Exeter v the rest recovery?

We will probably be classed as unsecured creditors for these loans instead of investors.

I think it's too early to say.  I wouldn't get my hopes up too much, but "administration" is not the same as "insolvency".  And, sad though it is to say it, being an unsecured creditor of Lendy may be a better proposition than being a secured creditor on some of the "new Ts & Cs 36H compliant" loans the platform made available because... well let's be charitable and say that some of those projects were "optimistic".

However, all of the above may be completely dependent on whether the administrators choose to go after the directors and / or whether, assuming that they conclude that there are some, they look to unwind any inappropriate transactions.  Time will tell, and we need to let the administrators do their jobs.  That's not much help to anybody with a significant sum tied up with Lendy but other than signing up to Monetus 's group there's not a lot more that can be done for now .

For the record I've got £1123 left on Lendy, £350 of which is in DFL001.  My last deposit onto the platform was 11/04/2017.

I think my high water mark was comfortably into five figures, and Lendy bothered me before I became more generally worried about property development lending, but some of you may remember this thread I posted in August of 2017.  In hindsight I think point 4 was probably the most important (apologies to ozboy who, to be fair to him, has been raising a stink about RICS valuations since before Moses parted the Red Sea).

Trying times for us lenders, and for the industry .

EDIT: I take an extremely conservative stance wrt to potential losses, basically writing them down to zero as soon as they default or the platform shows signs of significant stress, so I swallowed the emotional reaction to this some time ago.  My sympathies are with those with more at stake, and those who were less prepared than I was. 

According to the administrators FAQs, the reason for administration was insolvency, so they do not have sufficient funds to meet their obligations. 

If so,,then the FCA were stood watching.!??

Hard to believe that somebody that has shown staggering arrogance and incompetence won’t have messed up somewhere. I’m sure he will have taken more care over “his” money than ours

It will be interesting to see if IP are finally appointed over all elements of the security as supporting RM01 are currently missing from CH on at least two companies with charges.

Will also be interesting how the fact that DFL002 has SSSH charges as well as Lendy meaning some aspects of the security may be held under new t&C's.

DFL002, as of the last costs statement was £50k in surplus ISTM and £20k in surplus once you stripped out Lendy/SSSH initial seed funding (OK 9 months ago but at least started positive.) If rent is still being earned might actually be covering costs though no visibility on main security charge.

are mistakes required for claw back?