izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 20, 2017 10:00:59 GMT
I’ve got a 5 figure sum invested in Exeter, so I’m understandably a bit worried. I don’t see any light at the end of the tunnel on this loan; it’s perhaps one of the biggest p2p disasters across all platforms. It’s certainly my own personal biggest p2p disaster (so far). The only glimmer of hope I have read on this thread it’s that this loan is under old T&C and as such Lendy themselves are implicated. Do board members think this is an avenue that we who are invested might pursue? Or do you think Lendy would quickly wriggle out of their own liabilities? Whatever happens I foresee months or years of procrastination and obfuscation by Lendy on this, meaning any value in what has been built on site is rotting away to zero. charliebrown, just so you know you're not the only one in this boat, I too am 5 figure deep into the Exeters and also my biggest p2p disaster (like you say .. so far). The Lendy implication, for me is a possible avenue for compensation depending on how it goes. I believe it will be cheaper and much less hassle for Lendy to pay up anyway, so I doubt we'll get there. But if we do, the more appropriate course will be a class action (a bit like in the US), which has now become a possibility in the UK since 2015. There are technical requirements for setting up such a case, however even if we do not satisfy the requirements for a typical class action, then we can still do a group litigation where we share the risks, costs and collective strength. Some lawyers (if not most/all) will be able to work in a way that have similar benefits to class actions anyway. I understand dualinvestor's concerns regarding Lendy's stability in trading. However, we have to breakdown the issue to understand the (reduced) risk to Lendy here: 1. Firstly, if Lendy can't find any better there's still avenue of 6M of liquidity for this loan. So the Default's due can reduced by 6M and that takes a good percentage off. 2. Secondly what we'll be suing against isn't for the whole 10-11M but for about 4M (unpaid or dismissed liability by Lendy) 3. The above (4M) is easily consumed by a year's earnings from Lendy (especially when this is offset against tax for the affected year and forward). So I agree there's concerns but I think (or would like to believe), this will not be a disaster for everyone (except the borrower's, unless his offer is accepted).
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 17, 2017 23:20:16 GMT
Ok, just looked a bit more into this and this seems a little bit dated:
Filed on: 6 Dec 2017:
Form: DISS40 - Notice of striking-off action discontinued
Filed on: 5 Dec 2017:
Form: GAZ1 - First notification of strike-off action in London Gazette (Section 1000)
I've also checked, the accounts have STILL not been filed as of today.
It would be helpful if someone from Lendy can shed some light on above?
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 17, 2017 23:05:48 GMT
From what I gather from informal source on the internet (so please take this with a pinch or spoonful of salt): Companies, without liabilities, can be struck off by its members or by CH however the striking off has to be discontinued if there is an objection. CH then issues a DISS40 to record that fact.
An objection can be made if there are court proceedings for example, against that company. The objection can be upheld (discontinued Strike Off) to prevent the company from manipulating it's assets in order to keep monies for debtors or it could just mean the accounts or annual return were received by Companies House. I am guessing it is the latter as we know they were late with the paperwork (apparently they received some sort of extension though .. so why the striking off in the first place?)
I am hoping this is the case (rather than a more sinister DFL001, DFL002 and other liabilities in the older T&Cs causing a catastrophe of sorts ?!?)
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 16, 2017 5:47:14 GMT
"I think this project is about as likely to succeed as building a freezer plant for pork scratchings in the Israeli-held part of the Sinai Desert..." Thanks for all the replies, much appreciated. I don't think the above would have much more success in the Egyptian part of the desert either. Now the thing is, I understand the exit strategy is reliant on the project's progress. However the security itself isn't and I do get the basis of the risk here, in that, if I'm reliant on the underlying security, then I'm also reliant, on what we've been told about the security by the platform and also on the recovery process. I'm very new to FS and I cannot ignore the grumble (in the gist that if there's smoke, I have to at least consider there may be fire). For this reason I'm out. Well while I say, I'm out .. I am going to put a tiny bit of money (probably just the minimum) to gauge some experience of the platform. I was only investing in L before but they are not as good anymore. Thanks again for all contribution.
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 14, 2017 23:59:48 GMT
"For FS.." At first attempt, I read above as "F F S" .. but got it right on second attempt. That should indicate how slow I am . And on this note, I feel I may be being a bit naive when assessing the risk after I've read the posts in this thread. As I understand it, the scepticism addressed here seems to be firmly against the provision of the planning application. However I have developed a (perhaps naive) view that with 250 acres of land as assets on first charge, it gives a good security even with a valuation of £8000 per acre ( I mean that would be £2M, easy recovery for a loan of 1.25M + interests? and if put into lots it should be pretty fast once repossessed?). Can someone please let me know what I'm missing?
