|
Post by eascogo on Nov 15, 2019 19:01:26 GMT
Now we see the other side of the coin. The usual tune on this forum is of platforms being too soft on borrowers which results in many late or defaulted loans and poor recovery. It looks like BC has the opposite approach. They sound as extremely tough on borrowers, perhaps unfairly so, but then they can take pride in trumpeting not to have suffered any default. adama's account is enlightening but may well further enhance the reputation of BC as a safe bet for investors though it may scare off a few borrowers.
|
|
|
Post by adama on Nov 15, 2019 19:44:40 GMT
Some emails I sent to Mr Alexander today. Mr Alexander, You claim to be a Barrister, when the name you report at Companies House, as Alexander Louis Phillipe is not registered at www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/search-a-barristers-record/the-barristers-register.html?view=practising&search_field=&q=Louis+Phillipe+ALEXANDERNow I finished work, I am only starting to investigate you. In a few minutes I find all this. You took my money, I want it back. Can you explain why you say you are a Barrister to Companies House but no record of you at the Bar? Do your investors know this? Do Companies House? Look at the third title notably sharp practice - www.gov.uk/government/publications/reporting-misconduct-by-companies-directors-and-bankrupts-to-the-insolvency-service/reporting-misconduct-by-companies-directors-and-bankrupts-to-the-insolvency-serviceReporting misconduct by companies, directors and bankrupts to the Insolvency Service - GOV.UK 5.1 What happens when you complain. We will acknowledge and consider your complaint and, if appropriate, forward it to our Criminal Investigations Team (this is an independent team within the ... www.gov.ukYou fit perfectly. I am also interested what gives you the legal power to video people logging into their online banking when videoing them. Illegal for sure. This is also something SWBF should consider having followed this conduct. Do you think this is going to look good for you, your investors. You even failed to provide the survey. If you are a Barrister prove it!! I think BBC Watchdog needs to look at you. Don't worry about your investigation. What you say has no legal merit. You need to be closed down, you are a conman. How many people have you cheated, or are cheating? Yours sincerely, Adam A 4th entry down - beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/GMui__4sQ9z0zTfaBiRn9EirTc4/appointmentsA person with the same family name resigned - beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10045383/officersMr Alexander, Unless you prove you were a Barrister at the time you (or someone who registered you) has committed Fraud to Companies House! This is criminal and could/should involve a custodial sentence. Can you pay my money back? 6% every six months, makes the numbers look good, when you rip people off. 6 and 6 easy for you to remember. How is this going to look? Kindly explain. Yours sincerely, Adam A Fortunately this man a Director with his model wife I think 98% to 2% did not take my money just ran up legal bills, survey, which I will sue for. He claims to have around £1,300,000 of assets. It will be interesting to see how many people he has cheated.
|
|
|
Post by adama on Nov 15, 2019 19:45:30 GMT
Now we see the other side of the coin. The usual tune on this forum is of platforms being too soft on borrowers which results in many late or defaulted loans and poor recovery. It looks like BC has the opposite approach. They sound as extremely tough on borrowers, perhaps unfairly so, but then they can take pride in trumpeting not to have suffered any default. adama 's account is enlightening but may well further enhance the reputation of BC as a safe bet for investors though it may scare off a few borrowers. Have you seen my last post?
|
|
|
Post by adama on Nov 15, 2019 19:47:57 GMT
Thank you, hopefully this makes this clearer. I have also posted a new post about Mr Alexander.
|
|
|
Post by adama on Nov 15, 2019 19:52:06 GMT
Now we see the other side of the coin. The usual tune on this forum is of platforms being too soft on borrowers which results in many late or defaulted loans and poor recovery. It looks like BC has the opposite approach. They sound as extremely tough on borrowers, perhaps unfairly so, but then they can take pride in trumpeting not to have suffered any default. adama 's account is enlightening but may well further enhance the reputation of BC as a safe bet for investors though it may scare off a few borrowers. Why would Mr Alexander say he is a Barrister to Companies House, but not be registered at the Bar. Links are on my thread of earlier. Would you trust him? I don't and will sue him unless he pays back my legals fees etc. He should have BBC Watchdog investigate him and the Police. I am just starting. If he <redacted> about this....what else.......................it does look very dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by adama on Nov 15, 2019 19:59:40 GMT
Hi, I want to expose Mr Alexander for what he is. Can you kindly provide some forums for this?
