General Forum

Kia Ora everyone, Erica here from Hawera Budget Advisory Service. I have a client who has a ute and 2 motorbikes secured to the loan with Marac/Heartlands.  They had previously asked if they could sell all 3 assets awhile ago (as they were all in working order then) but was told no.  Since I have been involved I have also asked if they could sell one of the bikes, I was told they had to have an appraisal done first then it would go to management.  We then didn't hear back for ages and I kept gettting fobed off every time I rang or emailed them.  The account manager  has been changed constantly but the current one is communicating with me. They want an apparaisal done on all three assets before they make a decision.  The bike mentioned above is the only one in working order, all 3 assets are insured though. Can they legally ask for all 3 evaluations before even selling one asset? They pay $50 a week on a over $50k loan and yes the interest is crippling them.  Marac/Heartlands won't do hardship because they are in arrears. Other than going to Community Law does anyone have any other suggestions?

Kia ora Erica, Sounds like a difficult situation! Others may know more on the detail of this specific case, but making a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman Scheme is usually helpful for escalation. Happy for you to get in touch if you'd like to talk this through further - janeka@fincap.org.nz

Hey Erica, A timeline would be reasonable - ie from the start of the loan and financial position of clients to where they are now.  Initial thoughts are that your clients made a request to the lender when they felt pressure? The fact that they are in arrears now could be the culmination of events. I am of the opinion that the current repayment is not necessarily the original repayment. Perhaps you could also request a statement of account that shows the flow of things. This can only assist with your request for hardship for the client. Does the client want to avoid insolvency?

I have a client with a loan from them. This one has provision for hardship, which I thought was required by law. This is the appropriate section  

I tried to insert an image in my earlier post, but it wouldn't work. Sorry about that.(Help please Rocky) If they are refusing to consider a hardship have you suggested to them that the reason they are in arrears is because they are in hardship? This appears to me that it is a ploy to disregard hardship applications unless made to do so.