keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 713
Likes: 575
|
Post by keystone on Jan 8, 2020 18:08:42 GMT
|
|
liso
Member of DD Central
Posts: 389
Likes: 394
|
Post by liso on Mar 2, 2020 10:50:44 GMT
The last meaningful update on this loan was in October 2018, 16 months ago, and despite lenders asking MT many times for further updates, we have had NO response.
There are troubling aspects to this loan, and significant unanswered questions.
In MT’s initial proposal to lenders, the property was wrongly described as being leasehold. We later discovered the title was freehold, but were never offered an explanation for the mistake, nor any acknowledgement that lenders had been misinformed. MT shrugged off the error, responding that “the difference between freehold/leasehold title is nominal”. Maybe so, but the consequence was a long delay in tracking down the freeholder and acquiring the necessary consents, a sale was lost when a purchaser pulled out, and it created legal issues which MT described as “particularly complex”, adding to the legal costs for us the lenders. MT told us they were disputing the solicitors’ fees and that there might be a further distribution of funds later. AFAIK there has been no further distribution and no update on the outcome of the dispute. Why not?
After the loan launched, it went quickly to default without a word from MT that the loan was in trouble. We later learned that the borrower had made no repayments and that payment to lenders was made by MT, but why were we not told that the loan was non-performing before it defaulted?
Unusually, the day before the default there was an upturn of sales on the secondary market.
And MT breached their own t&cs by allowing the loan to continue trading on the market after it was defaulted. MT explained this as a mistake.
And now? Is the recovery process ended? Are the losses crystallised?
It seems reasonable to conclude that, by repeatedly ignoring lenders’ requests for updates, MT are hoping that their silence will make awkward questions about their conduct and responsibility fade away, and become lost in other matters as the platform winds down.
This post is simply a reminder.
|
|
tommytaylor
P2P - The new wild west
Posts: 234
Likes: 375
|
Post by tommytaylor on Mar 2, 2020 11:07:15 GMT
The last meaningful update on this loan was in October 2018, 16 months ago, and despite lenders asking MT many times for further updates, we have had NO response. There are troubling aspects to this loan, and significant unanswered questions. In MT’s initial proposal to lenders, the property was wrongly described as being leasehold. We later discovered the title was freehold, but were never offered an explanation for the mistake, nor any acknowledgement that lenders had been misinformed. MT shrugged off the error, responding that “the difference between freehold/leasehold title is nominal”. Maybe so, but the consequence was a long delay in tracking down the freeholder and acquiring the necessary consents, a sale was lost when a purchaser pulled out, and it created legal issues which MT described as “particularly complex”, adding to the legal costs for us the lenders. MT told us they were disputing the solicitors’ fees and that there might be a further distribution of funds later. AFAIK there has been no further distribution and no update on the outcome of the dispute. Why not? After the loan launched, it went quickly to default without a word from MT that the loan was in trouble. We later learned that the borrower had made no repayments and that payment to lenders was made by MT, but why were we not told that the loan was non-performing before it defaulted? Unusually, the day before the default there was an upturn of sales on the secondary market. And MT breached their own t&cs by allowing the loan to continue trading on the market after it was defaulted. MT explained this as a mistake. And now? Is the recovery process ended? Are the losses crystallised? It seems reasonable to conclude that, by repeatedly ignoring lenders’ requests for updates, MT are hoping that their silence will make awkward questions about their conduct and responsibility fade away, and become lost in other matters as the platform winds down. This post is simply a reminder. Good post Liso. I am sure Sophie will be along any time soon to give her chippy response
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 2, 2020 11:47:09 GMT
Unless perhaps this is the ONLY MoneyThing loan you're exposed to, have you guys really thought through whether slagging off MT on here is really in your best interests? Doubtless many things could have been done differently in hindsight (a wonderful thing) but would you really prefer that the Things decide to throw in the towel and call in Administrators instead? The implications and costs for lenders of that approach are obvious for anyone with exposure to Collateral, Lendy or Funding Secure. Be careful what you wish for.
|
|
liso
Member of DD Central
Posts: 389
Likes: 394
|
Post by liso on Mar 2, 2020 12:57:00 GMT
Unless perhaps this is the ONLY MoneyThing loan you're exposed to, have you guys really thought through whether slagging off MT on here is really in your best interests? Doubtless many things could have been done differently in hindsight (a wonderful thing) but would you really prefer that the Things decide to throw in the towel and call in Administrators instead? The implications and costs for lenders of that approach are obvious for anyone with exposure to Collateral, Lendy or Funding Secure. Be careful what you wish for. It is disappointing that you choose to criticise me for expressing discontent at MT's failure to provide updates, rather than criticising MT for giving us no update for almost a year and a half! Rather than throw in the towel, MT could simply provide us with an update.
