adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920 
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 4, 2019 9:20:07 GMT
Exactly and as he is also a dealer I wonder if this one was bought dead cheap by a contact in the industry and is now in a smart retail display unit at over 5 times what it was bought for...you never know!
|
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Jan 5, 2019 11:01:46 GMT
I've received a reply from FS re. my complaint about this loan;it reinforces my opinion that more than one valuation should have been obtained. The value of an item is the amount you can sell it for and it seems this point was overlooked as it transpires there is very little market for this type of stone. Quote: "Unfortunately we have no recourse to the valuer as the valuation was supplied without liability – which is typically the case with pawn items. There is no question as to the genuineness of the item. However, as we tried searching for a buyer, it became apparent that the market for a coloured stone of this size was very small which is what we believe impacted the value so greatly." Hmmm. I think this is a case for Financial Ombudsman (they DO take cases against P2P) or evan FCA.
|
|
mjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 425
|
Post by mjc on Jan 5, 2019 12:26:33 GMT
I posted this on the Lendy thread a short while ago, worth considering, but I’m not in this loan.
" Could Lendy be taken to Court on this omission to Investors? "
Potentially yes. The focus now is against the borrower, but subsequently........
MoneyRedress.com say:-
”You can make a claim if any of the below statements apply to you:
You weren’t aware how the money was going to be invested.
You were pressurised into making an investment.
You weren’t fully informed of the level of risk involved.
Your money was used for a high risk venture without your understanding or agreement.
You were told 100% of your money would be returned but lost you money!
The investment was unsuitable for your needs.
Access to your money was limited when you were told you would have full access.
You think you might have been misled over charges.
Promised investment returns didn’t happen.”
£ 19705.36 +
Average compensation back to a client
97.2 %
Claim Success rate
£ 50000 +
Biggest compensation to date
Figures correct as of 22/11/2018
I note they have a TrustPilot rating of 9.4, against Lendy’s 4.4.
I currently am pursuing a claim against Beaufort Securities Ltd / Hoodless Brennan for missold investments with MoneyRedress.
Again they were FCA regulated, but no fscs cover.
They have ceased trading, but still I have a viable claim!
I suspect point (3) above at the very least applies.
They do charge 25%+vat, IF SUCCESSFUL, but if the claim would not have been made, that could still worthwhile.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 5, 2019 14:46:58 GMT
With regard to Lendy claim.
There have been no great loss as with last payback capital loss was non-existant as they made up capital deficit. Don't think you can claim for underperforming.
There were no absolute promises on returns and as they use certificated proffessional valuers you can't accuse them of missmanagment . Who else could they use ??
I don't particularlly like cash tied up for years but that is the risk you take for returns 5-15 times mainstream banks.
I do think they should be quicker resolving problems and that seems to be their 2019 target.
We may feel upset, however legally I don't think there is much we can do as there was never an absolute timeframe given for any loan. Just an expected timeframe.
With FSand Lendy losses they are within normal working losses for sector and less than most bank defaults and we don't see shareholders suing the banks. Although an individual may overexpose themselves in a single loan it was their choice.
Platform performance overall is within accectable levels for the products offered.
You need to look at the whole not just the worse parts. I've had FS loans pay 25% and lots over 20% like most things usually the negatives are discussed which gives an slanted non-representative view.
Other than more aggressive recovery what else do you expect ?
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 5, 2019 14:54:26 GMT
I've received a reply from FS re. my complaint about this loan;it reinforces my opinion that more than one valuation should have been obtained. The value of an item is the amount you can sell it for and it seems this point was overlooked as it transpires there is very little market for this type of stone. Quote: "Unfortunately we have no recourse to the valuer as the valuation was supplied without liability – which is typically the case with pawn items. There is no question as to the genuineness of the item. However, as we tried searching for a buyer, it became apparent that the market for a coloured stone of this size was very small which is what we believe impacted the value so greatly." Hmmm. I think this is a case for Financial Ombudsman (they DO take cases against P2P) or evan FCA. Even though the market was small there is a market . You can't force someone to buy. So valuer was correct if stone was stolen then insurance would pay the valuation amount. if great effort was put into the sale perhaps a higher price could have been attained but the effort may not have been worth it.
You can't expect multiple valuations that's why you have professionals. At some point you have to trust them. It is ok to look back after the fact and accuse them of an error. Unless nearly all this valuers items were wrong then it's just sod's law the occasional valuation may be different from prevaling market conditions.
Roses (artificial and fresh) are thee times or more the price on valentines's day so what is the value of a rose if you were insuring them ?
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 5, 2019 15:22:21 GMT
I think this is a case for Financial Ombudsman (they DO take cases against P2P) or evan FCA. Even though the market was small there is a market . You can't force someone to buy. So valuer was correct if stone was stolen then insurance would pay the valuation amount. if great effort was put into the sale perhaps a higher price could have been attained but the effort may not have been worth it.
