Lendy being naughty? Concerning article in the Telegraph
Sept 25, 2017 20:59:56 GMT
r00lish67 and charliebrown like this
Post by GeorgeT on Sept 25, 2017 20:59:56 GMT
"Axxxx’:
The borrower in this case was not, as has been suggested in the article, an individual known to have been bankrupt. Rather, the borrower was a business. The individual in question was not the owner of the borrower business. Lendy is satisfied that the valuation at the time of the loan was accurate. The sale process for this property is now underway."
That's splitting hairs in a way really. Saying the connection was not made through DD and that something was not known, is a failure of DD.
And, in a way, contradicts previous SS/LY commentary on the matter.
It was in connection with this loan - predictably in default - that over 1 year ago an LY spokesperson made the statement "We will not comment on the borrower's personality or background, neither of which are relevant to his capacity to repay our loan."
This latest defence seems to be a bit of a U-turn on that position because stating in Aug 2016 that the background of the borrower was irrelevant would seem to indicate that they were aware of the borrower's background in the first place and deemed it irrelevant. Now they seem to suggest they weren't. If they weren't, that's a DD fail. It seems being a bankrupt / having a dodgy track record IS now relevant,after all, since now LY say they didn't know - when before thay said it wasn't relevant. That's a different position.
It was pretty easy to make the connection with some basic DD, as forum members proved. Also, concerns started being raised on this forum on Page 1, Day 1, before the loan was even launched.
Sometimes it's better to just put your hands up and admit you cocked up and say you have learned from it. (If that's the truth of the matter).
The borrower in this case was not, as has been suggested in the article, an individual known to have been bankrupt. Rather, the borrower was a business. The individual in question was not the owner of the borrower business. Lendy is satisfied that the valuation at the time of the loan was accurate. The sale process for this property is now underway."
That's splitting hairs in a way really. Saying the connection was not made through DD and that something was not known, is a failure of DD.
And, in a way, contradicts previous SS/LY commentary on the matter.
It was in connection with this loan - predictably in default - that over 1 year ago an LY spokesperson made the statement "We will not comment on the borrower's personality or background, neither of which are relevant to his capacity to repay our loan."
This latest defence seems to be a bit of a U-turn on that position because stating in Aug 2016 that the background of the borrower was irrelevant would seem to indicate that they were aware of the borrower's background in the first place and deemed it irrelevant. Now they seem to suggest they weren't. If they weren't, that's a DD fail. It seems being a bankrupt / having a dodgy track record IS now relevant,after all, since now LY say they didn't know - when before thay said it wasn't relevant. That's a different position.
It was pretty easy to make the connection with some basic DD, as forum members proved. Also, concerns started being raised on this forum on Page 1, Day 1, before the loan was even launched.
Sometimes it's better to just put your hands up and admit you cocked up and say you have learned from it. (If that's the truth of the matter).