one21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 265
|
Post by one21 on Apr 8, 2019 23:36:40 GMT
Hi So today have had some clarification of the Lendy and H** update regarding the current situation, which has cleared up some confusion in my mind: 1. The 1/4 expired deadline now means that the claim against Lendy/receivers is now invalid and has been struck out but for Lendy/receivers only. 2. The 1/4 expired deadline for lenders, just means that they can not be served on the existing claim. 2. As it stands, there is still a possible chance (although slim) the borrowers can make a new fresh claim against the lenders (albeit unlikely) any time for the next 5 years. Although highly unlikely, it is still possible. 3. H** clients will have an application submitted to prevent the borrowers raising any new fresh future claim against them, therefore the application from the court will be to remove them as named parties from any joint liability of any claim against lenders as a whole so will bring closure to these particular lenders. In addition a default judgement will be made against the borrowers for the legal costs incurred. 4. The above will be instructed clients only. Personally, I treat this as a sort of "legal insurance policy" to protect against highly unlikely but a possible situations. Hope this helps clarify for some who were not sure of the situation as I have been over the last couple of updates Surely the Judge would find this inequitable. It would put increased liability on remaining lenders who could not afford H** exorbitant fees.
|
|
voss
Member of DD Central
Posts: 153
Likes: 84
|
Post by voss on Apr 9, 2019 5:46:37 GMT
3. H** clients will have an application submitted to prevent the borrowers raising any new fresh future claim against them, therefore the application from the court will be to remove them as named parties from any joint liability of any claim against lenders as a whole so will bring closure to these particular lenders. In addition a default judgement will be made against the borrowers for the legal costs incurred.
Thanks, Timm - do you know when this application will be made?
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 1,951
|
Post by rocky1 on Apr 9, 2019 6:04:54 GMT
Let's just push lendy to get on and sell the properties and pursue borrowers to the end of the VI or the Bahamas or wherever it is all these scammers seem to hide out.H** will continue preying on the lenders who signed up with scare tactics so cancel that DD and thank them for ripping you off.stop worrying now about being sued and legal action.there is a life to be enjoyed beyond lendy.
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Apr 9, 2019 6:25:23 GMT
Let's just push lendy to get on and sell the properties and pursue borrowers to the end of the VI or the Bahamas or wherever it is all these scammers seem to hide out.H** will continue preying on the lenders who signed up with scare tactics so cancel that DD and thank them for ripping you off.stop worrying now about being sued and legal action.there is a life to be enjoyed beyond lendy. Agree. I've just signed up for some English punctuation lessons.. Godda keep busy.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,331
Likes: 2,750
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 9, 2019 6:39:41 GMT
Hi So today have had some clarification of the Lendy and H** update regarding the current situation, which has cleared up some confusion in my mind: 1. The 1/4 expired deadline now means that the claim against Lendy/receivers is now invalid and has been struck out but for Lendy/receivers only. 2. The 1/4 expired deadline for lenders, just means that they can not be served on the existing claim. 2. As it stands, there is still a possible chance (although slim) the borrowers can make a new fresh claim against the lenders (albeit unlikely) any time for the next 5 years. Although highly unlikely, it is still possible. 3. H** clients will have an application submitted to prevent the borrowers raising any new fresh future claim against them, therefore the application from the court will be to remove them as named parties from any joint liability of any claim against lenders as a whole so will bring closure to these particular lenders. In addition a default judgement will be made against the borrowers for the legal costs incurred. 4. The above will be instructed clients only. Personally, I treat this as a sort of "legal insurance policy" to protect against highly unlikely but a possible situations. Hope this helps clarify for some who were not sure of the situation as I have been over the last couple of updates Shouldn't H** return excess funds collected if they were not needed to defend lenders and are only going to be used for 3. above?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Apr 9, 2019 6:56:27 GMT
Hi So today have had some clarification of the Lendy and H** update regarding the current situation, which has cleared up some confusion in my mind: 1. The 1/4 expired deadline now means that the claim against Lendy/receivers is now invalid and has been struck out but for Lendy/receivers only. 2. The 1/4 expired deadline for lenders, just means that they can not be served on the existing claim. 2. As it stands, there is still a possible chance (although slim) the borrowers can make a new fresh claim against the lenders (albeit unlikely) any time for the next 5 years. Although highly unlikely, it is still possible. 3. H** clients will have an application submitted to prevent the borrowers raising any new fresh future claim against them, therefore the application from the court will be to remove them as named parties from any joint liability of any claim against lenders as a whole so will bring closure to these particular lenders. In addition a default judgement will be made against the borrowers for the legal costs incurred. 4. The above will be instructed clients only. Personally, I treat this as a sort of "legal insurance policy" to protect against highly unlikely but a possible situations. Hope this helps clarify for some who were not sure of the situation as I have been over the last couple of updates Shouldn't H** return excess funds collected if they were not needed to defend lenders and are only going to be used for 3. above? It is not really an insurance policy, as it depends if HCR application to the Courts is successful. The Judge may not agree with it, and there goes another £1***.