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Nov 15, 2019 21:04:52 GMT
Now we see the other side of the coin. The usual tune on this forum is of platforms being too soft on borrowers which results in many late or defaulted loans and poor recovery. It looks like BC has the opposite approach. They sound as extremely tough on borrowers, perhaps unfairly so, but then they can take pride in trumpeting not to have suffered any default. adama 's account is enlightening but may well further enhance the reputation of BC as a safe bet for investors though it may scare off a few borrowers. Have you seen my last post? adama. Just read it. Will follow with interest your attempts to find redress.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Nov 16, 2019 10:25:43 GMT
Check the Lincoln's Inn entry for the Times' listing of the 2006 " Calls to the Bar" Also, note the description of the Register you linked to: " Unregistered barristers and barristers who have been disbarred are not on the Register as they are not allowed to practise." I acknowledge that there is an 'Unregistered' section, but my belief is that only those Unregistered persons who have had disciplinary action against them will be listed there. Hope that helps and as with eascogo, we will follow with interest your attempts to find redress.
|
|
|
Post by adama on Nov 16, 2019 12:28:42 GMT
Thank you. I ask that you spread my posts around to both the investor and borrowing community that The Bridge Crowd's conduct of Sharp Practice. I am satisfied given The Bridge Crowds conduct and why would Mr Alexander not show as a Barrister? The latest figures show their assets rose from around £250,000 to around £1,300,000 so why would he not would be able to pay any fees to remain registered. Mr Alexander (Who has many dissolved companies) to come and explain himself, how his company wasted my time, threatened me and cost me around £3000 when they knew the loan was never going to be made at 0.78%pm. Not 1, or 2 but three people knew the company had agreed my savings qualified me as income for their "Low rate" I have said to him whatever he replies with his "investigation" I will issue a County Court Summons on Monday 25th November unless repaid. Fortunately my current lender increases the maturity date so I am not in default. Can you let me know where I should publish my story so that others do not need to deal with this firm. Was he ever a Barrister, or struck off. Every Barrister I know stays in that profession. All highly suspicious. Would you trust him with your money? How would you know he might build up a huge business and then run offshore to a non-extradition country with your money. Bridgecrowd even failed to return my survey report I paid for. These people are just rubbish.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 16, 2019 13:24:41 GMT
There are plenty of borrowers who DO successfully complete the due diligence steps that BridgeCrowd require before they advance hundreds of thousands of lenders' £££. I, for one, am pleased that they are not the soft touch that so many other peer-to-peer platforms have proved to be.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Nov 16, 2019 13:26:55 GMT
Thank you. I ask that you spread my posts around to both the investor and borrowing community that The Bridge Crowd's conduct of Sharp Practice. I am satisfied given The Bridge Crowds conduct and why would Mr Alexander not show as a Barrister? The latest figures show their assets rose from around £250,000 to around £1,300,000 so why would he not would be able to pay any fees to remain registered. Mr Alexander (Who has many dissolved companies) to come and explain himself, how his company wasted my time, threatened me and cost me around £3000 when they knew the loan was never going to be made at 0.78%pm. Not 1, or 2 but three people knew the company had agreed my savings qualified me as income for their "Low rate" I have said to him whatever he replies with his "investigation" I will issue a County Court Summons on Monday 25th November unless repaid. Fortunately my current lender increases the maturity date so I am not in default. Can you let me know where I should publish my story so that others do not need to deal with this firm. Was he ever a Barrister, or struck off. Every Barrister I know stays in that profession. All highly suspicious. Would you trust him with your money? How would you know he might build up a huge business and then run offshore to a non-extradition country with your money. Bridgecrowd even failed to return my survey report I paid for. These people are just rubbish. I believe Mr Alexander qualified in Scotland, the link you give is for England and Wales. The investor you quoted in your first post was actually a borrower, he popped up on here as well. And yes I do trust BC with my money. I'm sorry if you didn't get the loan you wanted, but most posters on here are lenders and as a lender I can't complain if they are being diligent and very careful in lending potentially my funds. Edit: Crossed with SteveT
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 16, 2019 14:01:38 GMT
My eyes were having trouble following the first post but are you saying you're this upset as you've lost £300 ? Was it not clear in the documentation etc that it was a non-refundable fee? I seem to recall back in the day when I applied for a mortgage having to agree to all sorts of valuation and other fees some of which were non-refundable.
