jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741 
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Oct 22, 2018 11:37:50 GMT
Contention:
Investors lending via a platform with limited liability are conferred the same limited liability as the platform - ie limited to the extent of their investment.
|
|
rrrupert
Member of DD Central
Posts: 121
Likes: 99
|
Post by rrrupert on Oct 22, 2018 12:15:55 GMT
Contention: Investors lending via a platform with limited liability are conferred the same limited liability as the platform - ie limited to the extent of their investment. Well. Thats the issue here. It could be argued that with a peer to peer loan the platform is just the lender's agent. I am not sure where, in law, this 'conferring the same limited liability' exists. The old Lloyds of London system had a vaguely similar issue where individuals could be held liable for all their assets, "down to their last set of cufflinks".
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Oct 22, 2018 12:25:46 GMT
The lender's agent? Or the borrower's agent? We (the lenders) aren't allowed to see, let alone sign, the loan agreement. Presumably the borrowers do both.
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Oct 22, 2018 12:29:58 GMT
Contention: Investors lending via a platform with limited liability are conferred the same limited liability as the platform - ie limited to the extent of their investment. Well. Thats the issue here. It could be argued that with a peer to peer loan the platform is just the lender's agent. I am not sure where, in law, this 'conferring the same limited liability' exists. The old Lloyds of London system had a vaguely similar issue where individuals could be held liable for all their assets, "down to their last set of cufflinks". Nor me, just a thought. IIRC the old Lloyds was, by design, unlimited in its liability. It was only latterly that Ltd became a thing in underwriting. This platform has been Ltd from the get go.
|
|
|
|
Post by cashmax on Oct 22, 2018 13:41:51 GMT
I see Lendy has felt the need to respond to the FT article on their website, with the normal pack of lies. I'm assuming a simple email to the Ft with the standard "this article is Defamatory and accusatory" didn't get it taken down in this instance.  |
|
invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Oct 22, 2018 14:12:12 GMT
Are there some other loans we don't know about?
Totting up the past 12 months on the 'Repaid' section of their website does not give the figures they are on about.
That interest figure looks really high. Can it be that almost a third of all interest was paid out in the last 12 months?
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Oct 22, 2018 14:14:26 GMT
I see Lendy has felt the need to respond to the FT article on their website, with the normal pack of lies. I'm assuming a simple email to the Ft with the standard "this article is Defamatory and accusatory" didn't get it taken down in this instance. Whereabouts is the LY response, please? I can't find it either on the LY website or the FT comments.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 22, 2018 14:15:45 GMT
Are there some other loans we don't know about? Totting up the past 12 months on the 'Repaid' section of their website does not give the figures they are on about. That interest figure looks really high. Can it be that almost a third of all interest was paid out in the last 12 months? The "repaid" section of the website doesn't currently include most partial repayments.
In particular it doesn't include any of the loans in the "claims underway" section, some of which have received 100% capital recovery, but still have some interest and/or bonus payments outstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by picanto on Oct 22, 2018 14:18:28 GMT
I see Lendy has felt the need to respond to the FT article on their website, with the normal pack of lies. I'm assuming a simple email to the Ft with the standard "this article is Defamatory and accusatory" didn't get it taken down in this instance. I'm not sure what you think Lendy have lied about. They've put a positive spin on things but there is nothing that I have read in that article that I haven't read before or believe to be misleading.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 22, 2018 14:18:36 GMT
I see Lendy has felt the need to respond to the FT article on their website, with the normal pack of lies. I'm assuming a simple email to the Ft with the standard "this article is Defamatory and accusatory" didn't get it taken down in this instance. Whereabouts is the LY response, please? I can't find it either on the LY website or the FT comments. Under the 'News' menu option
|
|
mj
Posts: 37
Likes: 49
|
Post by mj on Oct 22, 2018 15:03:27 GMT
I think the bigger issue here is the news that investors (us) have potential legal liabilities to the borrowers. I am fine with taking risks on my capital in return for a high interest rate. But the idea that I might have practically unlimited (or at least greater than my total assets) liability and court costs as a result of making the loan on a P2p site is quite a shock. Thankfully I'm not in this loan but I fail to see how a lender could have any outstanding and legally enforceable obligation toward a borrower. What legal duties have lenders failed to meet - that they chose not to fund a new tranche? How does the borrower even know who the existing lenders are? If Lendy has provided the borrower with that information then it must surely be in breach of customer confidentiality regulations.
|
|
|
|
Post by broker2020 on Oct 22, 2018 15:51:10 GMT
I can only assume it is the fact that if a developer has been promised X amount to develop the site, then in the midst of the development no more money comes in, and also assuming that they have kept up to speed with the development and the QS has signed off, and the only reason the other development tranches are not available because Lendy have been unable to raise them. Then the developer is not in a position to complete the development, so work ends up grinding to a halt, interest is still accumulating and an 18 month build program now becomes in excess of 24 months. In that regards the deal is almost set up to fail with both the borrower and the lender loosing out, the developer cannot finish the product so the lenders end up with a half built site which is a nightmare to refinance or sell.
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Oct 22, 2018 15:59:56 GMT
I can only assume it is the fact that if a developer has been promised X amount to develop the site, then in the midst of the development no more money comes in, and also assuming that they have kept up to speed with the development and the QS has signed off, and the only reason the other development tranches are not available because Lendy have been unable to raise them. Then the developer is not in a position to complete the development, so work ends up grinding to a halt, interest is still accumulating and an 18 month build program now becomes in excess of 24 months. In that regards the deal is almost set up to fail with both the borrower and the lender loosing out, the developer cannot finish the product so the lenders end up with a half built site which is a nightmare to refinance or sell. Dont assume. Try reading the updates going back a year!
|
|
cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on Oct 22, 2018 18:36:24 GMT
I can only assume it is the fact that if a developer has been promised X amount to develop the site, then in the midst of the development no more money comes in, and also assuming that they have kept up to speed with the development and the QS has signed off, and the only reason the other development tranches are not available because Lendy have been unable to raise them. Then the developer is not in a position to complete the development, so work ends up grinding to a halt, interest is still accumulating and an 18 month build program now becomes in excess of 24 months. In that regards the deal is almost set up to fail with both the borrower and the lender loosing out, the developer cannot finish the product so the lenders end up with a half built site which is a nightmare to refinance or sell. The loan was fully funded. As far as I remember, for many months lendy asked them to provide proof of ability to redeem the loan. They never had it and decided to make it "non-performing" So one thing is sure... Is that the borrower was in breach of contract. Nonetheless, it may not mean that lendy was in right to stop providing funds in that case. I hope they had this part covered!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 22, 2018 19:29:27 GMT
I think the bigger issue here is the news that investors (us) have potential legal liabilities to the borrowers. I am fine with taking risks on my capital in return for a high interest rate. But the idea that I might have practically unlimited (or at least greater than my total assets) liability and court costs as a result of making the loan on a P2p site is quite a shock. Agreed, while I don’t think the FCA will get involved in any contract disputes, they will hopefully use this experience to tighten regulations or guidance. I for one would welcome clarification that, while all my Capital may be at risk, a platform cannot expose me to a risk of loss greater than my investment in any particular loan, especially when we have no sight of the loan contracts. In the context of seeking independent legal advice, has anyone recently requested a copy of the loan agreement for either of the affected loans ? The full disclosure by Lendy of info needed to mount a legal defence is possibly an area that the FCA could be pressured (by lenders) to assist with.
|
|
