|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 5, 2019 11:24:51 GMT
Also, LY changing T&C half way through a loan term and saying if you remain in the loan then you’re deemed to have accepted. They did that at a time when it was nigh on impossible to get out of any loans. I’m not a legal expert but a lot of LY behaviour feels like it’s gone beyond unethical . At the very least, it should be a breach of FCA regulations. Has the FCA ever fined any p2p platform? I’ve never known any business s*it on their customers the way LY does. " if you remain in the loan then you’re deemed to have accepted " <- It is a fully unfair contractual term as the lender has no option, other than to remain in the loan. You may wish to consider suing lendy to buy back the amount of the loan you wish to exit so that they can honour their new contract. There is not even a secondary market which allows the lender to shift the loan (at a discount) onto a corporate lender who is licenced to accept such defaulted securities. Hence a fully unfair contractual term. I have no knowledge of the FCA fining P2P companies, only imposing restrctions on them. Don’t take those words literally but it was something along those lines as we did have a discussion running on the forums about it. It also might not have been stated contractually. I can’t really remember. LY simply threw out updated T&C and more or less said we’ve changed some stuff to make our position better and your position worse, deal with it. We were debating how contractual T&C can be changed mid term (answer, because LY do whatever they want) and what we could do about it (answer, nothing as we are trapped in loans that cannot be sold). As usual, I haven’t come armed with facts so will need Adrian etc to bring facts to the table.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 4, 2019 16:38:04 GMT
MT, its been two weeks since, what read as, a 'holding update' was provided and now 4 weeks since the latest opening date has passed. Could we have something more specific which sets out how things are progressing and summarises the current plan with timings? It would be helpful if you could confirm that a re-finance is still on the cards, that the proposed lenders are still in the frame and the likely timescales for achieving it. Thank you It appears things are progressing what ever way the borrower wants them to progress. Still no sign of any “family money” to cover interest. Did we ever believe that. This borrower is toying with MT like a cat toys with a mouse.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 4, 2019 15:51:14 GMT
When your capital is not at risk and yours fees are taken upfront (even if some of it is then paid out monthly) your incentive is volume not quality. It's an excellent business model and by the time the defaults start mounting you're already rich. Yep, that was my point. As well as the fact that they make more money from those loans that have been left in default for years than they do from loans that repay on time.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 4, 2019 12:53:42 GMT
I have on the last day received a response from FS. They claim that both them and us were deceived by a fraudulent borrower. They refuse to answer any question over why they did not have the items in their possession. It it my opinion that lenders were deceived by FS who should have had hold of the surety. FS have recommended I go to through the The Financial Ombudsman Service complaints procedure, which I will do now. Am I missing anything here please? Only that maybe we should wait until its clear FS close to exhausted their efforts because if we don't they might just tell the Ombudsman "...customer hasn't lost any money because we are still pursing the borrower and have a good expectation of a result...." Its tricky though because clearly we can't wait forever. I would suggest that pursuing a crook who has been declared bankrupt does not have “a good expectation of a result”. I hope this borrower is at least given some prison time, hopefully in the cell next to the <redacted>.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 4, 2019 12:36:52 GMT
The list would be a list of risk takers with money - the idea of p2p is still good - bad valuations by professionals though - the law allowing testing of new things - the fca giving your assets to receivers have all been a little unpredictable . P2p is a great idea but has had very poor execution. The reason it’s had poor execution is that poor execution makes them more money than good execution. I’m actually struggling to think of another business where the worse they perform the more money they make. Obviously it’s not sustainable.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 4, 2019 12:22:26 GMT
I have no idea why you are attempting to twist everything I say, but ..... One last time, I found the steady stream of one post count people asking for a pm from Mucho to be ridiculous, as he didn't know them from Adam, he was most unlikely to go sharing any info with them that could in any way have been of interest to the other side. if he took time out to help people he felt were genuine, and he could offer some words of advice and comfort, well more power to his elbow Thats my last word on this CharlieBrown! My last word too. When you put it like that I agree with you. wasn’t try to twist words, I misunderstood your point. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 4, 2019 12:16:32 GMT
The recent choppy waters have encouraged me to look for alternative investments shop.lego.com/en-GB/product/Steamboat-Willie-21317I think this will be worth a small fortune in 20 years time ( ), and in the meantime it'll look good on the coffee table. I reckon you could pawn that over at FS for 100k. Say it’s a one of a kind made by Walt himself. Don’t worry they won’t check. They won’t even need you to deposit it as security, they’ll let you keep it as long as you promise you won’t sell it.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 4, 2019 12:03:54 GMT
Of course I wasn't criticising Mucho, what on earth makes you think I was......I wrote "Now if you assembled a list of those begging for a Mucho pm....", could I have been any clearer? Those people continually begging for something which was abundantly obviously not going to be forthcoming, ignoring what Mucho himself wrote......those people are imvho *mugs*! Like others have said, the man himself has been a very welcome beacon of calm & good sense throughout this process, and I am immensely grateful for the time & trouble he has taken!! Why would you be grateful to someone who has taken the trouble to help mugs? Those mugs may have been people who “invested” a quid and were then told by LY the borrower might be coming after everything they’ve got. However unlikely YOU knew that was going to turn out to be, don’t forget that threats like that from an aggressive borrower do frighten some people.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 4, 2019 11:55:07 GMT
