either until her loan is paid back, but I was told this at the time of signing for guarantor.

Dowl88

Not a hope in hell ull be able to withdraw. If other people owe 39k their shares mustn't be near that mark if they needed you to cosign or have not kept up repayments

ash23

It was most likely written into the loan details of the loan you signed as guarantor for? Ask for a copy of the loan agreement (if you don't already have it).

I know when I signed for a loan, the loan agreement states they would hold €1000 savings but when I was in branch, their system said €1400. They had to go with what was on the loan agreement which I signed.

If you signed to agree to keep the 10k as collateral then you've no comeback I'm afraid.

DeantainEirinn

Thanks everyone for your replies I understand that they are holding my money as security but why wont they give me the loan I asked for if they could give the people I went guarantor for loans that amount to 39000 euro

Dowl88

Because of their shares id imagine. And basically for them ur paying back two loans even though your paying one. So wages come into play.

ezra_pound

DeantainEirinn wrote: »

Thanks everyone for your replies I understand that they are holding my money as security but why wont they give me the loan I asked for if they could give the people I went guarantor for loans that amount to 39000 euro

I'm not an expert but typically credit unions loan multiples of collateral- say four times collateralised credit. So your 10k is allowing 40k of loans- which is almost exhausted with the 39k.

Try getting a 1k loan.

JohnBee

One additional option is to ask the individuals you have "guaranteed" to apply to have you released. Perhaps their financial situations have changed, or they have been punctual with every payment and thus they might not still need a guarantor.

I know that when I got my mortgage with the bank, I needed my parents to go guarantor. However after a year or two of regular payments, I requested from the bank to have them removed as guarantor given that I had illustrated ability to pay and they acceded to my request.

ezra_pound

JohnBee wrote: »

One additional option is to ask the individuals you have "guaranteed" to apply to have you released. Perhaps their financial situations have changed, or they have been punctual with every payment and thus they might not still need a guarantor.

I know that when I got my mortgage with the bank, I needed my parents to go guarantor. However after a year or two of regular payments, I requested from the bank to have them removed as guarantor given that I had illustrated ability to pay and they acceded to my request.

The big difference is the fact that you're talking about a bank as opposed to a cu and a mortgage as opposed to a non secured loan.

Banks loan based on collateral, credit rating and capability (to make repayments). CU's have much lower requirements to lend. They just loan multiples of your shareholding in the union.

Furthermore a mortgage uses the asset which it is used to purchase as collateral for the loan. So the bank has collateral in a mortgage in the form of the mortgaged property. If the op removes the guarantee and withdraws the shares then the loans totaling 39k would be highly risky for the cu as there would be no recourse for them if the debtors failed to keep up with payments.

JohnBee

ezra_pound wrote: »

The big difference is the fact that you're talking about a bank as opposed to a cu and a mortgage as opposed to a non secured loan.

Banks loan based on collateral, credit rating and capability (to make repayments). CU's have much lower requirements to lend. They just loan multiples of your shareholding in the union.

Furthermore a mortgage uses the asset which it is used to purchase as collateral for the loan. So the bank has collateral in a mortgage in the form of the mortgaged property. If the op removes the guarantee and withdraws the shares then the loans totaling 39k would be highly risky for the cu as there would be no recourse for them if the debtors failed to keep up with payments.

Still doesnt mean it is not an option. Not ever single person needs a guarantor to get a loan for the credit union. My point still remains. If the circumstances of the individuals with the 39k loans has changed sufficiently that they would be eligible for such a loan without a guarantor then the credit union may be able to examine the position of the OP as guarantor.

ezra_pound

JohnBee wrote: »

Still doesnt mean it is not an option. Not ever single person needs a guarantor to get a loan for the credit union. My point still remains. If the circumstances of the individuals with the 39k loans has changed sufficiently that they would be eligible for such a loan without a guarantor then the credit union may be able to examine the position of the OP as guarantor.

The loan is not based on ability to pay. It's based on shareholding. Otherwise all credit unions would be bust.

Every single loan from a credit union needs collateral shares in that credit union. This 10k is that collateral. The 39k was borrowed based on the 10k being left in the credit union until the loans are repaid.

It's not really a guarantee like in a bank loan, rather it's where one shareholder in the credit union allows another member to borrow using the collateral of their shareholding.

I don't think you understand how credit union loans work. The basic principal is that you can borrow based on the amount of money that you put into the credit union. You can't put in ten pounds, borrow forty based on that ten, and then take the ten out again until you pay back the forty.

The "guarantee" in this situation is very different from a bank loan guarantee.

JohnBee

ezra_pound wrote: »

The loan is not based on ability to pay. It's based on shareholding. Otherwise all credit unions would be bust.

Every single loan from a credit union needs collateral shares in that credit union. This 10k is that collateral. The 39k was borrowed based on the 10k being left in the credit union until the loans are repaid.

It's not really a guarantee like in a bank loan, rather it's where one shareholder in the credit union allows another member to borrow using the collateral of their shareholding.

I don't think you understand how credit union loans work. The basic principal is that you can borrow based on the amount of money that you put into the credit union. You can't put in ten pounds, borrow forty based on that ten, and then take the ten out again until you pay back the forty.

The "guarantee" in this situation is very different from a bank loan guarantee.

I do understand, borrowed from them a number of times. If the guarantees now have sufficient shareholding, why would a guarantor still be required? Their situation may have changed.

ezra_pound

JohnBee wrote: »

I do understand, borrowed from them a number of times. If the guarantees now have sufficient shareholding, why would a guarantor still be required? Their situation may have changed.

Absolutely. If the borrowers had sufficient shareholding then there would be no issue.