iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Nov 26, 2020 19:25:27 GMT
Greenwich (1188052941 / 2016237479) redeemed today: Point to note: a) Loans were Primary £805k, Supplementary £75k = Total £880k b) FS fee calculated as 5% of the Total £880k figure At the point of lending, even if Primary loan lenders had been cognisant of the 5% Default Loan Administration Fee in the Ts&Cs, it would not have been possible for those lenders to have anticipated that unannounced additional funding (which is what the Supplementary loan was) would become a factor in the event of their loan Defaulting and that 5% of that Supplementary loan would also be deducted from any redeemed sums. This is so blatantly unfair to 1188052941 lenders that I can't help wondering if FS / CG are deliberately dropping a clanger on one or two loans in the hope that it distracts attention from the broader picture? (Hint: ain't gonna happen )
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Nov 27, 2020 9:14:32 GMT
- it sure is (I was in it)
Is it legal to introduce what seems retrospective charges here - I hope this can be challenged
Here the additional charge is a small part of the overall loan total but with other farces this is not the case
yet another Horlicks - given this one looked good on paper to me anyway and with a LTV of under 70% (yeah right) I just wonder what the hell has happened here and yes I realise this developer (not the first word I would use to describe this character) is known to us - not that FS told us he had multiple loans with them
Looks to me that this developer has a track record of shafting lenders and FS should never ever have got into this situation - especially advancing this extra £75K
Have added this one to my list of 100% losses - currently standing at 34 (to be confirmed) - how the hell can any company actually manage to lose 100% on so many loans unless of course that was part of their business plan?
Depressing or what!
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Nov 27, 2020 12:50:42 GMT
Greenwich. I sincerely hope that these instances of maladministration are being noted and that further action will be taken. For once and I cant say that many times, I have a few hundred quid in the primary and yet it seems investors are being shafted every which way, with the goalposts seemingly being moved every time a loan is resolved to suit anyone but the investors themselves. It really does beggar belief
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Dec 3, 2020 14:36:43 GMT
At the point of lending, even if Primary loan lenders had been cognisant of the 5% Default Loan Administration Fee in the Ts&Cs, it would not have been possible for those lenders to have anticipated that unannounced additional funding (which is what the Supplementary loan was) would become a factor in the event of their loan Defaulting and that 5% of that Supplementary loan would also be deducted from any redeemed sums. This is so blatantly unfair to 1188052941 lenders that I can't help wondering if FS / CG are deliberately dropping a clanger on one or two loans in the hope that it distracts attention from the broader picture? (Hint: ain't gonna happen ) They did the same on the Formby loan, so if it is a clanger it's not an individual one.
I thought the FCA rules on fees were that they needed to fair and transparent. I can't see how you can get less transparent than a fee that the investor couldn't possibly have known would exist when they invested.
|
|