p2pmark
Member of DD Central
Posts: 218 
Likes: 187
|
Post by p2pmark on Mar 31, 2018 20:38:22 GMT
If he comes to the attention of the FCA and is shut down, which doesn't happen nearly as often as it should, it is purported by poverty charities that this type of loan shark operates in nearly every depived area, he can be prosecuted but if only for the financial offences (i.e. not involving violence against his debtors) and is not a serial offender it is unlikely he will suffer more than a modest fine. The loans the authorities know about will be null and void, but 1) they still have to be repaid but not the interest 2) it is extremely unlikely to affect more than a very small proportion of his business and even if he does it is likely he will be operating, possibly behind front men, within days. The Governor of the Bank of England said 18 months ago 95% of British household have less than £5,000, most P2P investors live in a comfortable middle class environment and either are ignorant of what happens in poorer areas or don't want to know. Thanks for the information although not sure I would agree most people don't want to know (as in "don't care") - I have more faith in folk both rich and poor. If you're right about the capital still needing repaying then that is of some comfort to us "rich" folk who want our money back from col. In the worst case, I don't see why we would be treated that much better than the loan shark given neither have permission to operate. I don't know the legal or regulation framework particularly well, but the loan shark case feels different. In that case, the borrower is the victim and the lender the criminal. In COL's case, it seems that the lender is the victim - as they were lending at greater risk than they were told. I guess the borrower may also be a victim if they do not have the protection they thought they would have, but I think the main aim of the regulations is to protect retail lenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 31, 2018 20:38:39 GMT
If he comes to the attention of the FCA and is shut down, which doesn't happen nearly as often as it should, it is purported by poverty charities that this type of loan shark operates in nearly every depived area, he can be prosecuted but if only for the financial offences (i.e. not involving violence against his debtors) and is not a serial offender it is unlikely he will suffer more than a modest fine. The loans the authorities know about will be null and void, but 1) they still have to be repaid but not the interest 2) it is extremely unlikely to affect more than a very small proportion of his business and even if he does it is likely he will be operating, possibly behind front men, within days. The Governor of the Bank of England said 18 months ago 95% of British household have less than £5,000, most P2P investors live in a comfortable middle class environment and either are ignorant of what happens in poorer areas or don't want to know. Thanks for the information although not sure I would agree most people don't want to know (as in "don't care") - I have more faith in folk both rich and poor. If you're right about the capital still needing repaying then that is of some comfort to us "rich" folk who want our money back from col. In the worst case, I don't see why we would be treated that much better than the loan shark given neither have permission to operate. Perhaps I am unduly cynical and base my observation on dinner party talk with the spouses of professional man and women whose interests seem only to extend to what colour their third bathroom should be or whether to go skiing in Bairritz or Switzerland this winter. Returning to the substance some of these dets have been continually rolled over and on the "LIFO" basis it will be considered by a court that all the loan consists of interest and is therefore not recoverable. I'm not saying that will happen but it must be considered as a possible outcome.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 31, 2018 20:56:25 GMT
Returning to the substance some of these dets have been continually rolled over and on the "LIFO" basis it will be considered by a court that all the loan consists of interest and is therefore not recoverable. I'm not saying that will happen but it must be considered as a possible outcome. The oldest of the loans could only have been running for 2 years, so it seems unlikely any borrower could have paid back in interest as much as they borrowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 31, 2018 21:15:32 GMT
Returning to the substance some of these dets have been continually rolled over and on the "LIFO" basis it will be considered by a court that all the loan consists of interest and is therefore not recoverable. I'm not saying that will happen but it must be considered as a possible outcome. The oldest of the loans could only have been running for 2 years, so it seems unlikely any borrower could have paid back in interest as much as they borrowed. Some loans pre-date the platform, even Collateral itself, having been "inherited" from previous businesses run by the family e.g. when I queried a loan supposedly secured on Spanish property in 2016 I was told "the borrower has serviced the interest for six years", The APRs are over 20%, sometimes 30% so compounded it takes less than 3 years for a loan to consist entirely of interest, at the higher rate of interest. It is entirely possible that some all or none of the loans consist of interest in part or whole, it is not something that we will get a definitive answer on at 10pm on Easter Saturday, or a proper legal opinion on whether they will be enforcable.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 31, 2018 21:34:53 GMT
it is not something that we will get a definitive answer on at 10pm on Easter Saturday, or a proper legal opinion on whether they will be enforcable. LOL, if I was looking for a proper legal opinion, or even a definitive answer, I would probably be in the wrong place anyway.
|
|
reinvestor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 194
Likes: 224
|
Post by reinvestor on Mar 31, 2018 21:57:05 GMT
Don’t forget that the FCA only oversee regulated lending. That being lending to consumers and partnerships of three or less partners.
