sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
General P2x Discussion
MP Letter
Mar 27, 2024 16:44:16 GMT
micky likes this
Post by sqh on Mar 27, 2024 16:44:16 GMT
Had a reply to the letter from my MP saying:- "Thank you for your recent email regarding the Financial Conduct Authority and the P2P industry. I have contacted HM Treasury on your behalf to raise your concerns and will send you a copy of their response as soon as I receive it. Thank you for taking the time to contact me. Kind regards". That will be the last I will hear about it. Thank you for the update. HM Treasury will probably respond with a standard response in the name of Bim Afolami. What I would really like to achieve as a result of this process is to identify one or more MPs who are prepared to champion our case rather than just play postman. brianlom1I think it would be better to get a member of the House of Lords to champion the cause, the MPs are too busy. Lord Myners took an interest in Collateral and obtained a letter from Andrew Bailey admitting that the FCA failed to secure the FCA Register. Unfortunately, he passed in Jan 2022.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Feb 8, 2024 14:54:19 GMT
Hi Duck, Yes I got the same email at 15:50 on Feb 6th.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Feb 5, 2024 21:54:21 GMT
FUNDINGSECURE - "INNOCENT INVESTORS" GIVEN MARCH DEADLINE IN 500K QUISTCLOSE CLAIMA judge has approved directions in a High Court claim after a disgruntled creditor of the failed peer-to-peer lending firm FundingSecure alleged its £500k investment was misappropriated and should be returned. Read more The Court Order only talks of 63 persons who will be contacted in writing. Presumably these are the lenders whose money was frozen nearly 3 years ago by the administrator. More recently the administrator has withheld 7.5% of all recent recoveries as an indemnity, presumably against Quistclose. Therefore, I would think all lenders should be included although it's not clear how the 7.5% will be used. I would like to make a statement to the Court if the 7.5% is at risk due to Quistclose, but I'm not one of the 63.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Oct 30, 2023 10:15:49 GMT
The problem has been created by dodgy legal advice.
The legal advisor made an opinion on the Barnoldswick loan and then wasn't prepared to overturn his advice when the facts were explained.
What I find remarkable is that the former Director Nigel Hackett hasn't been asked for his opinion, despite being a consultant for the administrator. I have asked, and his view is that the loan was made as described.
It should be noted that the legal adviser has got everything wrong to date. 1. The 5% fee which was overturned by a Court. 2. The Quistclose claim which hasn't been formally submitted and has not Court directive whatsoever. 3. The Barnsoldswick loan re. loan priority, which could not be made clearer.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Sept 21, 2023 18:55:02 GMT
A loan of £587,000 secured by a 1st charge on a substantial residential property in Barnoldswick (border between Lancashire and North Yorkshire) with adjoining land. FundingSecure previously lent £188,000 (loan ref 2861004433) under a second charge with another lender taking the first charge. The borrower now wishes to replace the first charge lender with FundingSecure. The second charge loan remains in place and ranks behind this loan.It seems pretty clear cut to me. gaspilot It is clear and there was a very good reason for maintaining the priority. Not only is it clear that there is a priority of the tranches. It even specifically states the order of priority. The reason for maintaining the priority was that if the 1st and 2nd charges were merged then the 2nd charge loan would have needed to be repaid early. Rolling up the interest would have pushed the LTV above 70%. For all their failings FS didn't issue 1st charge loans over 70% LTV. Therefore, they kept the 2nd charge and specifically stated the prioritisation. I think Edward understands this but his lawyer doesn't. I think 80% should be paid out to 1st charge holders now and the 20% should be withheld pending a legal claim from those in the 2nd charge. I'm sure plenty of lenders in the first charge will give a Court statement defending their rights in the 1st charge without the need for excessive legal costs.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Sept 17, 2023 11:03:22 GMT
somoDear SOMO Representative. I know what I'm about to say is not directly relevant to this thread but there is a reference to cg-recovery.com which I feel needs to be aired. I have considered joining SOMO as a lender for some time, but I was aware you were not regulated for P2P loans, although I see you are regulated for other parts of the business. Given that The FCA has failed to properly regulate most P2P platforms, I now take the view that reputation is far more important than regulation. However, I see from your post in his thread on Sept 13th 2023 at 4:25 PM that you use a company called cg-recovery.com as receivers, although I don't recognise the name jonathan gribit. I feel I should make you aware that cg-recovery is causing lenders in failed P2P platform FundingSecure a great deal of anguish. Cg-recovery took on the administration of FundingSecure in Oct 2019 and for 6 months they behaved honourably in the interests of lenders. They then turned against the lenders, and they have demonstrated a persistent disregard for lenders money. Lenders were invited by Edward Avery-Gee to take legal action against FundingSecure in administration. We did, and we won our case on March 31st 2021, however, Edward Avery-Gee has largely ignored that ruling and is using any available means he can to frustrate lenders for as long as possible. He is withholding several million pounds of lender money and using unjustified reasons for retaining that money. Personally, he is holding over £100k of my ring-fenced money in loans that were recovered by receivers over 2 years ago. Many P2P lenders now consider cg-recovery a fraudulent company and I would recommend staying clear of the company until such time as they mend their ways and pay out the money owed to lenders in FundingSecure.