|
|
Post by moneymakingmoney on Nov 10, 2017 0:22:00 GMT
Can I ask what DD stands for? as for now it sounds like most of the platforms are in the US. Is there a similar forum for EU platforms?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315 
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 10, 2017 0:28:58 GMT
Can I ask what DD stands for? as for now it sounds like most of the platforms are in the US. Is there a similar forum for EU platforms? Due diligence.
|
|
|
|
Post by moneymakingmoney on Nov 10, 2017 0:32:39 GMT
Thanks! and I was wrong about the US platforms, I guess most platforms are UK only, apart from the EUR board, which I'm only using here
|
|
DDCentral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 32
Likes: 14
|
Post by DDCentral on Nov 10, 2017 0:35:01 GMT
Can I ask what DD stands for? as for now it sounds like most of the platforms are in the US. Is there a similar forum for EU platforms? DD = due dilligence i.e. researching a prospective loan to understand as much as possible of the background behind the secured asset, the borrower and their business practises, the borrower's directors and majority shareholders etc. The five platforms which we have created sub-boards for initially are in the UK (I guess the US in your post was a typo) and represent the five largest p2p platforms that offer individual loan selection that do not have a private forum / private forum board. Other sub-boards will be created as needed, and just like the rest of the forum sections, there is a general board on which to discuss loan DD for platforms which don't have a sub-board. If the reference to US wasn't a typo - one additional comment is that normally US based investments can not be promoted to EU citizens (and vice versa), so this forum is focused purely on UK/EU platforms.
|
|
moogman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 76
Likes: 90
|
Post by moogman on Nov 10, 2017 9:00:47 GMT
Aside from the questions of where it should be located, access and so on, I'm glad to see an "accessible" forum for more transparent DD information - Nice job :-)
|
|
tomp
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 75
|
Post by tomp on Nov 10, 2017 9:38:05 GMT
Yes it will be great to see a full DD process of more experienced investors and learn few DD tricks  |
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Nov 10, 2017 13:14:37 GMT
Has the platform actually received advice from a suitable specialist regarding the danger of a law suit which it wouldn't be able to (afford to) defend if one of us maligns some poor ickle wickle platform or borrower The liability to defend such legal action rests soley on the shoulders of the person making the statement that maligns the individual or legal entity concerned. As a working journalist who has been trained in libel, who has been involved in real libel cases, and whose single biggest business risk is being sued for libel, it has always been the case that the person creating the libel - and the publisher of that libel - are the ones that get 'the letter' and get to defend the libel. The financial damage is usually caused by the publisher, not the originator of the libel. I think once DD Central gathers large numbers then it easily qualifies as a 'publisher' as the closed group is a group of investors which form a readership which a libel can have extremely obvious potential for damage. Angry people on this forum make wild allegations about platforms and borrowers that would be clear libels if unredacted names are used, closed forum or no closed forum. Best of luck - I doubt it'll reach court but if you get a pre-action/take down letter after a named director/company is accused of fraud, I suspect a rethink will be on the cards. Jack P
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 10, 2017 13:20:19 GMT
The processes adopted by this forum in such circumstances will be fully compliant with the the Ministry of Justice's published guidance
"Complaints about defamatory material posted on websites: Guidance on Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 and Regulations" and with any additional published guidance of the ico, and other government bodies.
AIUI the legal risk to websites comes through failure to apply these fairly extensive processes in a timely manner following complaints - there are specific deadlines by which certain actions must be undertaken.
That said, the launch of DD Central means we do perhaps need to review that guidance as there may be aspects that we may now need to tighten up, such as explicitly publishing a statement as to how to make defamation complaints.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Nov 10, 2017 13:37:56 GMT
The processes adopted by this forum in such circumstances will be fully compliant with the the Ministry of Justice's published guidance "Complaints about defamatory material posted on websites: Guidance on Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 and Regulations" and with any additional published guidance of the ico, and other government bodies. AIUI the legal risk to websites comes through failure to apply these fairly extensive processes in a timely manner following complaints - there are specific deadlines by which certain actions must be undertaken. Agreed. But the sort of people we want to write about/slag off/infuriate us/sail close to the wind are also the ones most likely to cause legal trouble. Google 'Purplebricks libel' and you can see how 'warning letters' are enough to wreak havoc with low budget online review sites - (article in The Times today etc etc) I am not saying the board would lose a case, rather that the effort and cost from dealing with all of this is tricky Jack P
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 10, 2017 13:38:11 GMT
The forum "staff" continue to 'manage' the forum on a few basic understandings:
- Anything posted is the posters own views, and they are the first port of call for libel
- The forum and its staff count as a social media 'operator' and can fall back on Section 5 defense in the event of things getting "serious"
- That requires responsibilities and actions from us against clear timelines, which we are very aware we could inadvertetntly fall foul off and thereby become liable
- We generally want to operate in a way that minimises the likelihood of us getting into a position where we have rely on section 5
EDIT: to be clear, if we get to a point where a formal complaint (in whatever form is made) we do not necessarily expect to go to the extent of relying on section 5 defense to maintain the publication. We might well choose to simply 'take down'. We do not intend to become martyrs to the guadianship of free speech.
