chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 5, 2019 18:03:41 GMT
Monetus has confirmed elsewhere (see p2pindependentforum.com/post/309168 ) and BDO's reports make fairly clear that it is BDO's intention to do so. But I haven't seen any clarity as to your question in the other thread about how interest payments rank among this. As you mentioned in the other thread, I'm not sure if anything was written into any company or Land Registry charges, and certainly unaware of anything in loan or tranche contracts. I'm also not sure what evidence is available on any loan documents or individual loan tranches that appeared on the web-site as unfortunately I didn't keep copies, although I am sure some did.
p2pindependentforum.com/post/208317/thread
One thing I do have are some "New Loan" notification emails from Collateral relating to various loans that mirror the wording of the latter link.
That first link is definitely very helpful on the interest payment point. Although - as you suggest - open question as to where this might have been recorded, and to what extent BDO is aware of it/intends to follow it.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 5, 2019 17:56:50 GMT
Some guesses off the top of my head: 1) While 'validation' appears to have occurred for the majority at this stage, there are clearly still issues more generally. They may be cautious about releasing apparently 'validated' accounts, just to have a few lenders come back to them to say they've screwed up and theirs are actually still with problems (e.g. with the underlying detail, rather than the total amount). It makes sense for them to want to iron out whatever kinks exist in their overall methodology before releasing any to avoid this. 2) If they can't reconcile the accounts of some lenders, it may (I'm not sure) be difficult for them to adopt their currently intended approach of loan-by-loan/tranche-by-tranche distributions for anyone. If they start releasing this information to investors now, before they know for sure they can adopt this approach, it's just going to cause trouble. 3) It's generally likely to be more efficient (and, therefore, cheaper) to do these things in one go rather than in batches - but they can't do that until numbers are confirmed for everyone. I don't think it is that important that everything balances to the nearest penny. Once the Administrators have a firm handle on things they can ask each participant to confirm that the proposal they have in mind is agreeable. Provided all agree or any discrepancies become mutually acceptable/sorted things can go forward. It really is not that difficult. This isn't about things balancing to the nearest penny - I'm assuming you've seen posts on this forum claiming their totals are way off? "Once the Administrators have a firm handle on things..." "Provided all agree..." "...any discrepancies become mutually acceptable/sorted..." Aren't you making quite a few assumptions here? You're basically saying "once everything is sorted, it will be sorted." The whole point is that apparently it's not yet sorted! Of course if they solve everything then it'll be fine - that's kind of my point: It's potentially difficult for them to start sending out investor records until they have solved everything. I wasn't commenting on how easy or difficult that will be, because obviously I don't have direct knowledge of the detail.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 5, 2019 17:36:01 GMT
Cash that was held in the Collateral client account is considered a "trust asset". The data recovery process is still ongoing in regards to reconciling balances. Monetus, thanks for your ongoing efforts. With DFLs do you know if the first, second etc charges will be honoured? Monetus has confirmed elsewhere (see p2pindependentforum.com/post/309168 ) and BDO's reports make fairly clear that it is BDO's intention to do so. But I haven't seen any clarity as to your question in the other thread about how interest payments rank among this.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 5, 2019 14:59:06 GMT
Was rummaging around on MSE and came across a link to a newspaper article that detailed the collapse of the borrower's property empire. Looks like he also has several large loans on Ly gone south.
I'm in the first charge on the Col loan, so hopefully will see full recovery.
Yes, full recovery for BDO. No disrespect meant, but what do you think you're adding with these comments exactly? Yes, they'll be paid fully to do their job - which, of course, they should be. It just happens that their job unfortunately involves being paid out of assets owed to us. But that's just how administrations work. If you don't like that, you've got complaints with the entire system of administration - not BDO.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 5, 2019 14:55:28 GMT
Yes, full recovery for BDO. First charge will be fine. Hopefully most of second charge and some of later charges too. Does first charge interest get paid before or after later charge capital for this one? Good question - it'll come down to whatever the Collateral T&C said about this, surely? It's been a while now, so I've started to forget, but I think these layers of "charges" actually aren't charges per se (i.e. you wouldn't see separate registrations at CH); they're internal Collateral arrangements as to how the different tranches rank for lenders. So the loan agreement itself would be silent on this issue. Happy to be corrected on this, though. If I'm right, does anyone have any ideas what the Collateral rules for this were, if it was commented on at all? This is yet another complexity for BDO to deal with (complexity which I really wish people would take into account before constantly laying into them).
