Is the funding secure platform flawed?

Lots of platforms roll-up interest on loans.

Do nothing for 2 years is harsh!    FS is not the only platform where it can be frustrating at the length of time it can take to solve "problem" loans.

It's not just FS that are 'guilty' of keeping investors up to date - there are a fair few other platforms that fall into that category. Of course, they do need to have the relevant information in order to pass on the details and that means ongoing monitoring. Probably not important in the conventional pawn world where the platform has possession of the item but property is a totally different proposition.

IMO many of the platforms are simply out of their depth. Whether it's a lack of (quality) staff or just a basic lack of understanding as to how the property markets operate I frankly have no idea. It is unacceptable that once a default occurs then things just go on and on with little (if any) updates from the platform concerned. I suspect it's often because they simply don't know what to do and prefer to ride on the back of frivolous promises of jam tomorrow from the borrowers. Headlights and rabbits spring to mind.

Bearing in mind some of the funding opportunities offered are based upon a VR which you could be forgiven is often a work of fiction. Then when those chickens come home to roost the lenders are left with the losses when the platform eventually gets round to finalising matters after kicking the can down the road for several months or indeed years.

It doesn't have to be this way as sometimes you can check those inflated VR's. Surely the platforms could do the same but then again it isn't their money is it?     

IMHO the principal difference between the standard pawn model that FS use and the retained interest up front that Lendy use is the impact on LTV.  With a six-month 70% LTV loan at FS, the LTV may start at 70% but it will have increased to about 77% by the time the loan matures.  With a six-month 70% LTV loan at Lendy, the LTV will be 70% at the time it matures.

If the borrower doesn't repay at maturity, a property loan requires LPA receivers to be appointed and it's probably going to take at least six months to achieve a sale.  By the time the sale happens the LTV of the FS loan would be up to about 85% and the LTV of the Lendy loan would be up to about 77%.  It doesn't take much of a discount from the 'open market value' to make it difficult to obtain a full recovery of capital and interest from the forced sale proceeds, but it's obviously going to be harder to achieve that from a 85% LTV loan than from a 77% loan.

... if the valuations are reliable, of course.

Those platforms that pay interest monthly have simpler secondary markets. 

The build up of significant accrued on FS loans causes major tax headaches, as you become liable for tax on the accrued interest on any loan that you acquire, making loans close to maturity very unattractive unless purchased in a tax exempt manner such as in an IFISA.

Regardless of whether you think it's flawed or not, the important fact is that the FS model is somewhat different from others. I like it, but if you think it's flawed, please go elsewhere.

Of course there would then be demands for a secondary market in accrued receivables....and we could recreate the gilt strip market in the p2p world. What fun!

Why don't you suggest it to them? 

I suspect the Collateral approach to accrued is preferable, but then the borrowers get less leverage and FS's loan growth chart may falter.

Anyway, best to move on - we're talking about a platform who have assiduously ignored enhancement requests from lenders for a very long time.  They can't even be bothered to provide an .csv download of your portfolio holdings.  It also appears that they are struggling to keep track of when they should be paying out tranches of development loans, let alone accrued interest.