|
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 638 
Likes: 866
|
Post by 09dolphin on Nov 10, 2017 14:20:48 GMT
Will comments be strictly reserved for DD relating to loans that are imminent or have recently been made available?
Re the discussion about inaccurate information about borrowers and P2P sites. Would the person who first published the information not be the person held responsible?
Frankly publishing anything about a borrower, specific loan or lending site (unless the information is on a Government website and there are many) seems fraught with danger. The only exception I can think of is where the borrower claims significantly more progress than photographic evidence shows to enable further money to be advanced (we all know who I mean I hope).
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Nov 10, 2017 14:21:06 GMT
I stand to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than myself but I fail to understand how simply stating facts, which are often in the public domain (albeit often scattered around), could be considered as a worthy case for libel.
DD is not about personal or crowd opinions. We can all make up our own minds whether to invest/lend or whatever based upon what is factually presented. What DD Central enables is the avoidance of duplicity in our DD thereby potentially saving time and expense.
Anything I disclose will be strictly factual
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Nov 10, 2017 14:24:47 GMT
EDIT: to be clear, if we get to a point where a formal complaint (in whatever form is made) we do not necessarily expect to go to the extent of relying on section 5 defense to maintain the publication. We might well choose to simply 'take down'. We do not intend to become martyrs to the guadianship of free speech. Which is precisely what has happened to Purplebricks as reported today. A few bad reviews on a review website - Purplebricks sends out legal letters - review website CBA/can't afford to defend them so reviews taken down. Review site clearly now muzzled and cannot review Purplebricks. So worked example. The redacted discussion on this board clearly painted the Thameside Chalet Rat as a rogue. That very frank discussion could not have taken place if named closed board or not. Ditto discussions on whether valuations are fraudulent. Or ransom strips fraudulent. etc etc. If a firm/individual is named along with words like fraudulent or roguish behaviour do we really think they are going to let that stand? Jack P
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Nov 10, 2017 14:29:04 GMT
I stand to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than myself but I fail to understand how simply stating facts, which are often in the public domain (albeit often scattered around), could be considered as a worthy case for libel. This is a common misconception. A fact is only a fact if it can be proved. Just because it has been widely reported does not make it a fact. It may be a provable fact that x has mis-stated facts when seeking a p2p loan - but try proving that was fraudulent is another matter Jack P
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 10, 2017 14:54:12 GMT
Will comments be strictly reserved for DD relating to loans that are imminent or have recently been made available?
Re the discussion about inaccurate information about borrowers and P2P sites. Would the person who first published the information not be the person held responsible?
Frankly publishing anything about a borrower, specific loan or lending site (unless the information is on a Government website and there are many) seems fraught with danger. The only exception I can think of is where the borrower claims significantly more progress than photographic evidence shows to enable further money to be advanced (we all know who I mean I hope). No DD Central will be relevant for loans at any stage of their life. I've referenced what is presumably a new 2nd charge registered by a.n.other finance house recently against a longstanding COL loan (BL00006 Leeds) on the public board today, and have provided the link to companies house on DD Central. This piece of info might affect some peoples risk perception of the loan, and providing the link as a reference allows the validity of my post be easily verified. My understanding is re-publishing a libel is in itself committing libel, hence linking to posts made on social media sites is somewhat fraught, and presumably quoting a post made on here that contains a libel might equally be considered committing libel. Those with access to DD Central will realise that the posts I'm making there are primarily links to companies house, estate agencies, planning portals, corporate websites and the occaisonal newspaper. I have voiced an opinion on one borrower, albeit obliquely and indirectly and with the IMHO caveat (L PBL177-9 etc) How DD Central is used will evolve over time, but as I hinted yesterday it might best be considered a repository of "facts" (links/references) that allow the verification of posts made on the public boards, and allow readers of DD Central the opportunity to form their own impressions as to the suitability of a particular loan for their own investments by reading the source referenced material themselves.
|
|
