Initially I was minded to vote against. £5000 is only c. 17 months worth of £300 pm payments, and the fact the debt is being whittled away albeit slowly.
However the line "Please note that if the offer is rejected then given the guarantors location [ouside the UK] there would be no merit in incurring additional costs pursuing the guarantor if they did stop making repayments." has given me pause for thought.
It only needs one person to vote against to torpedo the proposal.
I went for a "yes" for the same reason - the line about no merit in chasing. If anyone wants a copy of some Adobe graphics software then Str******ns might still have the licence and email it in hope of a "yes", if there is some way to get in touch. I can't think of any other assets to ask for in return.
The FK email does appear to suggest, first and foremost, that they can't be bothered with this case any more. If the platform has explicitly or implicitly conveyed this to the guarantor then lenders will have been done a grave disservice.
I know of one case where the much maligned FC recoveries team has persisted with a guarantor who has moved overseas - not identical circumstances obviously but a better signal of commitment/intent.
In PV terms, even making some quite aggressive assumptions about discount rates etc to the benefit of the guarantor it is a low-ball offer and it does not take many monthy repayments to exceed this on a PV basis. If the guarantor can muster £5000 then that covers almost all of the monthly repayments required to get there. The guarantor has been fairly consistent with repayments and the last communication suggested that FK was actually going to look for the guarantor to increase the monthly repayment amount, so there does not appear to be any material affordability issue. The only thing suggesting a cessation of repayments comes from FK.
I don't see why there shouldn't be scope to go back to the guarantor with a revised full and final settlement figure.
The FK email does appear to suggest, first and foremost, that they can't be bothered with this case any more. If the platform has explicitly or implicitly conveyed this to the guarantor then lenders will have been done a grave disservice...
If FK didn't convey this to the guarantor comments on this (open) forum could well enlighten them.
Someone has voted 'no' in this and the H***** of O** loan offers. Particularly in the latter case, nothing is better than something in someone's opinion, for them and all other holders of the loan.
I abstained, couldn't bring myself to vote yes. Not very surprised at the outcome, most of the AC/TC vote discussions include at least one "lets get the ba*****". A very unfortunate side effect of FK's documentation requiring a unanimous vote. Err, as if that is ever going to happen.
H***** of O** I managed to avoid through my policy of not touching the 2 shield loans.
Disclosure: I'm a shareholder in Assetz Capital Limited
I must admit I think the requirement for a unanimous vote from many lenders, which is extremely unlikely in practice, makes it virtually impossible to handle credit problems with any flexibility.
I think FK would be wise to consider changing this to a majority vote in all future loans.
Voting rights based on the % of outstanding capital held would be preferable to / fairer than a simple majority vote. Even then you can have some odd-looking outcomes depending upon the treatment of abstentions, as seen on AC, although at least AC provides transparency on the results.
By time of the last flurry of activity on this thread it seems this resolution was already doomed with multiple 'no' votes.