mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Apr 24, 2015 20:53:06 GMT
... and the loan isn't any any of the lists (upcoming, targetted, live ...) At 1046 on 22/Apr, in answer to a question on the Loan #101 web page asking why there was no information available via the Upcoming Loans list about the loan lenders would be rolling their investments into, AC said... andrewholgate: Apologies for bothering you at the weekend, but Loan #101 has been repaid and I am now committed to a loan about which AC is not providing the usual info, or the ability for people to see what questions others are asking. Do you consider that acceptable? I don't. Why is this loan still missing from the Upcoming Loans list? When will this loan appear on the list?
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,053 
Likes: 463
|
Post by mikeb on Apr 26, 2015 19:24:46 GMT
Mike I've double checked and you're on the list of lenders I was supplied to roll over with explicit instruction that you were to be included. Could you liaise with SF who would have spoken to you and added you to the list. Interesting. Thanks for looking. My target was set to £0 in 101 before it closed up and repaid. I didn't achieve £0 as it was suspended from trading in that period. The email from S. Fink asking for rollover permission was received, and ignored -- it said "respond with YES to rollover". As there is no option to respond with "NO" for completeness, I ignored it. The followup email from S. Fink asking why I hadn't replied "as time is of the essence" etc. -- the response from me (Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:39:43) should have been pretty clear that I was not interested. I would reproduce it here, but it would only further highlight AC's comms failures. So whoever put me on that list has acted against my instructions, three times over. I have already contacted SF, awaiting a reply. If this is the business model you guys are using, I think people should be aware. I am now committed to a loan about which AC is not providing the usual info I'm committed to a loan I didn't want to be in, so I wonder if andrewholgate thinks that's acceptable ...
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Apr 26, 2015 22:51:20 GMT
Sounds like a short cut, that your email has been counted but not read mikeb and I think I'd have called AC by now with a heated head in the same situation, so top marks for patience. I'm sure a bid can be manually reversed, especially if someone takes the time to open the email and read what sounds like an obviously negative response. This highlights the need for a more automated system for votes/poles/yea or nay responses etc. on site, another tabbed page next to Q&A should do it, lying dormant until needed. Counting email responses can only get AC so far (up to about last autumn by my reckoning), the more emails there are to count, the more short cuts/human errors will creep in. Not to mention the amount of time it takes up. So, chris, are you, err, busy?!?..Great!!, any chance of knocking something together by the end of the week, thanks, much appreciated.  |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Apr 27, 2015 16:30:47 GMT
Mike I've double checked and you're on the list of lenders I was supplied to roll over with explicit instruction that you were to be included. Could you liaise with SF who would have spoken to you and added you to the list. Interesting. Thanks for looking. My target was set to £0 in 101 before it closed up and repaid. I didn't achieve £0 as it was suspended from trading in that period. The email from S. Fink asking for rollover permission was received, and ignored -- it said "respond with YES to rollover". As there is no option to respond with "NO" for completeness, I ignored it. The followup email from S. Fink asking why I hadn't replied "as time is of the essence" etc. -- the response from me (Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:39:43) should have been pretty clear that I was not interested. I would reproduce it here, but it would only further highlight AC's comms failures. So whoever put me on that list has acted against my instructions, three times over. I have already contacted SF, awaiting a reply. If this is the business model you guys are using, I think people should be aware. I am now committed to a loan about which AC is not providing the usual info I'm committed to a loan I didn't want to be in, so I wonder if andrewholgate thinks that's acceptable ... Hi Mike, I can categorically say that this is not our business model and that this has been an unfortunate mistake. Having been back through the email trail Stephen can see that you did not respond to the first email but did respond to the second email when the second wave of chasers were sent out. This was in reference to issues you'd experienced last time but also confirming your intention to manually invest in the new loan. Stephen has acknowledged that with the points you've raised he should have made direct contact with you to clarify your intentions and that he mistakenly interpreted your response as a positive given reference to taking part in the loan manually. Whether he misread, misunderstood your instructions, or simply miscounted your email then it is our collective mistake and a byproduct of this being a manual process where Stephen had to manually count and collate 291 positive responses from the segment of lenders assigned to him. I have cancelled your bid releasing your funds and should you wish to speak to Stephen further about this matter then please could you get in touch with him. Many thanks Chris
|
|
JamesFrance
Member of DD Central
Port Grimaud 1974
Posts: 1,317
Likes: 893
|
Post by JamesFrance on Apr 28, 2015 6:46:43 GMT
Presumably these funds are not now earning interest, so how soon will the new loan be drawn?
