will
Member of DD Central
Posts: 98 
Likes: 57
|
Post by will on Apr 3, 2017 9:38:23 GMT
Saving Stream seem to like altering existing transactions on an account to fix problems rather than creating new transactions to correct the balance. I was wondering if this makes anyone else as angry as it makes me? It causes several issues, one is confusion, see this thread: p2pindependentforum.com/thread/8447/The other is it messes up peoples accounts when transactions have already been exported, see this thread: p2pindependentforum.com/thread/8444/ |
|
rogerbu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 213
|
Post by rogerbu on Apr 3, 2017 9:53:40 GMT
Anyone tracking transactions on Excell or Access etc finds that historical balances are now wrong with no transactions or explanations showing the corrections. Annoying.
Changing historical transactions is just not professional and I am sure the FCA won't give them Full Approval if they are aware that sloppy book keeping is going on.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 3, 2017 10:15:02 GMT
Furtive Changes have been doing it for years, on a daily basis.
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Apr 3, 2017 11:22:40 GMT
I voted no. However, it doesn't make me angry. It's just wrong and is a bit of a pain in the backside when you've adjusted your balance to zero, reconciled your account and saved your transaction history.
Errors recorded in the transaction history should remain. They may be corrected by new transactions (appended, not inserted) so that a full record is maintained.
I also think that the interest transactions should not be backdated and inserted in to the transaction history. It changes the running balance for those existing transactions that are preceded by the newly inserted ones.
Every new entry (including interest) should be appended, not inserted, and should be date and time stamped with the time of the transaction and not some other date and time. Existing transactions and resulting balances should never be adjusted. In that way, existing transactions and running balances would never be lost or out of date/time sequence. The transaction history (including LfSS mistakes) would be complete, true and inviolable.
|
|
n
Member of DD Central
Yet another Nick
Posts: 879
Likes: 461
Member is Online
|
Post by n on Apr 3, 2017 11:37:41 GMT
I also said 'No' but it doesn't make me angry. I think irritated would be more accurate. I have bought £1 in every sub-12% loan and they have clawed back £0.01.   |
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,186
Likes: 5,994
|
Post by registerme on Apr 3, 2017 11:54:48 GMT
I suspect the transaction costs associated with thousands of people transferring in stupidly low amounts of money to cover this 11%/12% mess up will have focused minds at Lendy Towers.
That having been said I agree with all of the commentary to date about the need for transactions being inviolate and amendments being new, correcting, transactions rather than the alteration of historic transactions. That's simply bad design.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,843
Likes: 11,069
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 3, 2017 12:07:40 GMT
FK did exactly the same when they finally fixed the errors in their loan book. All the delayed payments were made on the dates thel borrower had originally made them rather than the dates the cash was credited & available in lenders accounts. So thats three platforms doing it and I suspect they may be more.
SS have alawys made corrections on the date of the original transaction rather than the date of the adjustment. I assume everybody noticed the bit in the interest paid email that loans moving from SBL to IA during a month would have interest entries in the statement made on the date the status changed and interest was paid up to rather than date of payment. Dont recall anyone raising that.
Has anyone actually had a resolve negative balance as a result of this?
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Apr 3, 2017 12:27:01 GMT
Has anyone actually had a resolve negative balance as a result of this? Yes, quite a few people have mentioned it. I sorted out my account to a zero balance on Saturday afternoon. In the fix-up on Sunday, my account went to -£3.30. I simply sold £3.30 of something or other on the SM. However, I think a few will leave their accounts negative to see what happens and will, presumably, give LfSS more stick if they hassle investors over their LfSS induced negative balances.
Initial cock up caused by bad programming. Fix-up done prior to sending e-mail - bad communication. Fix-up done by adjusting historic accounts to make it appear that it never happened - bad accountancy.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,186
Likes: 5,994
|
Post by registerme on Apr 3, 2017 12:31:24 GMT
Has anyone actually had a resolve negative balance as a result of this? Yes, I transferred £1.40 to SS/Lendy this morning .
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 5,658
|
Post by duck on Apr 3, 2017 12:44:33 GMT
Has anyone actually had a resolve negative balance as a result of this? Yes, I transferred £1.40 to SS/Lendy this morning . 3 for me £5.69, £8.56 & £2.52.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Apr 3, 2017 13:08:56 GMT
I haven't voted; there is no option for me. It doesn't make me angry; I'm of the opinion SS do have the right to take their money back, but the fact is, it shouldn't happen in the first place
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,843
Likes: 11,069
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 3, 2017 13:11:38 GMT
Has anyone actually had a resolve negative balance as a result of this? Yes, quite a few people have mentioned it. I sorted out my account to a zero balance on Saturday afternoon. In the fix-up on Sunday, my account went to -£3.30. I simply sold £3.30 of something or other on the SM. However, I think a few will leave their accounts negative to see what happens and will, presumably, give LfSS more stick if they hassle investors over their LfSS induced negative balances.
Initial cock up caused by bad programming. Fix-up done prior to sending e-mail - bad communication. Fix-up done by adjusting historic accounts to make it appear that it never happened - bad accountancy.
People have mentioned negative balances but not receipt of the automated emails. Just wondered if this was another one that wasnt making it through (like loan part sales)
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Apr 3, 2017 13:18:50 GMT
People have mentioned negative balances but not receipt of the automated emails. Just wondered if this was another one that wasnt making it through (like loan part sales) Sorry, I misread the original question.
Correct answer to original question. No - I didn't get an e-mail (but I fixed my negative balance pretty quickly). I can't remember reading of others receiving the 'negative balance' e-mail either (however, my memory is pretty ropey at the best of times).
|
|
will
Member of DD Central
Posts: 98
Likes: 57
|
Post by will on Apr 3, 2017 13:32:51 GMT
Maybe "No, it makes me angry" is a bit extreme for some people.  |
|
jcb208
Member of DD Central
Posts: 820
Likes: 606
|
Post by jcb208 on Apr 3, 2017 13:34:47 GMT
They should of notified us of the error and correct at the next interest run letting us know how much was taken .Have not got a problem taking back the over payment If given advanced notice
|
|