|
|
|
Post by adama on Nov 16, 2019 14:40:38 GMT
Thank you. I ask that you spread my posts around to both the investor and borrowing community that The Bridge Crowd's conduct of Sharp Practice. I am satisfied given The Bridge Crowds conduct and why would Mr Alexander not show as a Barrister? The latest figures show their assets rose from around £250,000 to around £1,300,000 so why would he not would be able to pay any fees to remain registered. Mr Alexander (Who has many dissolved companies) to come and explain himself, how his company wasted my time, threatened me and cost me around £3000 when they knew the loan was never going to be made at 0.78%pm. Not 1, or 2 but three people knew the company had agreed my savings qualified me as income for their "Low rate" I have said to him whatever he replies with his "investigation" I will issue a County Court Summons on Monday 25th November unless repaid. Fortunately my current lender increases the maturity date so I am not in default. Can you let me know where I should publish my story so that others do not need to deal with this firm. Was he ever a Barrister, or struck off. Every Barrister I know stays in that profession. All highly suspicious. Would you trust him with your money? How would you know he might build up a huge business and then run offshore to a non-extradition country with your money. Bridgecrowd even failed to return my survey report I paid for. These people are just rubbish. I believe Mr Alexander qualified in Scotland, the link you give is for England and Wales. The investor you quoted in your first post was actually a borrower, he popped up on here as well. And yes I do trust BC with my money. I'm sorry if you didn't get the loan you wanted, but most posters on here are lenders and as a lender I can't complain if they are being diligent and very careful in lending potentially my funds. Edit: Crossed with SteveT Perhaps you can find proof he is registered in Scotland. I agree with firms being cautious, but The Bridge Crown approved my savings met their "low rate" product having undercut a deal I had at 0.8% by offering 0.78% on the 22.10.19 and going to 75% LTV. Not 1, or 2, but 3 people, including the so called Head Of Underwriting, Rob Johnson, knew the firm had accepted my savings as income, but failed to stop the process until 24 hours before completion and I had signed the documents. I think this was because they ran down the clock thinking I would think I have spent a lot of money and will not get another offer in time so would jump to their 1.1% Is this how you want to do business? My current lender has extended the loan so I am not in default. Why did they agree savings were fine? another explanation is they just do not know what to approve and what to not approve. Is this how you want your money managed. They knew and just thought I would be so desperate and timed it that they thought I would just jump to 1.1% They were wrong. I will sue The Bridge Crowd as they knew I would incur additional expenses and encouraged me to do so, even when they had no intention of lending at 0.78%. Their goal was to squeeze more percent. Is this how you want your money to work for you? When you say the review was a borrower how can they lose money? In any event another unhappy person with The Bridge Crowd. They are a firm that practices Sharp Practice and I will be complaining to Companies House - www.gov.uk/government/publications/reporting-misconduct-by-companies-directors-and-bankrupts-to-the-insolvency-service/reporting-misconduct-by-companies-directors-and-bankrupts-to-the-insolvency-serviceThey also never went to 75% All lies to get people hooked by the low rate and start spending on surveys and legal costs, push them along and then when The Bridge Crowd think you are against the clock, like in my case 24 hours before expiry of my loan, they hit you with a much higher rate. It's not a new tactic. Reputable firms do not operate like this. Fortunately my current lender extended my loan. Do you want to get "Dirty Money" from this tactic? Mr Alexander has had many companies dissolved - beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/GMui__4sQ9z0zTfaBiRn9EirTc4/appointments
|
|
|
Post by adama on Nov 16, 2019 14:45:24 GMT
My eyes were having trouble following the first post but are you saying you're this upset as you've lost £300 ? Was it not clear in the documentation etc that it was a non-refundable fee? I seem to recall back in the day when I applied for a mortgage having to agree to all sorts of valuation and other fees some of which were non-refundable. What made you think £300 as only your post displays when I search on 300. Over £3000 on legal fees, survey and my current lender charging me 0.5% for a new setup fee. The Bridge Crowd agreed to lend, 3 people there were aware of this including Rob Johnson their Head Of Underwriting, but in reality were never going to lend at 0.78% so should have not agreed but encouraged me to carry on the process raking up bills. They even would not provide the survey to me which I was told legally I am entitled to under GDPR.
|
|
|
Post by adama on Nov 16, 2019 14:52:56 GMT
There are plenty of borrowers who DO successfully complete the due diligence steps that BridgeCrowd require before they advance hundreds of thousands of lenders' £££. I, for one, am pleased that they are not the soft touch that so many other peer-to-peer platforms have proved to be. There is a difference between due diligence and agreeing to a deal and then waiting until just 24 hours before to renege, thinking I would jump from 0.78% to 1.1%pm as I was about to default and could not arrange alternative finance in time. Fortunately my current lender having heard the whole situation extended the loan. Sharp Practice not due diligence. Anyone can undercut another deal, agree terms and then renege. It's like a cheap salesmen who promises but then does not perform. Again their Business Development Manager Amer Watson agreed this to my broker, Kyle Hunt agreed it personally with me on the telephone and I informed Rob Johnson. They all knew but did nothing! Just ran down the clock thinking I had to accept any deal. Even their original deal was 0.95%, going to 1.1% they really thought I was desperate. Rubbish firm, their word is not their bond, no morals. Firms like this do not last!
|
|