FS must declare obvious Defaults before/by 5th April.

Ah but have they reached the 2 year rule yet

You are right however it is not what we should expect.

I agree with ozboy that FS need to do something about the very obvious defaults.

I have been running down my FS investments for some time and have withdrawn some funds. However, this financial year things seem to have come to a grinding halt and nothing ever seems to happen. My outstanding loanbook consists of a Main Account of 7 Loans ranging from 691 - 1291 days and an IFISA of 15 loans ranging from 217-579 days. There has been no interest paid since September 2018, a pittance of Capital returned, very limited updates ranging from unhelpful to ludicrous in content.

I have the distinct impression that FS are hiding bad loans by continuing to kick them down down the road, so they do not show up in the statistics and the real performance is much worse than indicated.

The poor performance of FS is often attributed to what can be called 'poor management'. However, I think it goes s bit deeper than this and that the whole model of FS is broken. FS is operating under a pawnbroking licence and traditionally pawnbrokers lent against small valuable chattels, lending them up to 50% of valuation, holding them against repayment, and selling is them if the borrower failed to redeem the pledge. However, FS now lends largely against property, often development property, this is very different to lending against chattels such as gold jewellery. Firstly, there is the obvious mismatch between the pawnbroking loan of 6 months and the length of time required for development and sale of the property which could easily be two years or more. Secondly, teach indivual loan tends to much larger, thus concetrating risk. Thirdly, what happens when the borrower runs out of money before completion, as has already happened, FS is left with a very unsaleable asset. Fourthly, FS appears to have lent against some properties that appear to be unsaleable at almost any price.

I should should mention that I was a Surveyor and I am well aware of the issues surrounding Property valuation. Lending on property developments is by far the most risky form of property lending and most mainstream banks do not touch it. This is why the weaker borrowers resort to high cost lenders like FS. Overall, FS appears to be ill equiped in trying to recover money from these defaulthed development property loans.

Yes, FS needs to start clearing out the stables of these hidden bad loans, rather than the present endless aimless drift.

Agree 101% but why would they although any reasonable person would push that default button.

If they formally defaulted those obvious loans then they could open themselves up to all sorts of potential legal action from lenders. Far better for them, not lenders of course, to continue with the 'we are chasing the borrower, etc, etc' for additional funds for the benefit of lenders. They can keep up this pretence for an eternity even if the borrower has emigrated to the moon!!

Unfortunately at this moment in time, there's very little lenders can do about it. Only the toothless FCA can act. A very despicable state of affairs but FS long gave up safeguarding their reputation in my book.

My accountant has already taken a view on some of the overdue loans and is more than comfortable with his stance. Not intended as tax guidance to anyone as each lender has to take their own professional advice.