deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
i feel like a proper disability benefits system would simply not deduct the money from her account, and also threaten the company with criminal fraud charges
Usury laws should be applied to everything in the scummy industry targeting poor people. This shit, payday loans, consumer finance, all needs to be heavily regulated to avoid predatory behavior against the poor and disabled.
It’s a scheme originally developed by the Howard government aimed to help Indigenous Australians pay off larger purchases but I somehow doubt their good intentions given the type of person John Howard was and is. In theory, it could be useful for income management but it needs to come with significant protections otherwise it’s just predatory.
and we all know how much Howard cared about indigenous australians. Whether noble intent or not, the net effect is punitive and demeaning
Fine them for everthing they’ve got, then charge them the same prices for items to rebuild their life
This is the best summary I could come up with:
An approved provider directly arranges contracts with Centrepay’s 600,000 monthly users, taking repayments before the money hits their bank account.
“People are going in with blind faith [thinking] that because it is endorsed by Centrepay, that it’s an ethical business and they’re going to be treated fairly,” said Caitlin Bender, AnglicareNT financial counsellor.
The corporate regulator gathered Rent4Keeps customer data over a three-month period in 2019, which showed the appliance company had arranged 533 contracts valued at more than $1.8 million.
Mr Payne operates Rent4Keeps Australia and replaced his wife Vikki as sole director of both the Victorian and NSW franchises in July last year.
A solicitor for Rent4Keeps Australia and its Victorian franchise did not respond to questions about why his clients continued operating in NSW, but said they would vigorously defend ASIC’s allegations at a trial in February 2024.
Services Australia told 7.30 it was unable to comment on individual businesses or those subject to ongoing legal action, but that it was “working across government to stamp out predatory behaviour to ensure Centrepay can continue to operate as a useful budgeting tool”.
The original article contains 849 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
That is a terrible dummary. Bad bot!
Haha yeah, in 200 words summarising an 800 word article, it’s managed to skirt around all the meat of the article, so we don’t actually know what the issue was, just peripheral mentions that Centrepay is somehow involved, a fair amount of money and customers are possibly involved, and the company doesn’t want to comment, essentially. None of which tells us what was going wrong. We get more of an idea from the original title!
Very bad bot!
Honestly though, isn’t this kind of on the customer for agreeing to it in the first place?
Some things just shouldn’t be allowed, especially when this is aimed at the most vulnerable of society.
Ok, what is it specifically that shouldn’t be allowed here? Renting items? Setting prices higher than somebody else?
In this case it’s through the Centrelink specific Centrepay system. Given it’s a government approved system they can presumably remove approval of this company for any reason, so it doesn’t have to reach a level of law breaking, just an obvious to everyone ethical breach.
In any case, as stated in the article, Rents4Keep are currently being sued by ASIC for breaches of the Credit Act.
Usury is a crime in most places. This kind of transaction is just usury dressed up in the legal fiction of a rental.
I dunno, seems like a pretty big stretch to call equipment rental usury.
Not at all. A rent to own scheme is essentially legally identical to getting a seller or third party loan except for when title passes over to the consumer. In most other respects, especially in outcome, it’s the same transaction dressed up specifically to avoid existing usury laws.
Even Rent4Keeps’s own website calculates costs by comparing it to an installment loan for sale of goods. Doesn’t get more transparent than that.
A rent to own scheme is essentially legally identical to getting a seller or third party loan except for when title passes over to the consumer
Interesting point. Though I have to wonder if making it illegal would just change their sales pitch to permanent rental, instead of rent to own. Ultimately, I feel the solution should lie more in educating consumers on financial literacy.
Ultimately, I feel the solution should lie more in educating consumers on financial literacy.
You can crack down on predatory lending and educate consumers. However, you’ll never be able to educate the average consumer to be immune from sophisticated schemes simply because most people have other things to do on life and scammers devote a lot more time creating new scams than the average person can devote to learning about avoiding scams.
are you anti consumer protection?
Every individual is supposed to do their own research and be savvy regarding scams and ripoffs or else they deserve to be robbed with no recourse and no penalty for the robbers.
Blaming the victim here seems especially low.
Shrug. The way I see it, they made major league purchases without the slightest market research. Why does that make them a victim, rather than just somebody with the financial wisdom of a 5 year old?
In other words you have an “I got mine” attitude about demographically vulnerable people getting exploited.
You’re not exactly answering the question here.
If you can’t see demographically vulnerable people being exploited as a bad thing, I can’t make you see it. And quite frankly I feel bad for any family members you might have, especially senior citizens, if they get taken advantage of by grifters/scammers. You’d be too busy congratulating yourself for being superior to them.
I appreciate how you keep going for the ad hominem attacks instead of trying to engage in an actual discussion. Was fun, let’s do this again sometime.
I appreciate how you keep going for the ad hominem attacks
I accurately described your contempt for exploited vulnerable people and your inflated sense of superiority about their predicament.
instead of trying to engage in an actual discussion
There is no discussion you’re leaving yourself open for but more congratulations of yourself for feeling superior to vulnerable exploited people.
Was fun, let’s do this again sometime.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Exactly. Houso’s gonna houso. If she’s going to put her whole life on new item afterpay, you deserve the stupid. This is someone who grew up in these communities and most get next gen tech and second hand/scratch and dent appliances. Just because you didn’t finish school doesn’t mean you can’t be shrewd
are you pro-elderly people being scammed by ‘tech support’?
This 100% qualifies as an unscrupulous trade practice. The pricing is exploitative targeting vulnerable people, making them sign opaque contracts money directly from disability pension and making consumers think there is some level of state approval with the centrepay thing.
It is the job of the state to protect people from these things especially considering they are operating formally.
You are the one who is uneducated for spewing dogshit like this. You are the one who needs to be sent to a re-education camp. Australians are so braindead from neoliberal ideology.
The elderly these days were early to middle aged when the internet became a thing. In the 80s and 90s there was Skase, 419, fucking beanie babies as an example. Ignorance is not an excuse.
fuck that. People should not be preyed on for not keeping up with internet trends
Rent to keep has been going for 25 years. No excuse.
you’re a horrible person
I am apparently the next Mussolini though, if you go by the rest of these comments. It’s like nobody gives a fuck about education any more.