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 9, 2017 16:16:29 GMT
ok, I found it:
4.4 Saving Stream guarantees the enforceability of all its existing Loan Agreements.
4.5 By funding a loan, you are agreeing to enter into a Loan Agreement with Saving Stream. Once you have Invested in a loan, the funds cannot be removed for the duration of that loan.
I will repeat once more that I'm not qualified to give legal advice and my opinions here are not professional
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 9, 2017 15:59:24 GMT
ok, rather than from the valuation document (where a brief glance was in vain), I found a precedent.
The margin of error should be the upper end of 15%. In order to establish negligence, a claimant (us) must prove the disputed valuation was “one which no reasonable valuer would have reached and was outside the permissible margin of error” although even if the valuation was outside the range, the professional may escape liability if he can prove he exercised reasonable skill and care.
The negligence angle is PLAN B.
I believe PLAN A, (if it comes to that) remains on the (apparent) fact that the loan contract was between the Lender and Lendy. This means, whether Lendy has included clauses or not trying to get out of liability, it still has to satisfy the principles of a (loan) contract .. However saying all that, now that I'm looking into it, I can't yet see where the "old terms" specifies us as the lender and 'savings stream' as the borrower. No I haven't spent a lot of time in it but if anyone can point me to that please, I'd be grateful?
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 9, 2017 15:25:13 GMT
Thanks for the pointers. Section 12:
12. LIMITS ON LIABILITY
12.1 We agree to:
12.1.1 act fairly, reasonably and responsibly in our dealings with you;
12.1.2 not discriminate against any Saving Stream Investor because of their race, sex, disability, ethnic background or sexuality; and
12.1.3 correct mistakes and handle complaints promptly in accordance with any agreed time periods.
12.2 Except as otherwise expressly stated in these terms and conditions, we shall only be liable for foreseeable loss or damage arising directly out of our own breaches of these terms and conditions, negligence or wilful misconduct.
12.3 Our liability to you on any basis whatsoever shall not exceed the total amount of revenue earned by Saving Stream in respect of transactions entered into by you through SavingStream.co.uk, save in relation to errors in the Market Value which can be shown, by reference to an appropriately qualified independent third party, were outside the Specified Tolerance at the time the valuation was made, in which case our liability to you shall not exceed the proportion of the principal amount of the loan which was funded by you.
12.4 We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with:
12.4.1 any error or inaccuracy in the data entered by you or any other Saving Stream Investor;
12.4.2 errors in the Market Value which can be shown, by reference to an appropriately qualified independent third party, were within the Specified Tolerance at the time the valuation was made;
12.4.3 changes in commodity prices;
12.4.4 fraud on the part of the Borrower; or
12.4.5 any negligence, breach of Agreement, misrepresentation or wilful misconduct in relation to the Loan Agreements or other uses of our platform (other than our own).
12.5 We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with lost data, lost profits, damage to goodwill or business interruption, any delay or failure to perform our own obligations under these terms and conditions due to circumstances beyond our own reasonable control. +-
12.6 Nothing in these terms and conditions shall exclude or limit the liability of either you or us for death or personal injury caused by our own negligent or fraudulent acts or omissions.
--------------------
To my reading, I find Lendy highly possibly liable for the principle amount of the loan. However, this will not be as per business-as-normal procedure. According to the terms above, Lendy can report a limited payout. A complaint will then likely be required. If upheld (it should be, based on above clauses .. if not then its a court case), the complaint will be followed by the engagement of a "qualified independent third party" to show that the (or if the) valuation was over-optimistic.
I will try to search for the parameters of the "Specified tolerance" in the original valuation, when I get a minute (if someone already has this handy, it would be nice if can be posted in this thread, thanks)
Disclaimer: Just to be clear, above is just an opinion, I'm not qualified to give legal advice and that is not intended.
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 9, 2017 9:08:20 GMT
I assume a 'legal beagle' forum member considered this point and LY have a get out clause and weren't liable to repay investors in full at the end of the contractual terms of all the old t&c loans. Is there a copy of the old terms and conditions on this forum?Yup, there's a link on ilmoro 's invaluable reference thread to a copy of the old T&Cs here. Although they were clearly drafted with SavingStream's original pawn-style lending model in mind, clauses 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 make it clear that lenders are on the hook for any shortfall. (crossed with MONEY ) Looking at the clauses mentioned: 5.2.3 Lendy provides no guarantee or warranty that the Market Value of any Asset will be realised at auction; and 5.2.4 an additional administration fee of 5% of the loan value will be deducted from the net proceeds of sale of the Asset at auction (after deduction of selling expenses such as commissions). Net proceeds of sale of Assets shall be used to settle amounts due in the following order: principal amount of loan which was funded by, and is repayable to the Investors (allocated in proportion to the loan amounts funded); fees due to Lendy in accordance with Lendy Ltd's Terms and Conditions; interest due to the Investors (allocated in proportion to the loan amounts funded); and the balance (if any) will be returned to the Borrower to their Nominated Account. I don't see these clauses making it clear that "lenders are on the hook for any shortfall". For example, clause 5.2.3 is a perfectly acceptable statement but based on the T&C we lent money to Lendy and if the Market value of the Asset is not realised then that's Lendy's problem, not ours. Obviously, we'd need a qualified lawyer to clarify (or mudify) the T&C as a whole but from reading the above clauses, I'm fairly sure Lendy isn't off the hook unless there are other clauses which are more relevant.