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Aug 15, 2023 8:57:11 GMT
Latest Updates on 1st Charge Barnoldswick (8010286828) 11/08/2023 Following previous updates in this matter we have received a number of emails from Investors regarding this loan. These have been reviewed by our solicitors and their advice (without waiving privilege) remains that we should proceed as they have previously advised, that is to apportion the sale proceeds to the separate pieces of land so that those in the second charge loan will receive approximately 20% of the net sale proceeds, however given the contentious nature of this matter, we have been further advised to keep the matter open for a further 28 days to allow Investors to challenge this position. Following the expiry of the 28 day period further legal advice will be sought. 11/07/2023 As previously advised, there has been an issue raised in connection with the Baroldswick Loans which have required further investigation and legal advice. After taking legal advice, it has become apparent that these loans were not first and second charges in the way in which they were presented on the Platform. The Barnoldswick Loan was over a Property and some Adjoining Land. The Adjoining Land was purchased first, using the loan advertised as “a second charge loan”. The Property was subsequently purchased using the “First Charge loan”. The charge registered was an “all monies” charge and therefore relates to both loans. In the circumstances, we have been advised that the net proceeds of sale should be apportioned as between the Property and the Adjoining Land. Using the purchase values it is clear that 20% of the Net Proceeds of Sale must be apportioned to the Second Charge Loan. We intend on keeping this matter open for the next fourteen days, following which we will recalculate the net proceeds of sale and update the Platform in due course thereafter. I find the advice baffling on 3 points. 1. There is an explicit statement of priority stated on the 1st charge loan. 2. The 2nd charge loan is named "2nd Charge Barnoldswick (2861004433)" and the 1st charge loan is named "1st Charge Barnoldswick (8010286828)" 3. The 2nd charge loan offers a higher rate. To give them equal status goes against the principles of secured lending, not just FS, not just P2P lending, but all secured lending.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Aug 15, 2023 8:38:50 GMT
Latest Updates on 1st Charge Barnoldswick (8010286828)
11/08/2023 Following previous updates in this matter we have received a number of emails from Investors regarding this loan. These have been reviewed by our solicitors and their advice (without waiving privilege) remains that we should proceed as they have previously advised, that is to apportion the sale proceeds to the separate pieces of land so that those in the second charge loan will receive approximately 20% of the net sale proceeds, however given the contentious nature of this matter, we have been further advised to keep the matter open for a further 28 days to allow Investors to challenge this position. Following the expiry of the 28 day period further legal advice will be sought.
11/07/2023 As previously advised, there has been an issue raised in connection with the Baroldswick Loans which have required further investigation and legal advice.
After taking legal advice, it has become apparent that these loans were not first and second charges in the way in which they were presented on the Platform. The Barnoldswick Loan was over a Property and some Adjoining Land. The Adjoining Land was purchased first, using the loan advertised as “a second charge loan”. The Property was subsequently purchased using the “First Charge loan”.
The charge registered was an “all monies” charge and therefore relates to both loans. In the circumstances, we have been advised that the net proceeds of sale should be apportioned as between the Property and the Adjoining Land. Using the purchase values it is clear that 20% of the Net Proceeds of Sale must be apportioned to the Second Charge Loan.
We intend on keeping this matter open for the next fourteen days, following which we will recalculate the net proceeds of sale and update the Platform in due course thereafter.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Jul 31, 2023 15:30:55 GMT
After taking legal advice, it has become apparent that these loans were not first and second charges in the way in which they were presented on the Platform. The Barnoldswick Loan was over a Property and some Adjoining Land. The Adjoining Land was purchased first, using the loan advertised as “a second charge loan”. The Property was subsequently purchased using the “First Charge loan”.
