https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/consumer-finance/payd...
According to them, “abusive collection practices” and dozens of other illegal things are common in that industry.
The amount is small, the lending is short term, and customer acquisition costs can be fairly high. This means that the fees / interest must inevitably be quite high - i.e. if you are genuinely lending out $250 for 30 days and you only want to make $25 margin then the effective APR is >120%.
Then you are generally giving these loans to people who are in (at least short-term) financial difficulty, who often have other debt obligations which may be higher-priority (e.g. they need to pay their mortgage).
You can't have a business that just gives away money though, so you need your money back. And you are going to be incurring costs to recover the money at this stage. Plus at this stage the customer might have gained interest charges and is in a worse financial situation than when they started. So what's the 'friendly' option here? Ultimately you will need to send some unfriendly letters that say "You need to pay up, and if you don't then we will send in some people to recover goods from your house".
I guess it depends what you mean as unfriendly, but sending around recovery agents is never friendly.
Meanwhile, in the US (based on FTC complaints statements) "we'll send some people to recover goods" is extremely illegal.
It's definitely possible in the UK (you just need a high-court order and to send in bailiffs).
I would be surprised if similar legal remedies don't exist in the USA (i.e. that if someone isn't paying something they legally owe, that you can't then organise for reposession of property via the court).
Companies obviously aren't just allowed to send heavies around, however I would assume most countries have a legal avenue to 'force' people into repaying a civil suit (which in the UK involves getting a high-court writ and then sending bailiffs who will seize property).