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 29, 2019 8:55:43 GMT
Sorry if I'm missing something, but what's your point? The italicised provision is just a caveat to make clear that, for example, someone's assets can be seized if they evade tax or the like. "We, the FCA, took the action we did in the public interest." End of. Bye. Don't let the legal bill for both sides hit you in the backside on the way out. Oh, and don't forget... So you've already taken the case against the FCA to the Supreme Court, and lost, before you can even go near the ECHR. Except it'd have been tested against the same criteria in a domestic court first, under HRA98. 1) I already said above that I wasn't sure about the feasibility of this and that it would be incredibly expensive anyway. That said, I don't think the provision you cite does what you think it does. If you could blanketly claim 'public interest' for enforcement of any and all laws, the ECHR would never have any use. 2) Yes - as I already mentioned above, you would use the HRA to make a claim in the UK first. And yes, again as I have already said, this would all be incredibly expensive (and this was one of the reasons I originally said that). Can we stop violently agreeing with each other that this is almost certainly not a good idea?
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 29, 2019 8:37:43 GMT
Re. costs - yes likely to be expensive, but nonetheless a possibility if supported by a sufficient number of investors in a class action. I believe it to be best at this stage if all options are kept open, with nothing ruled out. 'Class actions' are an American thing. Something similar was brought in in 2015 for competition infringements, but that's not relevant here. There are ways that multiple people can bring claims in the UK, but it's not quite the same idea as a US class action, as far as I'm aware The trouble with the ECHR is that member states have to 'best accommodate' it's decisions (they are not binding on states, you currently need the European Courts of Justice for that). The biggest number of adverse decisions are against Russia and their 'best accommodation' is to effectively ignore the decision. Remember the 'can't extradite Abu Hamza' fuss when Teresa May was Home Secretary? It was 90% political bluster, as long as the death sentence wasn't an issue he could have been extradited to the US far earlier. Political embarrassment yes, barrier no. As for costs, the ECHR it is perfectly accessible to an individual, you don't need a legal team as long as you are prepared to do a fair bit of reading. I as a Litigant in Person (LIP) have helped another person to have a case heard at the ECHR and I myself have had a case listed in the European Courts of Justice. The European Courts are far more accessible than the Royal Courts of Justice (High Court) where every barrier is put in place against LIP's. That said I do not believe legal action is appropriate here. The HRA means that you often don't need to actually go to the ECtHR (because it imports the rights into UK law), so you don't necessarily need to work about the enforceability of the latter's decisions because you can get a UK court order. You also don't necessarily 'need a legal team' in the UK courts either, but - while I do not doubt for a second your abilities - I don't think we'd want to go anywhere near this without a good legal team taking care of it. Interesting that you find European courts more accessible because the procedure for the CJEU (I have no direct experience of the ECtHR) was always an utter nightmare for me...! It's protection of property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 that is relevant (again, mentioned by the Minister in the link I posted above). The FCA's statutory liability indeed does not restrict claims relating to this. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the case law in this area to comment further on how feasible this might be, though. (And, even if it were feasible, it's likely that it would be bloody expensive!) My italics. Sorry if I'm missing something, but what's your point? The italicised provision is just a caveat to make clear that, for example, someone's assets can be seized if they evade tax or the like. Okay, that's enough boring law chat from me, given it's a bit of a tangent from this thread's title..!
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 28, 2019 18:03:09 GMT
With reference to potentially suing the FCA, I believe this has previously been attempted through the European Court of Human Rights. Which article of the convention are they breaching? www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdfNot one bit, because the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. It's protection of property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 that is relevant (again, mentioned by the Minister in the link I posted above). The FCA's statutory liability indeed does not restrict claims relating to this. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the case law in this area to comment further on how feasible this might be, though. (And, even if it were feasible, it's likely that it would be bloody expensive!)