The charge registered was an “all monies” charge and therefore relates to both loans. In the circumstances, we have been advised that the net proceeds of sale should be apportioned as between the Property and the Adjoining Land. Using the purchase values it is clear that 20% of the Net Proceeds of Sale must be apportioned to the Second Charge Loan.
We intend on keeping this matter open for the next fourteen days, following which we will recalculate the net proceeds of sale and update the Platform in due course thereafter. That was posted on 11/7/23 for the Barnoldswick loan. When do you think the money will reach our accounts so that we can withdraw it? I don't think the original distribution was wrong. The legal advice didn't have the full facts. The legal advice should get reverted.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Feb 21, 2023 9:41:04 GMT
I normally get around £130 - £150 a month in interest. This month I have £20 from the AAs and that's it. All of my MLA interest to date has been stolen by AC and I still owe £8.54. I have just one week to pay that off and make a bit for myself. I am astonished that they can get away with this. It wasn't me who decided to run down and I do not have the option to take my money elsewhere. Scandalous. I don't think AC are using your interest to run down the business. The cost of running down the loan book is covered by the borrower monthly payments, these haven't changed and there is no extra cost. Your fees are being used to fund ongoing development loans, because they don't enough new money to cover these loan contracts. Note that the fees start to fall after 6 months as the number of ongoing developments that need funding reduces. I believe you should claim a part of these ongoing developments and recover your fees when the developments are completed and sold.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Feb 18, 2023 13:50:08 GMT
The breakdown of funds has now been posted on the loan dated 18/1/2023. (no email update that I'm aware of). You can only see this loan under "My investments" "Investment History". The FS admin fees are obnoxious, 39% fees for FS Admin, that's after all the other costs and CG's fees..
The 1st charge loans were repaid with 3% interest some time ago. It wouldn't surprise me if the 2nd,3rd,supplemental charges for every loan left to administration repay nothing. You don't have to be a forensic financial investigator to figure out what was going on. What FCA doing ?
Most lenders were in the first charge loans and they were owed much more than 3% interest when this loan closed in 24/3/21. I have no idea why FS Admin and taking 39%, and closing the loan early just makes the calculations more complicated. Need to watch this one when it finally pays out. One of very few good loans to make up for the cataclysmic majority of other loans.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Feb 17, 2023 23:47:30 GMT
There's an email update just in on Beresford Road...but im not sure if it's relevant or even worth the time of day looking at. Development property Beresford Road, Wirral - Renewal - Loan Update Loan Reference: 3222209939 UPDATE: The balance of funds were received from the borrower in April 2022. An indicative breakdown will follow The breakdown of funds has now been posted on the loan dated 18/1/2023. (no email update that I'm aware of). You can only see this loan under "My investments" "Investment History". The FS admin fees are obnoxious, 39% fees for FS Admin, that's after all the other costs and CG's fees..
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Feb 9, 2023 0:14:40 GMT
I've received my final response from AC about a complaint I registered regarding the imposition of a new lender fee. It's basically two fingers pointing at their terms saying they can do this so nurr. They quoted another T&C which I thought held no water at all in which they say that by either logging in to the AC account or continuing to keep money in the AC account lenders are accepting the new fee by default. Well, you can't withdraw loan repayments without logging in, and there is no SM operating because AC shut it down without warning and locked the gates, so . . . AC evidently think that lenders should have just abandoned their accounts indefinitely after the fee announcement. How convenient.
My major bone of contention is that lenders shouldn't be funding AC's change of business strategy. That's what business loans are for.
But of course I want the strongest case to present to the FOS so what does someone with experience of this sort of thing suggest? Go after the T&Cs on the basis that AC gave lenders no chance to move their money? Or fling as much mud at AC in the FOS complaint as possible in the hopes that something sticks?
I also received a final response this week and my complaint went to the FOS yesterday. You might want to consider what are non - normal market conditions. Even if it is non - normal market conditions why shut the retail business. The discount mechanism for access accounts and discounting of MLA loans is already in place. What is the fee being used for? There is no extra cost of winding down the retail business. AC gets fees and monthly interest from borrowers. I think the lender fee is being used to fund ongoing development tranches, and if that is the case then I want a piece of those tranches.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Feb 6, 2023 14:08:46 GMT
It looks like our fees are being used to fund the completion loan #1588. We should be entitled to claim a portion of the finished development. Which loan? There isnt a 1588 Sorry, I meant #1538.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Feb 3, 2023 20:19:21 GMT
It looks like our fees are being used to fund the completion loan #1588. We should be entitled to claim a portion of the finished development.
|
|