Another time I will probably choose repayment so as to put the money to work quickly, because I had assumed there would be an immediate rollover to the new loan, or have I missed something?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,902
Likes: 11,126
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 28, 2015 7:39:21 GMT
Presumably these funds are not now earning interest, so how soon will the new loan be drawn? Another time I will probably choose repayment so as to put the money to work quickly, because I had assumed there would be an immediate rollover to the new loan, or have I missed something? Unanswered but thats the view everyone is taking Id guess Certainly the assumption I made & probably everyone else, including AC initially I suspect. Earliest date indicated is Friday, more likely next week, though the continued absence of the new loan from the upcoming loans list (unresolved IT issues?) doesnt bode well. On the plus side, the prolonged delay in repaying the original loan means the hiatus in the money earning will be a lot shorter than it would have been.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Apr 28, 2015 8:06:35 GMT
Presumably these funds are not now earning interest, so how soon will the new loan be drawn? Another time I will probably choose repayment so as to put the money to work quickly, because I had assumed there would be an immediate rollover to the new loan, or have I missed something? I think that the 1% cashback was in part to compensate for this 'void' period. As long as it is less than about 4 weeks you should be better off than the repayment option.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,902
Likes: 11,126
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 28, 2015 8:50:59 GMT
Presumably these funds are not now earning interest, so how soon will the new loan be drawn? Another time I will probably choose repayment so as to put the money to work quickly, because I had assumed there would be an immediate rollover to the new loan, or have I missed something? I think that the 1% cashback was in part to compensate for this 'void' period. As long as it is less than about 4 weeks you should be better off than the repayment option. Totally forgot about the CB with all delays. Probably would have been worth AC mentioning that in their answers on the Q&A! Thanks for the reminder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 9:10:40 GMT
One thing I think Assetz should change is their view of communicating what the borrower is up to
Time and again in my short time with AC I've seen them over-promise and under-deliver, this does not do their brand any favours and for me I now assume they will always take longer than they say. I suggest that for timing information they follow this strategy:
1) Tell us what the shortest timing could be to ensure that we have the cash present to win a bid
2) Tell us a second time which should be based around a under-promise over-deliver concept, "no matter what it will clear by May end"
Hence, the actual time will be between 1 and 2, it just appears more professional than the present "the borrower says we will be sorted by friday and we will chase him monday" nonsense.
Hope that helps
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 1,469
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 28, 2015 9:24:31 GMT
One thing I think Assetz should change is their view of communicating what the borrower is up to Time and again in my short time with AC I've seen them over-promise and under-deliver, this does not do their brand any favours and for me I now assume they will always take longer than they say. I suggest that for timing information they follow this strategy: 1) Tell us what the shortest timing could be to ensure that we have the cash present to win a bid 2) Tell us a second time which should be based around a under-promise over-deliver concept, "no matter what it will clear by May end" Hence, the actual time will be between 1 and 2, it just appears more professional than the present "the borrower says we will be sorted by friday and we will chase him monday" nonsense. Hope that helps I have some sympathy with AC over this as they can only communicate what is communicated to them so in effect it's not AC that is 'guilty' of not delivering on time. What they are guilty of is not always reporting back when promised even if it's just to say we have nothing to say so at least interested parties will not be left with the impression things have been forgotten - usually in the Q&A section - but that's another matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Apr 28, 2015 10:05:36 GMT
One thing I think Assetz should change is their view of communicating what the borrower is up to Time and again in my short time with AC I've seen them over-promise and under-deliver, this does not do their brand any favours and for me I now assume they will always take longer than they say. I suggest that for timing information they follow this strategy: 1) Tell us what the shortest timing could be to ensure that we have the cash present to win a bid 2) Tell us a second time which should be based around a under-promise over-deliver concept, "no matter what it will clear by May end" Hence, the actual time will be between 1 and 2, it just appears more professional than the present "the borrower says we will be sorted by friday and we will chase him monday" nonsense. Hope that helps 1) Shortest time, yes...but 2) Anything can happen to push drawdown back so the end date can move. I'm remembering here LTL7 (#44) that after many months of wrangling the seller decided to put the properties to auction and our borrower had to bid on them only getting one of the two. So whereas it would be nice to have a defined period to work to, some loans are likely to be a moving target.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Apr 28, 2015 11:18:28 GMT
... and the loan isn't any any of the lists (upcoming, targetted, live ...) At 1046 on 22/Apr, in answer to a question on the Loan #101 web page asking why there was no information available via the Upcoming Loans list about the loan lenders would be rolling their investments into, AC said... andrewholgate: Apologies for bothering you at the weekend, but Loan #101 has been repaid and I am now committed to a loan about which AC is not providing the usual info, or the ability for people to see what questions others are asking. Do you consider that acceptable? I don't. Why is this loan still missing from the Upcoming Loans list? When will this loan appear on the list? In view of the continuing non-appearance of the new loan on the Upcoming Loans list, I'm minded to add more questions to the above... Does the new loan really exist? Or is it a figment of AC's imagination?
