technik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 80
|
Post by technik on Sept 25, 2018 14:56:36 GMT
Following feedback in another thread where I mentioned the idea (http://p2pindependentforum.com/post/289342/thread), was wondering whether it would be possible and useful to set up an area of each platform's forum where members could try and group together when issues needed pursuing in relation to particular loans?
Something similar to the DD areas, but would be for loans that are far past due and seems like reasonable opportunities for recovery have been exhausted. It would likely have a small number of threads, where people who would like to examine their legal options could do so. Either seeking independent advice and where possible compiling to get a consensus from the legal profession, or even crowdfunding independent advice for those who this would otherwise not be possible.
I realise this may not work in practice or could descend into something not very pleasant (perhaps it could be trialled and binned if it does), but at the moment small investors particularly are trapped and at the mercy of platforms, even if in theory they have legal rights that they aren't able to explore. And even the biggest investors could benefit, as the more people involved in advice and and potential action the better.
Open to any suggestions or comments, just any way to use this platform to mobilise efforts on a larger scale and with more success than is possible for individuals.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,677 
Likes: 2,974
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 25, 2018 20:19:57 GMT
My initial thoughts are that this is a good idea in principle. Actually doing it might require a fair bit of work from the mods and possibly additional risk for them (?).
Also not sure if this sort of thing should be linked to some of the proposals floated earlier around the forum KYC. After all, if a group is going ahead with legal action, you'd want to be sure everyone in the group is who they say they are wouldn't you?
|
|
technik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 80
|
Post by technik on Oct 4, 2018 17:00:34 GMT
Thanks for your reply! Yes, do agree, though not sure how much more work the mods would need to do? And what was the KYC reference?
Left it a while but has no one else got any thoughts on this?
|
|
jwatson
Member of DD Central
Posts: 51
Likes: 39
|
Post by jwatson on Oct 15, 2018 10:33:50 GMT
Thanks for your reply! Yes, do agree, though not sure how much more work the mods would need to do? And what was the KYC reference? Left it a while but has no one else got any thoughts on this? I think it's a good idea, but the challenge will be ensuring that only lenders are able to access the discussions, especially if legal issues are discussed. Even if there was a way of verifying that only actual lenders could join, it wouldn't take much for someone to lend a small amount of money to gain access to 'inside' information. That said, some sort of secure area that stops casual access would be of great benefit especially if matters such as class action was being discussed.
|
|
technik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 80
|
Post by technik on Oct 15, 2018 10:54:59 GMT
Thanks for your reply! Yes, do agree, though not sure how much more work the mods would need to do? And what was the KYC reference? Left it a while but has no one else got any thoughts on this? I think it's a good idea, but the challenge will be ensuring that only lenders are able to access the discussions, especially if legal issues are discussed. Even if there was a way of verifying that only actual lenders could join, it wouldn't take much for someone to lend a small amount of money to gain access to 'inside' information. That said, some sort of secure area that stops casual access would be of great benefit especially if matters such as class action was being discussed.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking and really just wanted to open it up to get ideas like that, what the positives and pitfalls might be, so thanks for contributing! I guess one thing that works to counter the buy-in you mention is that any loan that is in a state where advice needs to be sought would be locked in terms of who has invested what. So if you're not already in the loan you can't get in it. And tbh wouldn't want to be! First thoughts that come to mind for a basic verification of who is in a loan is submission of lender name and exact number of loan parts and values, which could be cross-referenced against the full investor list. Some slight discrepancy possible given the anonymised version of IDs such as t*****k but would work in majority of cases . Would be important to verify a lender ID matches actual person too, so whether also submit the FS loan agreement for each part, along with ID proving address? Don't know, starting to sound quite involved and arduous, but for serious cases positives would outweigh the benefits. Perhaps with all this, there might even be a cost associated. So say you want to be part of the legal advice grouping, could ask for £50 (arbitrary number) to administrate. Obviously someone with £100 in might not want to bother but for them it's maybe neither here nor there what % is paid back or any legal proceedings. But someone with £1000, or £5000, or £20000 would look at that as pretty favourable I imagine, to pool resources with others like them.
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Oct 20, 2018 10:34:40 GMT
Imagine the hypothetical example in which a borrower sues a platform and bolts-on the individual lenders into the suit as being joint and severally responsible - I know, too fantastic for words, right?
I guess the platform would be obliged to provide the plaintiff's lawyer with the individuals' details.
Now also imagine if several hundred lenders flooded the plaintiff's lawyers with 'Subject Access Requests' - requesting what data is held on them, and how it is being used - under GDPR legislation.
I have no idea if such data would be deemed exempt but it is a legal requirement for them to investigate and respond, within a finite time-frame, to each individual request.
I guess in the above hypothetical case, it would, at the very least, test the commitment of the lawyers to the strategy being followed.
Perhaps coordination by the hypothetical platform's defence team would best suit such a course of action.
|
|
technik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 80
|
Post by technik on Oct 23, 2018 19:53:07 GMT
I'm not sure I follow either a) why FS would have to give information that is not already available in the situation you describe b) the motivation behind such lenders requesting information if they were involved in action. But I don't have any experience or background from which to base any of this.
a) Any single person pursuing action if necessary could note that x others have £y in total in a loan, given the anonymised investors statistics, if it helped a case to show the extent of what has gone on. But no identifiable information about anyone is contained in that, let alone held. I'm not sure anyone would try and get identifiable information from FS if the situation you described could be a reality, but more importantly wouldn't do so as I am unsure how it helps strengthen any case.
b) If a joint set of legal advice was arranged and/or then pursued, surely anyone who wanted to be part of it would be supplying the information relevant to their part of the case? So they would know what was contained in the information they gave and already signed over that information for use. And even if there was some reason to then make information requests, why would they bother if it wastes legal time and jeopardises anything?
The case of starting a case individually, then trying to turn it into come kind of class action on behalf of others without their permission and involvement (or them contributing anything to costs!), leading to people to request information as you suggest seems peculiar. Interested to know if that is what you mean.
|
|