You can't expect multiple valuations that's why you have professionals. At some point you have to trust them. It is ok to look back after the fact and accuse them of an error. Unless nearly all this valuers items were wrong then it's just sod's law the occasional valuation may be different from prevaling market conditions.
Roses (artificial and fresh) are thee times or more the price on valentines's day so what is the value of a rose if you were insuring them ?
Oh come off it godanubis, you're completely wrong on this one. There is only ever one Valuation required, and it should ALWAYS be, within reason, what the asset would achieve if sold now, today. Anything else is BS and you know it. It's a massive conscam and they're all aiding and abetting it, to the detriment and fleecing of Lenders. Roses or any other BS comparison are not gemstones, property, bling, etc. "At some point you have to trust them.", are you for real?!
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Jan 5, 2019 15:32:10 GMT
Even though the market was small there is a market . You can't force someone to buy. So valuer was correct if stone was stolen then insurance would pay the valuation amount. if great effort was put into the sale perhaps a higher price could have been attained but the effort may not have been worth it.
You can't expect multiple valuations that's why you have professionals. At some point you have to trust them. It is ok to look back after the fact and accuse them of an error. Unless nearly all this valuers items were wrong then it's just sod's law the occasional valuation may be different from prevaling market conditions.
Roses (artificial and fresh) are thee times or more the price on valentines's day so what is the value of a rose if you were insuring them ?
Oh come off it godanubis, you're completely wrong on this one. There is only ever one Valuation required, and it should ALWAYS be, within reason, what the asset would achieve if sold now, today. Anything else is BS and you know it. It's a massive conscam and they're all aiding and abetting it, to the detriment and fleecing of Lenders. Roses or any other BS comparison are not gemstones, property, bling, etc. "At some point you have to trust them.", are you for real?! Totally agree, I would have been embarrassed to have written that right load of apologist waffle. There is indeed only one valuation required, that's the price achievable in a distressed sale.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 5, 2019 15:48:05 GMT
Oh come off it godanubis, you're completely wrong on this one. There is only ever one Valuation required, and it should ALWAYS be, within reason, what the asset would achieve if sold now, today. Anything else is BS and you know it. It's a massive conscam and they're all aiding and abetting it, to the detriment and fleecing of Lenders. Roses or any other BS comparison are not gemstones, property, bling, etc. "At some point you have to trust them.", are you for real?! Totally agree, I would have been embarrassed to have written that right load of apologist waffle. There is indeed only one valuation required, that's the price achievable in a distressed sale. Is that why you get 3 valuations on property valuations ? 30 day 90 day and normal market value. Gems are always valued "for insurance purposes" unless specified otherwise. Markets for everything roses and gems vary daily.
Try sell your Rolf Harris picture or Apple share (Down 38% in 3 months). It's just sour grapes from overexposed investors.
The garnet market had highest growth in 2017 so valuation was reasonable. link
Anyway my original point was on MJC's point that there was a case to pursue with Lendy & FS . Both are acting well within normal expected parameters for the sector and have done nothing wrong.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 5, 2019 15:57:27 GMT
The price achievable in a distressed sale.
It would be nice if this were the norm and if you check some of my other posts that is the position I take. In reality it is not.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 5, 2019 16:03:51 GMT
The price achievable in a distressed sale.
It would be nice if this were the norm and if you check some of my other posts that is the position I take. In reality it is not.
So, assuming you also still expect max 70% LTV, you’re essentially wanting 12%+ returns with minimal risk of loss on default, at a time when FSCS-protected savings accounts are paying 1.5%. Get real.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 5, 2019 16:05:51 GMT
Oh come off it godanubis, you're completely wrong on this one. There is only ever one Valuation required, and it should ALWAYS be, within reason, what the asset would achieve if sold now, today. Anything else is BS and you know it. It's a massive conscam and they're all aiding and abetting it, to the detriment and fleecing of Lenders. Roses or any other BS comparison are not gemstones, property, bling, etc. "At some point you have to trust them.", are you for real?! Totally agree, I would have been embarrassed to have written that right load of apologist waffle. There is indeed only one valuation required, that's the price achievable in a distressed sale. Precisely, it's the absolute rock base of asset backed lending, to provide a calculated and reasonable surety upon default, especially with pawn type Loans. What's the difference? It's not the Introducer, Borrower, Platform or "Professional" Valuer's money! So grossly exaggerated Valuations suit all who greedily snout at The Trough Gravy Train. P2P is now a generally discredited industry and I for one can't wait for the offending individuals to swing. Ts & Cs, "Professional" Valuation Reports and All The Other BS they come out with won't be enough to cover their utterly dishonest & deceitful backsides come The Reckoning. I just feel very, very sorry for those in P2P who are honest and decent, because these fornicators are screwing it for everyone.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 5, 2019 16:10:57 GMT
Totally agree, I would have been embarrassed to have written that right load of apologist waffle. There is indeed only one valuation required, that's the price achievable in a distressed sale. Is that why you get 3 valuations on property valuations ? 30 day 90 day and normal market value. Gems are always valued "for insurance purposes" unless specified otherwise. Markets for everything roses and gems vary daily.