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 463
|
Post by mikeb on Apr 28, 2015 18:09:27 GMT
Hi Mike, Having been back through the email trail Stephen can see that you did not respond to the first email but did respond to the second email when the second wave of chasers were sent out. This was in reference to issues you'd experienced last time but also confirming your intention to manually invest in the new loan.Stephen has acknowledged that with the points you've raised he should have made direct contact with you to clarify your intentions and that he mistakenly interpreted your response as a positive given reference to taking part in the loan manually. I have cancelled your bid releasing your funds and should you wish to speak to Stephen further about this matter then please could you get in touch with him. I appreciate your efforts to sort this out, bid is now released. However, for the record I can also categorically state that I did not "confirm my intention to manually invest in the new loan". That is not true. So as you say it must be a simple misreading of the email. It certainly must have been misread if it was interpreted in any way as positive. I did get in touch with Stephen, requesting a copy of whatever it was that he took to be my authorisation. I'm sure no-one will be surprised that I am still waiting for that .... I'm sorry, but this is just the icing on an increasingly nasty tasting cake. pepperpot -- patient, persistent, p'd off ....
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Apr 28, 2015 18:20:08 GMT
Hi Mike, Having been back through the email trail Stephen can see that you did not respond to the first email but did respond to the second email when the second wave of chasers were sent out. This was in reference to issues you'd experienced last time but also confirming your intention to manually invest in the new loan.Stephen has acknowledged that with the points you've raised he should have made direct contact with you to clarify your intentions and that he mistakenly interpreted your response as a positive given reference to taking part in the loan manually. I have cancelled your bid releasing your funds and should you wish to speak to Stephen further about this matter then please could you get in touch with him. I appreciate your efforts to sort this out, bid is now released. However, for the record I can also categorically state that I did not "confirm my intention to manually invest in the new loan". That is not true. So as you say it must be a simple misreading of the email. It certainly must have been misread if it was interpreted in any way as positive. I did get in touch with Stephen, requesting a copy of whatever it was that he took to be my authorisation. I'm sure no-one will be surprised that I am still waiting for that .... I'm sorry, but this is just the icing on an increasingly nasty tasting cake. pepperpot -- patient, persistent, p'd off .... As ever if you don't get a satisfactory response please let me know and I'll escalate internally to the other board directors. We do take this very seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Apr 29, 2015 0:04:03 GMT
Hi Mike, Having been back through the email trail Stephen can see that you did not respond to the first email but did respond to the second email when the second wave of chasers were sent out. This was in reference to issues you'd experienced last time but also confirming your intention to manually invest in the new loan.Stephen has acknowledged that with the points you've raised he should have made direct contact with you to clarify your intentions and that he mistakenly interpreted your response as a positive given reference to taking part in the loan manually. I have cancelled your bid releasing your funds and should you wish to speak to Stephen further about this matter then please could you get in touch with him. I appreciate your efforts to sort this out, bid is now released. However, for the record I can also categorically state that I did not "confirm my intention to manually invest in the new loan". That is not true. So as you say it must be a simple misreading of the email. It certainly must have been misread if it was interpreted in any way as positive. I did get in touch with Stephen, requesting a copy of whatever it was that he took to be my authorisation. I'm sure no-one will be surprised that I am still waiting for that .... I'm sorry, but this is just the icing on an increasingly nasty tasting cake. pepperpot -- patient, persistent, p'd off .... Having now seen your PM'd email (and at the risk of backlash), I have to say, in isolation there was a sentence describing a positive action, even though it suggested a manual one by yourself. Granted the rest of the mail was fairly negative (!), but whenever I send an instruction for an action to be taken, the text body is completely unambiguous and consists simply of; 'Yes', 'No', 'Option B' etc. As whoever reads it probably has many emails to get through, especially as this was a large loan it's likely to have been in the hands of a lot of lenders by the time it was repaid and I don't want any uncertainty at all about my intention. If I wanted to describe the reasons for the decision or raise a point, it would be well away from the explicit instruction. There was also the line in the initial roll request email of "If you do not wish to transfer your holding you do not need to reply – your existing holding in loan # 101 will be repaid in full." So a 'no' response was not required and any response would have been expected by the recipient to be positive - they were counting yes's. Now don't get me wrong mikeb, I like you (not like that  ), you've pointed out many issues on AC that everyone has undoubtedly benefited from, and you have a GSOH, (gosh, I'm starting to sound like an agony aunt...), but on this occasion, I have some sympathy for SF (but not necessarily for AC and the current process). Now if only we could get an on site 'Responses' page to do away with all the tooing and froing, the simple clarity of click 'yes' or click 'Option B' is hard to argue against. Having completely missed out on the geek gene I have no idea how long it would actually take to implement, but thinking about what must be a fairly sizable amount of man hours spent thus far on the mundane task of counting thousands of emails, surely it has to be worthy of a bit of time spent on it? - Especially as it seems it was worth the time to recently re-design the front end. I'm a form follows function type, I don't even mind lilac!! as long as it works. A pretty AC should do well, but a slick AC will do better.
|
|
), you've pointed out many issues on AC that everyone has undoubtedly benefited from, and you have a GSOH, (gosh, I'm starting to sound like an agony aunt...), but on this occasion, I have some sympathy for SF (but not necessarily for AC and the current process).