rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 1,951
|
Post by rocky1 on Apr 2, 2019 16:25:03 GMT
looking at the list of claimants,how the hell did these loans get past LENDYS rigorous 10/15 stages DD.to late now i know but lendy sure led us into this mess.LIAM/LENDY you say you will be answering questions.where has the millions of pounds of our money gone.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Apr 2, 2019 16:58:38 GMT
I'm confused, I thought at least one of these properties had been resold to the original owners ? Or am I not confused and it's just that LY hasn't noticed?
|
|
|
Post by snowgoose on Apr 2, 2019 17:10:09 GMT
The latest update is a bit complicated but as I read it it seems that:- 1. Defendants 3 to 7 are in the clear and indeed on the way to recovering costs, 2.Defendants 1 and 2 (which appear to be the same) are still in the firing line but maybe not because of the serving deadline.
Anyone else read it differently?
|
|
|
Post by robberbaron on Apr 2, 2019 17:19:02 GMT
looking at the list of claimants,how the hell did these loans get past LENDYS rigorous 10/15 stages DD.to late now i know but lendy sure led us into this mess.LIAM/LENDY you say you will be answering questions.where has the millions of pounds of our money gone. Because "the probity of the borrower is irrelevant if the security is good" as SS/L used to say.
|
|
|
Post by faraday815 on Apr 2, 2019 17:23:25 GMT
The latest update is a bit complicated but as I read it it seems that:- 1. Defendants 3 to 7 are in the clear and indeed on the way to recovering costs, 2.Defendants 1 and 2 (which appear to be the same) are still in the firing line but maybe not because of the serving deadline. Anyone else read it differently? as confusing as it may be, that's my understanding as well. I'm not sure if defendants 1+2 are still in the firing line of this water pistol or if they aren't because the deadline is passed.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,577
Likes: 5,012
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 2, 2019 17:32:29 GMT
Because "the probity of the borrower is irrelevant if the security is good" It would be, yes*. If it was. Which it isn't. * - well, to a certain extent.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 2, 2019 17:35:05 GMT
snowgoose - I'm not sure how we can discuss any differences of opinion on that interpretation without also discussing information that has been provided only confidentially.
I'm also concerned that any discussion that carefully skirts around topics deemed "too confidential to discuss in public" ends up becoming the thin end of a wedge until all the confidential information gets openly discussed.
My own opinion would be that if you are unsure of the interpretation that you would be best to ask Lendy or the lawyers involved in the case for further clarification rather than a public forum.
|
|
|
Post by bl3nder on Apr 2, 2019 18:20:05 GMT
The latest update is a bit complicated but as I read it it seems that:- 1. Defendants 3 to 7 are in the clear and indeed on the way to recovering costs, 2.Defendants 1 and 2 (which appear to be the same) are still in the firing line but maybe not because of the serving deadline. Anyone else read it differently? I noticed that as well. It may be due to the fact that we were never served in the first place, hence don't need to be "cleared".
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 332
|
Post by zlb on Apr 2, 2019 19:35:37 GMT
Clearly the update needs clarification. There'd be little doubt that Ly themselves would have had proceedings and outcomes explained in lay terms...
|
|
jaswells
Member of DD Central
Posts: 255
Likes: 184
|
Post by jaswells on Apr 2, 2019 21:33:22 GMT
To me, seems good news though and the farce is moving along as expected, ?!?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 2, 2019 21:38:28 GMT
Clearly the update needs clarification. There'd be little doubt that Ly themselves would have had proceedings and outcomes explained in lay terms... Not only is what is said in the update revealing, what is not stated is more revealing.
|
|
|
Post by sanfran on Apr 2, 2019 22:08:19 GMT
Clearly the update needs clarification. There'd be little doubt that Ly themselves would have had proceedings and outcomes explained in lay terms... Not only is what is said in the update revealing, what is not stated is more revealing. Any chance you could elaborate on that or just say whether you felt it was a positive update?
|
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Apr 3, 2019 7:53:42 GMT
Their self-congratulatory tone suggests that they and the valuers are in the clear, but everyone else is not.
It would make sense for her to go after the lowest hanging fruit but not quite sure how it could stack up legally.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 294
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Apr 3, 2019 8:01:10 GMT
Their self-congratulatory tone suggests that they and the valuers are in the clear, but everyone else is not. It would make sense for her to go after the lowest hanging fruit but not quite sure how it could stack up legally. The borrower will not put up any money to do anything, they just want a free lunch, so it's not going to happen imo
|
|
keith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 118
Likes: 72
|
Post by keith on Apr 3, 2019 8:02:13 GMT
Just for my clarification as a non-legal person. The notice that was not served by 1/4 was to join the Lenders to the case against Lendy. As there has been no deposit on security of costs then the case against Lendy has now lapsed. The Lenders, therefore, cannot be joined to it.
However, should the borrower wake up one morning and decide to chase the lenders in any other fashion then that still remains an option.
Do I have this right?
|
|