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 296
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Mar 2, 2020 14:51:08 GMT
They have said a number of times. If there was something meaningful and useful to say then it would have been said...
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 2, 2020 15:02:14 GMT
I expect liso wants an update saying 'no new information yet' ? We are into legal territories where 'mañana' is viewed as indecent haste.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 3,136
|
Post by jonno on Mar 2, 2020 15:06:51 GMT
They have said a number of times. If there was something meaningful and useful to say then it would have been said... Nah.....not acceptable. On that basis, if we never hear anything ever again re this loan, it simply means there was never anything "meaningful" to tell us. There has to be some reasonable timescales to update us even if there isn't anything earth-shattering to tell us. Also, accepting that MT are trying to do the "right thing" by investors, this should not automatically give them a free pass on adverse comments (not personal comments) when they are getting something wrong. IT'S OUR BLOODY MONEY!!!!!!
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 744
Likes: 734
|
Post by eeyore on Mar 2, 2020 17:36:17 GMT
....... In MT’s initial proposal to lenders, the property was wrongly described as being leasehold. We later discovered the title was freehold, but were never offered an explanation for the mistake, nor any acknowledgement that lenders had been misinformed. MT shrugged off the error, responding that “the difference between freehold/leasehold title is nominal”. Maybe so, but the consequence was a long delay in tracking down the freeholder and acquiring the necessary consents, .......... I'm not a lender on the loan, but isn't that the wrong way round? Wasn't it described as freehold, but the title was actually leasehold? Otherwise there'd be no problem in tracking down the freeholder!
|
|
liso
Member of DD Central
Posts: 389
Likes: 394
|
Post by liso on Mar 2, 2020 17:54:19 GMT
No, you are incorrect. There was a problem tracking down the freeholder.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Mar 2, 2020 23:00:00 GMT
|
|
bababill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 525
Likes: 243
|
Post by bababill on Mar 2, 2020 23:22:20 GMT
....payment to lenders was made by MT, but why were we not told that the loan was non-performing before it defaulted? Unusually, the day before the default there was an upturn of sales on the secondary market. And MT breached their own t&cs by allowing the loan to continue trading on the market after it was defaulted. MT explained this as a mistake..... So So So true....I bought my loan parts after the loan should have been defaulted or at the very least marked as non performing...But instead we were implicitly told the loan was performing because MT make interest payments out of their own pocket to "smooth over" interest runs. SteveT- noted your comments above...Fortunately it is my only loan on the platform.
|
|
robski
Member of DD Central
Posts: 772
Likes: 462
|
Post by robski on Mar 3, 2020 9:02:40 GMT
No, you are incorrect. There was a problem tracking down the freeholder. The property was listed as freehold but it was in fact leasehold (opposite to what you put above). Hence needing to find the freeholder since the title could not pass as unencumbered without the freeholder The general muttering was about the fact it was listed as freehold but wasn't, people said it must have been over valued because of this, and MT came back and said made little difference. I don't think many agreed with that sentiment.
|
|
liso
Member of DD Central
Posts: 389
Likes: 394
|
Post by liso on Mar 3, 2020 9:53:08 GMT
No, you are incorrect. There was a problem tracking down the freeholder. The property was listed as freehold but it was in fact leasehold (opposite to what you put above). Hence needing to find the freeholder since the title could not pass as unencumbered without the freeholder The general muttering was about the fact it was listed as freehold but wasn't, people said it must have been over valued because of this, and MT came back and said made little difference. I don't think many agreed with that sentiment. My apologies if I've got this the wrong way round, but what is important is that the confusion over the title caused problems and delays which impacted negatively on lenders, and which MT are avoiding responsibility for. We still don't know, for example, the outcome of the dispute over the "complex" legal fees.
|
|
robski
Member of DD Central
Posts: 772
Likes: 462
|
Post by robski on Mar 3, 2020 12:54:06 GMT
The property was listed as freehold but it was in fact leasehold (opposite to what you put above). Hence needing to find the freeholder since the title could not pass as unencumbered without the freeholder The general muttering was about the fact it was listed as freehold but wasn't, people said it must have been over valued because of this, and MT came back and said made little difference. I don't think many agreed with that sentiment. My apologies if I've got this the wrong way round, but what is important is that the confusion over the title caused problems and delays which impacted negatively on lenders, and which MT are avoiding responsibility for. We still don't know, for example, the outcome of the dispute over the "complex" legal fees. No probs, I think it was just confusing people thats all Further to my earlier post, now I wonder if the complex legal fees were because it was leasehold and not freehold. You can imagine significant extra costs being incurred when selling a leasehold, maybe the buyer asking for some guarantees, possibly an insurance backed guarantee of some sort, probably extra costs being picked up dealing with the freeholder, who from my understanding often see $$$ when these sorts of things go on, asking for a fee in order to agree to something taking place or for a document etc etc
|
|