Try sell your Rolf Harris picture or Apple share (Down 38% in 3 months). It's just sour grapes from overexposed investors.
The garnet market had highest growth in 2017 so valuation was reasonable. link
Anyway my original point was on MJC's point that there was a case to pursue with Lendy & FS . Both are acting well within normal expected parameters for the sector and have done nothing wrong.
You're kidding. I give up on you godanubis, you are definitely a misguided Apologist.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 5, 2019 16:35:58 GMT
Is that why you get 3 valuations on property valuations ? 30 day 90 day and normal market value. Gems are always valued "for insurance purposes" unless specified otherwise. Markets for everything roses and gems vary daily.
Try sell your Rolf Harris picture or Apple share (Down 38% in 3 months). It's just sour grapes from overexposed investors.
The garnet market had highest growth in 2017 so valuation was reasonable. link
Anyway my original point was on MJC's point that there was a case to pursue with Lendy & FS . Both are acting well within normal expected parameters for the sector and have done nothing wrong.
You're kidding. I give up on you godanubis, you are definitely a misguided Apologist. LOL I'm more of a realist. Who benefits from long term abuses ? Valuers that exaggerate would soon loose their clients. P2P that give an overall loss would loose their clients.
Generalizations help no-one. Welendus performing well not a single penny lost to investors.
I go on my experience of P2P over the last few years0.
FC no overall loss only small profit 5% (recoveries ongoing).
Moneything no loss most investments still current.
Lendy no Loss about 5% paid PA so far.
FS some overall loss in a few loans but 15-18% overall gains.
Collateral... Wait and see but even with 100% loss gains in FS more than cover that.
Welendus No loss 12% return APR
Stock Market down 10% YoY (but did withdraw large sum when market high)
So I take a long term realistic view I should still be happy and my expexctations are in line with the effort I employ and not just the effort others put in.
As adults we have differed in the past with some of our views and still have civil spirited exchanges without falling out.
That is the art of good debate.
A Happy Prosperous New Year to you
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 5, 2019 18:36:22 GMT
I think this is a case for Financial Ombudsman (they DO take cases against P2P) or evan FCA. Even though the market was small there is a market . You can't force someone to buy. So valuer was correct if stone was stolen then insurance would pay the valuation amount. if great effort was put into the sale perhaps a higher price could have been attained but the effort may not have been worth it.
You can't expect multiple valuations that's why you have professionals. At some point you have to trust them. It is ok to look back after the fact and accuse them of an error. Unless nearly all this valuers items were wrong then it's just sod's law the occasional valuation may be different from prevaling market conditions.
Roses (artificial and fresh) are thee times or more the price on valentines's day so what is the value of a rose if you were insuring them ?
If only the Collateral bling was stolen, eh? All that  (Ratner's term not mine  ) that the borrowers don't want.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 5, 2019 19:46:14 GMT
Is that why you get 3 valuations on property valuations ? 30 day 90 day and normal market value. Gems are always valued "for insurance purposes" unless specified otherwise. Markets for everything roses and gems vary daily.
Try sell your Rolf Harris picture or Apple share (Down 38% in 3 months). It's just sour grapes from overexposed investors.
The garnet market had highest growth in 2017 so valuation was reasonable. link
Anyway my original point was on MJC's point that there was a case to pursue with Lendy & FS . Both are acting well within normal expected parameters for the sector and have done nothing wrong.
You're kidding. I give up on you godanubis, you are definitely a misguided Apologist. You want my opinion on Godanubis? No, I thought not but that hasn't stopped me in the past  They just see value still to be extracted from FS if only all the naysayers would keep quiet. You see, their strategy relies not on due diligence or seeking out a few select loans to make their profit, no, it relies on trading and to do that you need willing buyers to take the risk from you whilst paying your accrued interest - and what do they get in return, the promise of a higher than average AER. It's just a job to them, managing their portfolio daily (perhaps hourly, I wouldn't be surprised), and part of that job is to come here and counter some of the experiences of people who have considerable sums stuck in FS (quite possibly purchased from Godanubis to really stick salt into those wounds). I think once you realise where they're coming from then all seems to fit into place. Godanubis - RE: vegans & flatulence - rate will surely increase but then noxiousness would decrease, no?
|
|
(Ratner's term not mine 
) that the borrowers don't want.