Disability pensioner charged $6,760 for renting a phone that retails for around $1,800

www.abc.net.au Disability pensioner charged $6,760 for renting a phone that retails for around $1,800

Centrepay is an online tool designed to help people on Centrelink pay for essentials like rent or bills through automatic deductions. But financial counsellors say the government service is instead being misused by some providers to exploit vulnerable Australians.

Aussie Frugal Living @aussie.zone

Disability pensioner charged $6,760 for renting a phone that retails for around $1,800 (X-post Melbourne)

www.abc.net.au /news/2023-11-16/disability-pensioner-charged-thousands-for-rental-phone-730/103097440

10 0

Melbourne @aussie.zone

Disability pensioner charged $6,760 for renting a phone that retails for around $1,800

www.abc.net.au /news/2023-11-16/disability-pensioner-charged-thousands-for-rental-phone-730/103097440

48 2

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

68 comments

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.
  
  I'm not sure this qualifies as sophisticated - or even a scam, when everything is specified in plain text.
  
  Except obviously it is because nothing on that website alerts the buyer to the possibility of paying 4x the price of the good as the total cost of transaction. 33% to 38% interest pa is already egregious enough as it is but 4x the base cost of the good is absurd and usurus.
  Sounds like you just have an ideological bias against consumer regulation and are trying to fit the facts into your framework.
  
  Sounds like you just have an ideological bias against consumer regulation
  I'm in favor of consumer protection laws on aspects like quality, safety, etc. Things that are more nebulous and harder or impossible to check. But at some point, I do believe consumers have a responsibility as well. I understand that convenience stores charge me more than groceries, and it's fully on me if I shop there. In the same vein, if I buy a car that's going for 50% above market value, I'm not about to scream fraud, provided all information on costs and fees were given to me.
  
  You can look at this from another perspective, which is the benefit of allowing a scam like this to continue vs. regulating it out of existence. The only upsides of allowing this to continue is the company perpetuating it making money and a smug lemmitor getting to feel superior to the poors and disabled people, so it's obvious that it shouldn't be allowed to exist.
  
  It's amazing how many hexbears can't have a simple discussion without getting personal.
  I agree this BS needs to stop. I disagree on HOW it should be stopped. The market (and people out to make a quick buck) will always move faster than the govt can respond. Especially when the victims involved here have shown absolute zero financial literacy. Rather than treating the symptoms, I believe there should be more focus on education.
  
  It's amazing how many hexbears can't have a simple discussion without getting personal.
  Not really much of a discussion to be had. You just keep alleging facts without evidence. I don't think many people consider "Uh huh!" and "Nuh uh!" to be a form of discussion.
  
  Wasn't referring to you here, you'll notice we had a reasonable conversation, even if we disagreed. You were the lone exception though.
  
  I disagree on HOW it should be stopped.
  You want so very badly for grifters and scammers to go unpunished and have unrestricted to vulnerable people that you'll proclaim the answer is "education" while even then you want so very badly for anyone who gets preyed upon to have no protection and no recourse.
  You disgust me.
  
  Things that are more nebulous and harder or impossible to check.
  Then please demonstrate how easy it is for the consumer to check their total payments by posting a screenshot from that website that alerts the consumer to the possibility of paying 4x the cost of the device as the total cost of transaction.
  
  check their total payments
  If you're signing a contract with no idea how much you're going to be on the hook for, no amount of govt protection will keep you solvent.
  
  The government could very much keep them solvent by, for example, mandating that consumer credit contracts must show tables of total payments including all fees and interest over time. Does the credit contract in question display such information? Onus is on you to provide proof if you're alleging that it does.
  
  Onus is on you to provide proof if you’re alleging that it does.
  At no point did I allege that, so no.
  The government could very much keep them solvent
  Doubt. They'll find some other money trap to fall into in a week unless they're taught to actually be smarter about their finances.
  
  Doubt. They'll find some other money trap to fall into in a week unless they're taught to actually be smarter about their finances.
  ”Poor people are poor because of their inferior nature” Fuck off.
  
  You could do with some lessons in reading comprehension.
  "Poor people are poor because they've never had the chance to learn how to manage money, and I suggest teaching them."
  
  Doubt. They'll find some other money trap to fall into in a week unless they're taught to actually be smarter about their finances.
  So you're saying nothing should ever even be attempted because the status quo is as good as it gets (because you got yours) and apathy makes you feel cool and smart?
  
  The market (and people out to make a quick buck) will always move faster than the govt can respond.
  ”The market” will do this anyway so we shouldn't do anything
  
  nothing should ever even be attempted ... apathy
  I certainly feel smarter in comparison to you. I've been advocating education the entire thread, and you're claiming that I just want the status quo.
  
  At no point did I allege that, so no.
  You have been consistently been alleging that the woman in question could have easily checked the total cost of her payments, which you have just declined to provide proof for. I will take this as a concession from you on this point and move on.
  Doubt. They'll find some other money trap to fall into in a week unless they're taught to actually be smarter about their finances.
  This is an unfalsifiable counterfactual and I will dismiss it without further comment.
  
  You have been consistently been alleging that the woman in question could have easily checked the total cost of her payments
  Yes? When faced with a 'deal' where you know the regular installment payment and the length of said debt, how difficult is it to figure out how much you need to pay by the end of it? Especially when everybody has a calculator in their pockets at every waking moment. If the answer is 'too difficult', I'm taking that as more reason for the education approach.

68 comments