I still wonder if Lendy acted within their rights to play now you see it now you don't with this loan. If I was a big hitter I would be in close talks with my legal advisor. Also, LY changing T&C half way through a loan term and saying if you remain in the loan then you’re deemed to have accepted. They did that at a time when it was nigh on impossible to get out of any loans. I’m not a legal expert but a lot of LY behaviour feels like it’s gone beyond unethical . At the very least, it should be a breach of FCA regulations. Has the FCA ever fined any p2p platform? I’ve never known any business s*it on their customers the way LY does.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 4, 2019 11:32:55 GMT
Let's call a spade a spade, it's a mug's list which is why it is so valuable. Speak for yourself..... But unless there's a sub list of those on this one still putting money into LY........ unlikely to be of much value to the buyers of such lists!! Now if you assembled a list of those begging for a Mucho pm........ I’d personally like to thank Mucho, he/she has spent a lot of time and effort doing research and offering some evidence based reassurance to those who were genuinely worried. Are you criticising Mucho here, or are you criticising the people who requested Mucho’s help. Talking about mugs list, the most valuable list must be the list of those that put money into LY Wealth (if anyone actually did). Which raises an interesting question, what if people put money into a black box product which LY then put into a dodgy loan where the borrower sued the Lender. I actually think it’s ludicrous that the court ordered LY to hand over all our details.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 3, 2019 14:15:44 GMT
I have been taken in by this valuation subterfuge. At that time I put a lot of trust in LY before I realised they can never be trusted, but I always remember reading something somewhere that stated valuations never include any hope value under any circumstances. I’d like to see LY audited and investigated. I’d like to know whether they’re just unethical or they’re something much worse. So lemme just get this straight... You looked at the valuation doc for PBL199, and you read through it... and you understood that the 90day vacant possession value of £8.75m referred to an absolute bare minimum floor value for 0.89acres of mud and rubble? Even though that was clearly shown to be a discount from the "site valuation" clearly back-calculated from the rental value of the finished units at a stated yield after build costs were deducted? Even though the loan particulars state for a fact that the £4m includes 100% of the purchase price of the site (after the site's value has "increased substantially" through the granting of planning permission), prior to development starting? No, and I don’t even understand what you’ve just written. I looked at the published LTV and LY’s assurances that there was no hope value attached. I didn’t invest much in this one anyway so no problem. However, is LY’s published LTV designed to be a trap for less knowledgeable investors who trusted an FCA approved platform.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 3, 2019 14:08:26 GMT
Prefer administration. Really? Ridiculous. Updates every few months. Horrendous hourly rate costs that will be charged against lenders money. What we're getting at the moment if far from ideal but the idea of adminstration being preferable is stupid. I was rather upset after reading another batch of patronising no progress updates. However, unless something changes, Administrators will need to be brought in sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 3, 2019 13:41:00 GMT
I have been taken in by this valuation subterfuge. At that time I put a lot of trust in LY before I realised they can never be trusted, but I always remember reading something somewhere that stated valuations never include any hope value under any circumstances. I’d like to see LY audited and investigated. I’d like to know whether they’re just unethical or they’re something much worse.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 3, 2019 13:25:02 GMT
Lendy has been a life changing experience for me. I have withdrawn whatever I can from all P2P and gone into the stock market. I am doing very well since January, and will never return to P2P. I would rather suffer a 40% wipeout in a recession than hand my hard earned money to a bunch of <potentially libellous comment removed>. Atleast with the stock market shares do recover, with P2P your money goes into a black hole never to be seen again. I can relate to this. At first I loved the idea of p2p, bringing together investors with surplus funds and borrowers needing funds for a legitimate purpose. Deals transacted through a reputable platform that would perform stringent due diligence and manage progress/repayments. However, in practice, the borrowers are shysters, the people running the platforms are wide-boy <potentially libellous comment removed> and the valuers are <potentially libellous comment removed> (cynics might think they are in cahoots). The upshot being that everyone makes quick and easy money, apart from the investors who lose their shirts.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 3, 2019 13:23:54 GMT
odd ... I received the H** posted letter from December but haven't received today's email. I guess that to signup for H** now (to be part of any final agreement) would require to back pay the monthly fees from November or whenever this started. So, lets say 50% of lenders go with H** and get final agreement and 50% of lenders aren't part of the agreement. Then can borrower really still try to pursue only half of the lenders and not all? I would have thought that if only one lender became part of the final agreement, it would be hard to pursue the others. The Claimant would have to show how those that reached the agreement were different from the others who had not taken a proactive role. So shall we all chip in 50p and get one of us cleared via the courts.
|
|