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 8, 2017 14:46:09 GMT
The "build out site" is now an option on the table. The plan is for the receiver to getting an IMS review. I'm a bit disappointed that this review hasn't been done already but moving on, I am glad this is now a possibility. In my opinion, I believe this is probably the one which has a chance to give us the capital and accrued interest (or at least most of it) back. The one disadvantage that it has is that it will take a while before this is completed. Does anyone have an idea how long it would take to finish the work?
Also it would be interesting to have a poll here on how many would back built-out-the-site vs just-get-rid-of-it. I don't know how to create poll here, if there's no such widget perhaps we could create two posts and people 'like' the relevant post as a vote ..
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 8, 2017 3:46:12 GMT
Valuation We use a number of highly rated independent firms to value security properties. Each firm will be a specialist in the region where the property is located. The firm will use a RICS registered valuer who is able to carry out a full red book valuation. They will also have significant PI cover. For development loans we appoint an Independent Monitoring Surveyor (IMS), who will certify build costs and satisfactory progress of the development, then monitors progress of a development finance project. Drawdowns from the loan will be made based on the IMS interim reports.
No problems there then with Late or Defaulted Loans, the Valuations and LTVs from such professional handling should be spot on, so you'll all lose nought. (my bold). If I may could I resurrect this link from a recent post and throw the following question(s) into the discussion?: 'Could this ruling impact on any p2p platforms (not just Lendy) ability to call upon the PI cover should any irregularities be suspected in a RICS valuation report, is the ruling relevant to us?' www.financialreporter.co.uk/legal/lenders-dealt-a-blow-as-supreme-court-overturns-negligent-valuations-decision.htmlFrom that article and the ruling it refers to, there is absolutely no decree (or simply ruling) which would suggest that the ability to call upon a PI cover by Lender(s) has been affected. In fact, that ruling in the article you point to has upholded just that. It has upholded the ability for the Lender to claim PI cover where it was duely applicable. To be clear, the appeal was against the fact that the original ruling affected both the original loan (first loan) AND the top up loan (second loan). While both loans' valuation were made by the same party and also underwritten by the same insurer, the original loan (first loan) was already redeemed by the Lender. This is why the ruling established that the insurer should only pay against the loss of the Top-up loan (second loan). Hope that makes it clearer, and lenders can go back to bed with ease ;-) (I won't as I have loans in both DFL001 and DFL002 .. I'm such a mug)
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Nov 29, 2017 1:52:56 GMT
At one time this forum created some interesting and knowledgeable posts that were well worth reading, from people like Dude, Il Moro and others, Now all I read is speculation and pessimism. The moral of the story is.. If you do not like Lendy, get out when you can and do not bother reading this link or posting That's not a moral, unless you are a Daily Mail reader (in the gist of if you don't like something in this country then you should get out). I'm not sure what your parents taught you, but the adept profess a moderate morality where if you don't like something you say so and you say why. It is discussed among peers here and we either keep our opinion, reform it or change it. Some new decisions may or may not come out of it. Not all of it will be informative but there is no harm in that and there is no harm to you either. I gained nothing from your post so you haven't contributed anything, if you were using your own (DM) moral, you should have stopped writing the minute you started typing. But with my 'morals' I welcome you to, it was a joy to hear from you and I look forward to your next ones.
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Nov 24, 2017 22:36:09 GMT
I would rather take a bigger loss letting this go to another buyer than see this apparently and allegedly* objectionable person clean up at our expense. ... Let Lendy negotiate an outcome and take a hit lettign it go to another buyer. I agree with the above statement even though my reasons (and logic) is different. If Lendy accepts the offer from the borrower, the latter uses up its own capital leaving nothing for Lendy to pursue as personal guarantees. If Lendy accepts a third party's offer, it can then have an opportunity to make up the shortfall against the borrower for the rest of the owed money. I really hope Lendy realise this.
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Nov 24, 2017 22:08:30 GMT
I have just seen evidence that the reason that people are buying from the SM rather than the latest tranche is because their IQ is 24...... Someone has just purchased a £55k chunk ....Not from the cash back tranche? ? How many IQs does a £55k chunk give you?
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Nov 24, 2017 15:36:33 GMT
Today's update doesn't mention anything about whether the new offer covers all capital and accrued interests.
|
|