Lending to Limited companies by firms such as mine (Hire Purchase)is not any of their business.
I don’t know the nuances of how peer to peer individuals lending via a platform are treated when the client is a Limited Company or an individual.
What I do know is that Collateral were using DWF for their legal advice. They are the go to people for consumer credit law. I can only assume that they didn’t listen to whatever they were told to do.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Mar 31, 2018 22:35:07 GMT
Does anyone have an exact date for this Court hearing in April?
It would be good to know when we can find out whether RR are still on the case or whether a new administrator is being appointed.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Mar 31, 2018 22:44:09 GMT
Does anyone have an exact date for this Court hearing in April? It would be good to know when we can find out whether RR are still on the case or whether a new administrator is being appointed. Blimey a post without an opinion...thats a rarity ...yeh i wouldn't mind knowing that either...although i suspect as it hasn't been mentioned as yet then, their isn't one as yet
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 31, 2018 23:17:39 GMT
You may have to wait a bit after the hearing to get the decision. Sorry.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Apr 1, 2018 1:46:30 GMT
On the court hearing, I understand the adjourned hearing will be in Manchester whilst the original was in London Were you able to find additional information about the hearing beyond that which is in the leaked report? I've been trying to find some record of the original hearing, but hsven't been able to spot anything in the report that gives the location of the various hearings.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Apr 1, 2018 5:34:27 GMT
On the court hearing, I understand the adjourned hearing will be in Manchester whilst the original was in London Were you able to find additional information about the hearing beyond that which is in the leaked report? I've been trying to find some record of the original hearing, but hsven't been able to spot anything in the report that gives the location of the various hearings. Someone who claims to know information on the case wrote an unsolicited pm to me with that information. I believe the action numbers appear on the report of the Administrator dated 23 March that s widely available and links have been posted to it. A long while ago it was possible to go to the High Court in The Strand London and inspect the file in person by quoting the number (I believe any action to replace the Administrator will be under the same action number) you were not allowed to take it away or even take copies, if I recall correctly, so it is unlikely the information will be on line. You did not have to prove locus, justice being open and public. I do not know if this is still the case and if you should check with the court if you are planning a special trip. If the information I have been given is correct the file might already have gone to Manchester as the original hearing was supposedly two weeks ago. This is my understanding of what used to be possible I take no responsibilty if there are errors or the system has changed, I last got information this way through a lawyer before the turn of the century so about 20 years ago and my recollection is vague.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 1, 2018 7:56:46 GMT
Does anyone have an exact date for this Court hearing in April? It would be good to know when we can find out whether RR are still on the case or whether a new administrator is being appointed. I believe this was stated by stub8535 to be 6th April, so we might find out during the following week. Edit: Link to post in DD Central: p2pindependentforum.com/post/257193/thread
|
|
sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Apr 1, 2018 9:12:32 GMT
I believe that Stubs was requesting action from us before the 6th April in order for our opinions to be considered. So the court date may be some time later than that if collation of replies or advance submission deadlines apply.
In any event quite a few posters have now questioned the wisdom of supporting the incumbent administrator and indeed Stubs' involvement or impartiality in this whole sorry mess.
Personally I can't see that as lenders our opinions come into play over the point of law that will be examined on the court date.
Thus we might just have to sit tight.
I'm hoping that our investments are protected and ring-fenced regardless of who the administrator is. I can understand that the former directors/shareholders have a vested interest in the outcome of the hearing much more than we do but frankly that's their problem now not ours.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 1, 2018 9:33:25 GMT
I believe that Stubs was requesting action from us before the 6th April in order for our opinions to be considered. So the court date may be some time later than that if collation of replies or advance submission deadlines apply. If you re-read the post carefully, you'll note that he states a challenge is to be placed before the judge on that day. All unverified of course, but likely to have come from within COL or RR. I too question the wisdom of taking the action he suggests and have taken no such action.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Apr 1, 2018 9:47:00 GMT
I believe that Stubs was requesting action from us before the 6th April in order for our opinions to be considered. So the court date may be some time later than that if collation of replies or advance submission deadlines apply. If you re-read the post carefully, you'll note that he states a challenge is to be placed before the judge on that day. All unverified of course, but likely to have come from within COL or RR. I too question the wisdom of taking the action he suggests and have taken no such action. If you re-read the report carefully you'll note that on page 15, the date 6 April is the deadline by which the administrator requires written communication from creditors regarding any non approval of his proposals.
|
|
