Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Jun 9, 2017 9:05:10 GMT
ablrate I would appreciate it if you could provide reassurance on the following points. - The Borrowing Proposal refers to a CCJ of £482. Is the CCJ actually for £482,000? - Can you confirm the borrower will not receive funds from Ablrate lenders until the CCJ is settled or lifted? - Companies House currently shows a charge registered to another party on **5 H***** Rd only. Does the CCJ affect the ability to transfer the property charge on **5 H***** Rd to Ablrate and to create a charge on **3 H***** Rd? - Would the CCJ if successful prevent a charge being registered on **3 H***** Rd until settled? - Can you also confirm the borrower currently owns **3 H***** Rd? Thanks. Good questions thanks - which deserve to be posted on the Ablrate site. I'll do it if you don't want to. I was digging through this late last night as I've been looking at Ablrate for a little while but not invested as yet. I could also see the charge at CH for **5 against the underlying borrower, i.e. APF's customer S******** who have a charge themselves on **5. What should I be seeing here, a charge against both properties for Abl?
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Mar 1, 2017 9:25:17 GMT
Just noticed the interest status column, few more defaulted loans now, though not listed in defaulted loans tab yet. More transparency on loan status, got to be a good thing.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Mar 1, 2017 9:02:04 GMT
So long INPL, it was great fun while it lasted.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Feb 28, 2017 16:52:56 GMT
Fair play justsaying for posting the full dialogue. There's clearly an increase in frustration through the interaction and I understand this. The change in tone does come after the fca comment as per the other post observing this. I would always try to remember the size and maturity of SS, they will have a long list of issues which will not be prioritised in the way the customers might prefer. This particular issue is a pain but in the broader scheme of things it's probably not in the top 10 in my view. I do think forumites have a tendency to go nuclear with the fca option over fairly innocuous stuff when there are greater issues that we should be pressing them to prioritise. All in all, not the best response from them but I'll call it score draw. (I've witnessed far worse in much more mature financial service companies). EDIT; of course I would have given them both barrels!
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Feb 28, 2017 14:34:45 GMT
I think it's fair to say SS don't really have a trained customer service team who always give the right response no matter how difficult or demanding the query or customer is. If you would like to disclose your email as you have their response then I'd give you a balanced view on the interaction.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Feb 25, 2017 19:32:15 GMT
The more I think about it the more it looks like hunger games. Perfect example of the Greater Fool Theory in action. It is stunning.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Feb 10, 2017 16:55:38 GMT
Oh dear...
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Feb 9, 2017 13:55:55 GMT
In the specific case of these loans where the update mentioned settlement negotiations why would SS continue to fund the interest when there is a probability that it will not be recouped, that's no small amount on a monthly basis. SS fund the interest if it is their belief that the value of the asset will cover the capital outlay by investors and the interest that is being outlayed by themselves, they would believe that they are covered because they will get their money back once the loan is settled/asset sold which obviously isn't the case in this instance. The benefit for them is that they can then continue to pretend that the borrower is servicing the loan monthly and not have to put the loan into default as was the case with PBL020 which to some would look worse on the company, personally I expect a few defaults in order to receive interest rates this high.
It actually goes further on PBL081 where SS have leant the borrower a further £200k because he messed up and did work outside of the PP but didn't have the money to correct it. I would assume that they expect the property to exceed the capital lent by the interest they are presumably paying and also the extra £200k they have lent to the borrower.
Thanks for the reply toffeeboy, the course of action by SS on PBL081 doesn't concern me as they were transparent about it and are funding this out if there own pocket on the judgement that the security will repay, seems this is a good solution for the borrower given the mess they got into. Propping loans up and paying out interest without disclosure when it's not clear if these funds will be recouped just doesn't feel right from a business sense for SS or the borrower. The borrower's debt to SS increases and SS are exposed to the potential loss. Like you I expect defaults also and the true test is how well these are handled.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Feb 8, 2017 21:19:18 GMT
In the specific case of these loans where the update mentioned settlement negotiations why would SS continue to fund the interest when there is a probability that it will not be recouped, that's no small amount on a monthly basis.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Feb 8, 2017 21:09:32 GMT
Got my vote. In the recent general update there was mention of the default policy documentation being updated and I'd like to see this type of simple transparency incorporated also.
I have a question. As there is more than a strong suspicion that loans are being propped up can someone explain the benefit of this from the borrower's viewpoint? As SS prop up a loan in which they think they will retrieve the interest upon sale why wouldn't the borrower prefer to default and avoid additional loss from the asset value. Is this because the borrower would be hit with even higher fees in the case of default and being propped up is preferable?
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Feb 5, 2017 12:02:15 GMT
There's probably quite a few investors that have taken a big position in this one. If there's potential for this to be repaid as the update suggests then I can imagine people may start to transition into other loans rather than wake up to a large credit in there account at some point over the next few months with nowhere for it to go.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Feb 4, 2017 13:06:46 GMT
"All indications are that this loan should be repaid relatively soon. A sale has been agreed and is now going into legals"
From this weeks update in case you missed it. A long term and sizeable loan being repaid early.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Feb 2, 2017 20:02:37 GMT
..I invested with grave misgivings.... Brilliant, love that line. EDIT: GeorgeT I think you should propose that as a slogan. "SS, invest with grave misgivings". Maybe they could work it into the rebrand!
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Jan 30, 2017 11:11:41 GMT
I had this issue the other day and SS were prompt to resolve and confirmed back the same day. I have to say I do see many people reporting issues with SS support response but my experience has always been positive, especially when issues are known technical faults that can occur.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Jan 19, 2017 19:34:57 GMT
Anybody invested in this loan should search for the borrower's name today He is the news... If you know the further details, it also cements the fact that our man went via a different name between 1995 & 2010. Plenty of LTV still to be leveraged, place your bets for another tranche to cover the fine!
|
|