Undeclared defaults - FC's zombie loans

A good decision by Andrew J I think and the new openness and communications on defaults and the policy is welcome. When a borrower is in cash flow problems the first action is to lock up the chequebook, and only to get it out when the result of not paying a creditor is serious. If you know that a creditor will not default a loan then they tend to go further down the pecking order. If the policy did not improve collections then it is right to revert to the old policy and at least keep the lenders' statistics honest.
Personally I was troubled by a unilateral FC decision to extent the tolerance of lates because I signed up to the old policy on most of my loans and then found that the new no default policy had been applied in effect to the complete portfolio without so much as a by your leave. I would consider this a material change to the management of the loan contracts and I was and am troubled by the fact that FC would consider that they had the right to make such a change without considering the rights and views of the lenders. Maybe next they will alter the T&Cs to give some other flexibility and then use it to give all borrowers a month's repayment holiday on FC's birthday. Perhaps not, but you may see my point of concern.

With you all the way on this one, oldgumpy. Was slightly dubious about bidding on 3032 in the first place but had a few bob burning a hole in my pocket so threw caution to the wind and bid. Classic buyers regrets I suppose. Now I just hope that eventually FCR will get some of it back even if they somehow have to put his nuts in a vice!

I don't know if you are aware of the "criminal history" of some of the people involved in the crappy scrappy but if you Google <mod edit> "E*** ****** *********" and then look for an article under Wales Online for 21st January 2011 it will give you the full low down. Once you have read that I expect you will kiss your £40 Goodbye!

Given <mod edit> E***'s past history and everything that goes with it how the heck could FC claim to have done any DueDil at all on this loan! If this is taken as the standard of the FC research I am amazed that more loans have not crashed and maybe it explains why there were so many zombie loans out there! 

In my view 3032 has to be the example par excellence of incompetence on the part of FC in launching this £100,000 loan particularly with all this negative information in the public domain. However my thoughts are beginning to drift more in the  direction of rip off, because that is how I now feel. Given that FC have at least a duty of trust towards their lenders could they be sued in this particular case for negligence? Could I drift down to the Small Claims Court on Monday morning, pay my £17 and sue the bu**ers and what if the other couple of hundred investors who feel conned did the same thing? Alternatively perhaps FC could as a gesture of good will pay us back out money? What would you do? I'd love to know.

Finally think I might just put pen to paper outlining my very hurt feelings and sent it to the FCA.

And if Wales online is deemed too obscure, I assume:
<MOD SNIP: LINK REMOVED AS IT REVEALS THE BORROWERS NAME>
relates to the same thing?

Only someone actually trying to hide something would actually crush perfectly good m*****l instr*****s<mod edit to reflect context of removal of url to article> ***********. He'd have got more as reward money for "finding them" than he did for scrap.

Ultimately, though, there will always be "shady customers" attempting to take loans from P2P because the banks won't touch them. What matters in the end is how the P2P companies deal the matter when it arises, which is what we await here just as in "Breath of Fresh Pears". Do forthcoming regulations say anything about checking loan applicants for a "clean licence"?