Nimble must pay off $ 1.5 million in super-dubious payday loans
Payday loans. Fragmented microfinance that bypasses the ethical frontier and relies on trapping the poor and desperate in a seemingly endless cycle of interest and repayments in order to thrive.
But with a flash application, an elegant and modern design and a substantial advertising budget, Agile became practically a household name during the year 2015, as its advertisements began to appear throughout the store.
Unfortunately for them, it wasn’t just consumers who suddenly started to take an interest in them. the Australian Securities and Investments Commission started to watch too.
Small loans with sky-high interest rates unlocked the business, with ASIC ruling that Nimble must repay $ 1.5 million in repayments to over 7,000 consumers who got loans they shouldn’t have gotten anyway.
The consumer watchdog ruled that Nimble had “significant gapsIn its loan approval process and failed to adequately assess the financial situation of some clients. Instead, they simply relied on a rather simplistic algorithm that did not take into account external variables – such as customers taking out repeat payday loans from multiple sources in a short period of time.
ASIC decided that Nimble should repay the money within six months, as well as donate $ 50,000 to Australia Financial Advisory, and hire an outside compliance consultant to review the ins and outs of how they conduct their “business”.
The agile general manager Sami Malia issued a statement confirming the decision:
“Nimble quickly identified and resolved these issues. They affected approximately 1.2% of the loans taken out during the period July 1, 2013 to July 22, 2015. These application assessment issues were completely unintentional and were resolved in collaboration with ASIC. There was no adverse finding against Nimble.
Yeah. Because all no-fault findings involve mandatory donations of $ 50,000 to an organization that looks after the direct benefits of your “problems“as a standard.
Nimble’s ad campaign was heavily criticized by industry experts for encouraging customers to use the service as a way to pay household bills, rather than using the service provider’s hardship provisions. .