What can be done?

Like many others here, I feel that Lendy bear the majority of the blame for the disgraceful outcome of PBL081, PBL155 and others. Yes, the valuers were also at fault, and yes, each one of us willingly invested our money, but it was Lendy who offered up the loans as reasonable propositions, passed on the valuations to us with the implicit suggestion that they were valid, and put themselves forward as a responsible and honest company.

We used to live near an aerodrome in Belgium, and a parachuting company operated out of there. There were warnings up in the hanger saying that parachuting was a high-risk sport, and that people should be aware of this before participating. This did not mean, however, that the parachuting company could cut any corners they liked, fail to make proper safety checks on equipment, or put inexperienced instructors in charge of a bunch of newbies. Yes, people who chose to parachute did so at their own risk, but the parachuting company also had a duty of care to do their part properly. If someone was hurt due to negligence on the part of the company, no amount of "we warned them there were risks" would cover it.

My husband suggested this morning that a class action against Lendy would be a good thing, if someone were able to organise it. I don't know how realistic this would be, or whether the stress/benefit ratio would work out well. Another idea would be for a P2P charter to be drawn up, laying down the bare minimum that lenders would like to see in place to provide better protection against major losses. This could, for example, stipulate that more than one valuation of the security be sought if the loan is over a certain size, or of a certain kind. Perhaps firms like Strutt and Parker who set the auction guide price for the castle at 1.5 million, and who are experienced in quick sales of a range of properties, could be used as second valuers in the future, and provide some more realistic figures. It seems unlikely that they would have suggested 4.9 million.

Another requirement could be that a copy of the valuer's professional indemnity insurance be provided, so that it was clear to lenders that the valuation company could be pursued if their valuations turned out to be vastly out of line with reality. To be honest, as things stand, there's nothing to stop a dodgy borrower bribing a valuer to come up with a figure to suit the loans size they want. I know this is the UK, and bribery isn't really a part of our culture, but probably it does still happen.

The practice of suspending loans from being sold could also be banned - I see that many people have been caught out by this. Or perhaps there should be a requirement for lenders to have the option of being refunded if a loan suddenly turns out to have a different risk-profile than was originally though, or if the terms and conditions of the loan change.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts and ideas. It seems a pity to have a community like this, and not find some way of combining forces to improve future outcomes.