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 28, 2019 14:36:24 GMT
... What would be the reason we have all sent our we want our money back if it all goes to letters then? ... Because it isn't always about what benefits the 'me' and 'now'. Sometimes, taking a particular, coordinated course of action and then strategically publicising it, generates improvements which benefits the 'us' and 'others' and 'the future'. Also because, as I said above, there is still the Complaints Commissioner who can order compensation to be paid.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 28, 2019 10:43:32 GMT
The slight issue with this is that you can't sue the FCA, I'm afraid. There goes my train of thought then. What would be the reason why you cannot sue them. Are they above the law? Just basically means they can do what the hell they want when they want. Are they a profit making organization? What would be the reason we have all sent our we want our money back if it all goes to letters then? Yes i know too many questions in one post. Sorry. See my subsequent response to ozboy, including the link. Basically the FCA has statutory immunity from damages actions, but you can still make complaints which could result in compensation.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 28, 2019 8:24:45 GMT
If I'm reading the latest update correctly, BDO think the majority of lenders accounts are validated apart from the "small number" they mentioned. Any reason why BDO cannot email each of that majority with details of loans assigned to them, so we can compare with our own records? Some guesses off the top of my head: 1) While 'validation' appears to have occurred for the majority at this stage, there are clearly still issues more generally. They may be cautious about releasing apparently 'validated' accounts, just to have a few lenders come back to them to say they've screwed up and theirs are actually still with problems (e.g. with the underlying detail, rather than the total amount). It makes sense for them to want to iron out whatever kinks exist in their overall methodology before releasing any to avoid this. 2) If they can't reconcile the accounts of some lenders, it may (I'm not sure) be difficult for them to adopt their currently intended approach of loan-by-loan/tranche-by-tranche distributions for anyone. If they start releasing this information to investors now, before they know for sure they can adopt this approach, it's just going to cause trouble. 3) It's generally likely to be more efficient (and, therefore, cheaper) to do these things in one go rather than in batches - but they can't do that until numbers are confirmed for everyone.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 27, 2019 18:49:57 GMT
"The slight issue with this is that you can't sue the FCA, I'm afraid." chris1200 Bugger. Explains a LOT about their actions and attitudes then doesn't it. It's certainly less than ideal from our perspective! It does appear to be something that certain MPs aren't overly keen on (see, for example: www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2019-03-04/228164/), but even if there were a change in the law, it's almost impossible that it would act to create retrospective liability. (That said, as discussed elsewhere, there are of course other avenues for complaint which can result in compensation - but they're not damages claims.)
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 27, 2019 17:17:59 GMT
The more you think about this mess the more firmly should the finger of blame be pointed at the FCA. BDO are simply the financial equivalent of bluebottles on a rotting carcase doing an unwholesome waste disposal. Whatever we end up with the FCA will be topping up the shortfall if there is any because i cant see they have a leg to stand on if we all sue which i know i will be doing. The slight issue with this is that you can't sue the FCA, I'm afraid.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Mar 11, 2019 17:49:11 GMT
Yes but if they had more communication with us, then costs would be even higher and people would complain even more. I’m not happy with every aspect of this, but they just can’t win on this forum! It isn't always about the quantity of communication - it can be about the quality and the timing of it. My point is just that, if you want more hand-holding that's all well and good, but it will increase costs (given I assume by 'quality' you mean more information, and by 'timing' you mean more frequent). Everyone is going to have a different preference on this and that's fine. This isn't the type of point I was criticising above, and I've only been dragged onto this by travolta's slightly incomprehensible rebuttal to me above. I won't say any more - let's just please stick to fair and reasonable criticism and not dream up baseless conspiracies/have a go at BDO for anything and everything just because we're all very upset about this whole thing? Thanks!
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Mar 11, 2019 16:18:42 GMT
Defending BDO technique, at this stage in the game seems ingenuous. Their delivery is sparse and abrupt and does not leave me reassured that I'm in safe hands, or that they are up to the job. Whether this is the macho email brief or the wringing of hands at the complexity of the issue. I feel that considering the cost of their employment ,a little customer relations wouldn't go amiss or are they all wordless cowboys, eyes narrowed on the screen horizon. (If it is , in fact , an' all', or just Yvonne and a couple of hours after a latte in Pret . Yes but if they had more communication with us, then costs would be even higher and people would complain even more. I’m not happy with every aspect of this, but they just can’t win on this forum!
|
|