|
|
seb8072
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 99
|
Post by seb8072 on Apr 9, 2019 7:20:59 GMT
Hi So today have had some clarification of the Lendy and H** update regarding the current situation, which has cleared up some confusion in my mind: 1. The 1/4 expired deadline now means that the claim against Lendy/receivers is now invalid and has been struck out but for Lendy/receivers only. 2. The 1/4 expired deadline for lenders, just means that they can not be served on the existing claim. 2. As it stands, there is still a possible chance (although slim) the borrowers can make a new fresh claim against the lenders (albeit unlikely) any time for the next 5 years. Although highly unlikely, it is still possible. 3. H** clients will have an application submitted to prevent the borrowers raising any new fresh future claim against them, therefore the application from the court will be to remove them as named parties from any joint liability of any claim against lenders as a whole so will bring closure to these particular lenders. In addition a default judgement will be made against the borrowers for the legal costs incurred. 4. The above will be instructed clients only. Personally, I treat this as a sort of "legal insurance policy" to protect against highly unlikely but a possible situations. Hope this helps clarify for some who were not sure of the situation as I have been over the last couple of updates From whom did you receive this clarification? To my mind your posting reads very much like an H** marketing exercise. What does this mean: "In addition a default judgement will be made against the borrowers for the legal costs incurred." No one's been served, no judgements have been made and on that basis surely no legal costs have been incurred.
|
|
|
Post by grumpysculler on Apr 9, 2019 7:38:52 GMT
If that proceeds as described, it makes a mockery of joint and several liability. I can't see it succeeding for only a select group.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 7:49:29 GMT
Indeed, there is so much dubious about that application proposal.
In the words of the great Blackadder, "I smell something fishy. And I'm not talking about the contents of Baldrick's apple crumble!"
|
|
|
Post by timm2006 on Apr 9, 2019 7:51:26 GMT
Hi
I basically phoned them up because and spoke to them as I had questions on the last couple of updates and needed a simple summary of the situation for my non legal brain. I am only repeating my understanding what was was summarised to me what they believe in their opinion is the situation as there was no court consequence of what would happen to the prospect of a future claim if the deadline passed from the lender perspective. I got the impression the chance of a claim is very very small. I understood the costs that would be claimed for a default judgement were for client would paid the retainer although as there was no claim against the lenders, I wasnt sure how this would apply.
|
|
smee
Member of DD Central
Posts: 84
Likes: 50
|
Post by smee on Apr 9, 2019 8:11:41 GMT
If I had been paying H** to represent me, I would have expected them to keep me up to date on any developments. I’m wondering whether H** clients were told about the claimant’s failed appeal or parting from solicitors, both of which I think were significant events. Nothing was mentioned on this forum at the time so I’m guessing they didn’t. If not, I certainly wouldn’t be thinking of giving them even more money to try (probably unsuccessfully) to stop something that is unlikely to happen anyway.
|
|
|
Post by magoo68 on Apr 9, 2019 8:21:50 GMT
Hi I basically phoned them up because and spoke to them as I had questions on the last couple of updates and needed a simple summary of the situation for my non legal brain. I am only repeating my understanding what was was summarised to me what they believe in their opinion is the situation as there was no court consequence of what would happen to the prospect of a future claim if the deadline passed from the lender perspective. I got the impression the chance of a claim is very very small. I understood the costs that would be claimed for a default judgement were for client would paid the retainer although as there was no claim against the lenders, I wasnt sure how this would apply. Would this conversation not have been "Private & Confidential"?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,594
Likes: 5,017
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 9, 2019 8:27:57 GMT
So basically... 1. The claimant can launch another claim against the lenders. We know this. Anybody can launch a claim against anybody for anything, no matter how tenuous or fictitious. It doesn't mean it'll win. Perhaps I should sue the mods here for mental distress because of some post I didn't like (="lost profits"). Perhaps I could even try to join EVERY other registered forum user, by claiming they contributed to that distress by not shouting down the original post... (=all invested lenders). It wouldn't even need to be limited to those who posted in the thread - after all, any registered user could have joined in to post... (=all lendy users who could have invested in future tranches). I'd have fewer legs to stand on than a snake, of course, but if I really wanted to waste my money on lawyers...
2. H** say that they can prevent it from happening. No, they can't. All they can do is produce some kind of legally binding precedent by which any future claim will immediately be thrown out. But we know that there's already a strong (if not definitively legally binding) precedent by which the claimant is going to have to both show why they didn't complete the launching of the claim against the lenders last time, and requiring them to lodge security for costs.
3. H** say it'll only apply to their customers. Very sceptical about that. We, the lenders, are an amorphous blob, jointly and severally liable. That's kinda the whole basis of the scaremongering over the original case. If some are disbarred from being joined to the case, simply because of a piece of paper their lawyers are waving, how on earth can the others take on their liability? It simply fails basic common sense.
So what does this actually add to the protection of H**'s clients? We know what it adds for them - a few more months of retainer for not doing much...
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Apr 9, 2019 8:54:36 GMT
Well that is done and dusted and can be put to bed. So far by her delaying tactics the borrower has earned herself 18 months of using our money. Now let us get on with the more important task of recovering at least the bulk of it. Are Lendy are up to it?
|
|
smee
Member of DD Central
Posts: 84
Likes: 50
|
Post by smee on Apr 12, 2019 14:32:17 GMT
Update now available. Just a promise of a later update.
|
|