In Administration (Col)

Well there you have it a letter has landed and as some of us suspected we are indeed creditors and this is a complete U-turn on the first communication which said we were not creditors.

Some of us were unclear about the situation and contacted the current administrator to reserve our rights in this respect and it seems we are creditors after all.

I am in the middle of a big decorating job but my first thought is do we now have to write in again to claim ourselves as creditors because I have an idea the first letter said that if we were creditors owed more than £1,000 we should provide details even though we are unable to provide details because we do not have access to our accounts and therefore many of us like myself do not know exactly how much we have invested on the platform currently and in what loans etc.

I have to say this situation is starting to look rather shambolic and the sooner somebody is able to get the bull by the horns and develop a clear strategy that stands up to scrutiny the better.

On the plus side, the receipt of a further communication directly is much appreciated and well overdue in my opinion. As I think I may have posted before, it is sometimes good to receive a letter saying you can't be told anything rather than not be told anything. Such regular communications from the start of the process at the end of February may have reduced the size of this thread from 100+ pages to about 75 pages. When there is a vacuum of information and communication it creates a fertile environment for rumour and theory to take root and grow like Japanese Knotweed.

I just received exactly the same reply.

In addition to my previous post, I also have a screen capture of the loan parts I had put up for sale, but were unsold at that time; I wouldn't want those to get lost in the dust.

The waters have clearly been muddied by the FCA inspired court action which has imposed communication (amongst other) restrictions upon the administrator & the associated weeks of delay in giving lenders a clear indication of the current position regarding their holdings, repayments & future action.

The latest 12/4/18 letter does appear to use rather sloppy language regarding creditors as opposed to lenders but that could well be resultant of the above court ruling. I do however believe that from an administration viewpoint it could be explained due to the structure of the collateral loanbook; All the loans are specific stand alone entities, that are then secured against a SPECIFIC ASSET, whether bling, vehicle, property whatever. Collateral (acting as agent for the lender) then takes in some cases physical possession or at least a charge against the title of that borrowers specific related asset & holds them in trust on behalf of lenders. So effectively becoming assets, albeit secured & directly relating to specific lenders/loanholders, on the Collateral balance sheet, so it could easily be inferred that lenders were indeed secured creditors on that basis. I would personally prefer the term lender as the contract was directly between lenders & borrowers, with Collateral being limited to the agent & enabling intermediary, albeit also acting as secure repository for the asset or charge secured against the title of that asset.

I remain confident that once the current legal disputes are resolved that most of the loanbook will be resolved in fairly short order & other than perhaps the large development loans, most lenders will see 100% returned within a few months. It will obviously be delayed further if the current administrator is replaced with another that needs to replicate all the work done so far.

One here too.

Look at it this way ,

However well meaning Jessica is it doesn't change the fact that If RR hadn't contested the FCA request to put a new administrator in we could be moving forward by now and not waiting for 27 April and whatever else after that ...