|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Apr 3, 2019 8:07:54 GMT
Well yes, but Joe Bloggs of Evesham could equally well sue you for damages over the graffitti you put on his garage yesterday, with equal chance of success. Yes, that's the Joe Bloggs you don't know from Adam.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Apr 3, 2019 8:20:39 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? This is ludicrous! So we've been 'cleared' but we can still get a claim against us? I think the Americans would call it a 'Cruel & Unusual' punishment! Is there no timescale to this potential claim, or could it hang over our heads for the rest of our lives?
|
|
jhma
Member of DD Central
Posts: 82
Likes: 53
|
Post by jhma on Apr 3, 2019 8:28:12 GMT
I have written to Lendy asking their legal advisers to comment on the status - post April 1st - of the lender information that had been provided to the claimants (by order of the court) specifically to allow service to lenders against a particular case.
Essentially, could this information legitimately be used for other/further purposes, or not?
If others have similar questions, or others related to this case, suggest raise them directly with Lendy, (or to your own legal advisers if you have them) as I shall also continue to do!
|
|
tommytaylor
P2P - The new wild west
Posts: 234
Likes: 375
|
Post by tommytaylor on Apr 3, 2019 8:28:40 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? This is ludicrous! So we've been 'cleared' but we can still get a claim against us? I think the Americans would call it a 'Cruel & Unusual' punishment! Is there no timescale to this potential claim, or could it hang over our heads for the rest of our lives? Not gonna happen. Please dont worry.
|
|
jaswells
Member of DD Central
Posts: 255
Likes: 184
|
Post by jaswells on Apr 3, 2019 8:33:10 GMT
Yes, it really is time for people to stop stressing about this claim. As expected all along, nothing will happen, there is no case and now just let Lendy get on with some form of recovery (however lousy that may be....)
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,589
Likes: 5,016
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 3, 2019 8:35:03 GMT
Is there no timescale to this potential claim, or could it hang over our heads for the rest of our lives? Most debts are disbarred after six years, if it's any help...
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Apr 3, 2019 8:42:26 GMT
Ha, cheers tommytaylor,
Not overly worried as it's a daft claim (as has been said many times on here). It would just be nice to have some clarity & be able to crack on with life!
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 3, 2019 8:48:15 GMT
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? For one point, to re-iterate what I said before the update was published, the "best possible outcome" (for those lacking a time machine) does not yet appear to have been ruled out:
... the very best possible outcome remains that the borrower has a change of heart and "voluntarily" repays in full so that we release the property back to the borrower to let her do with it as she wishes. I don't hold out much hope for that one, but cannot completely rule it out either, and one unwanted side-effect of selling the security property is that it does completely rule that out as a possibility. Perhaps now that the current rounds of legislation have reached (or are about to reach their) logical conclusion, the borrower might be a bit more inclined to cut their losses by making a settlement offer rather than dragging things out further and getting even more costs added to their eventual bill.
In any subsequent rounds of legislation, "our side" will be able to demonstrate to the court that a simple settlement option that would have avoided the situation of being forced reluctantly to bring this matter back before the court was still open as of April 2019 until [however long Lendy keep this option open].
I look forward to hearing the borrower's proposal to settle in full, as the quickest and simplest way to bring this matter to a conclusion, even though I won't be holding my breath!
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,787
Likes: 3,209
|
Post by jonno on Apr 3, 2019 8:58:56 GMT
Ha, cheers tommytaylor,
Not overly worried as it's a daft claim (as has been said many times on here). It would just be nice to have some clarity & be able to crack on with life! Seriously and with the greatest respect, has this garbage really stopped you from "cracking on with life"
I would honestly question whether P2P is really for you.
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Apr 3, 2019 9:09:15 GMT
Ha, cheers tommytaylor,
Not overly worried as it's a daft claim (as has been said many times on here). It would just be nice to have some clarity & be able to crack on with life! Seriously and with the greatest respect, has this garbage really stopped you from "cracking on with life"
I would honestly question whether P2P is really for you.
No, of course it hasn't...it's just a PITA.
However, I probably would've avoided P2P if I knew that you could potentially be taken for everything you've got, as opposed to just losing your capital! Having said that, I have other P2P investments that I'm very happy with
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 294
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Apr 3, 2019 9:15:12 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? This is ludicrous! So we've been 'cleared' but we can still get a claim against us? I think the Americans would call it a 'Cruel & Unusual' punishment! Is there no timescale to this potential claim, or could it hang over our heads for the rest of our lives? I would say that without Lendy being involved the borrower would even have difficulty now identifying and proving who we were let alone making a claim against us. I certainly have never heard of Lendy if asked.
|
|
voss
Member of DD Central
Posts: 153
Likes: 84
|
Post by voss on Apr 3, 2019 9:20:10 GMT
sl75: when you say 'simple settlement option', what is the specific such option that is on the table at present? I assume you are not referring to the repayment of all capital and interest and/or legal costs so far incurred as she would not regard that as 'simple'.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 3, 2019 9:53:07 GMT
sl75: when you say 'simple settlement option', what is the specific such option that is on the table at present? I assume you are not referring to the repayment of all capital and interest and/or legal costs so far incurred as she would not regard that as 'simple'. That depends what your point of reference is.
Compared to losing a long and acrimonious court case, and then being obliged to pay not only all of those costs but also the court costs and legal fees on top of it, and further interest that continues to accrue while the case is ongoing, that is a "simple" option.
If the borrower were indeed to take the "simplest" option available to them, we'd be delighted. Otherwise, it is up to the borrower to put an alternative proposal on the table so that we/Lendy can consider it.
|
|
mjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 342
Likes: 425
|
Post by mjc on Apr 3, 2019 10:00:43 GMT
I have written to Lendy asking their legal advisers to comment on the status - post April 1st - of the lender information that had been provided to the claimants (by order of the court) specifically to allow service to lenders against a particular case. Essentially, could this information legitimately be used for other/further purposes, or not? If others have similar questions, or others related to this case, suggest raise them directly with Lendy, (or to your own legal advisers if you have them) as I shall also continue to do! I would suggest it can’t. Contra GDPR. If it’s no longer required it must be destroyed. I think they are obliged to respond confirming what info they hold on you if asked. The £65m B from H I suspect is now open to multiple small claims for stress and losses to date. 🤪 Of course she can reinstate proceedings, but would have to explain why this claim was abandoned. No chance! Surely HCR will be inviting all those subscribing to their opportunistic money making scheme refunds along with interest? Hope this episode dissuades other borrowers from such crass actions. (but as I said in my first post on here, I’m not in this loan, but interested in the collateral / contagion damage to other innocent platforms). At least it’s a wake up call to FCA / platforms to be aware of this possible action. Would those now discussing the SM start a new thread, this is long enough. Some p2ps are SAFER than SM - source 4th Way!
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 3, 2019 10:19:57 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? That is spot on correct until H** obtain a final agreement from the borrower on behalf of the lenders that all is settled. If H** are unable to obtain such an agreement, they have to obtain one thought the Courts.
|
|