sydb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345 
Likes: 316
|
Post by sydb on Dec 24, 2018 0:57:20 GMT
Don't forget suing other users of the bank who have invested capital. But don't banks own your money when you give it to them (and are then indebted to you)? P2P platforms say that the debt to you is the borrower's, not the platform; the platform is just an agent. Isn't this one of the big differences between P2P and a bank account? That's the difference here that has resulted in all the lenders potentially getting involved as I see it.
|
|
gc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 152
Likes: 141
|
Post by gc on Dec 24, 2018 5:58:39 GMT
(and see also my just now comment on the london loan thread) I signed up sometime ago with HCR, really due to my lack of knowledge in all this, plus the undoubted shock. Hopefully the case gets thrown out by the court etc., but I don't know. I didn't want to be in a position therefore, where I get a claim form coming in and I don't know how to respond. I understand that I can choose to acknowledge and that then allows me a further 28 days to put my defence in. If things go that far, I want to be confident about the defence I'm putting in, such as can I later defend on facts which I did not mention in my original defence, for instance, or do I need to mention everything at the beginning ? (Would need a big form  To me, this needs counsel who know what they're doing...that's why I signed up, on their minimum band, whilst the thing is annoying, it's not HCR's fault. I do understand your view, wait until it happens / it might not happen, I get that, MY advice is just for those of us who are not so confident in these legal procedures. YOU can always join in later if it goes that far. Hopefully Lendy can still bat this away, or the court might throw it out, the claim is nonsense. The borrowers defaulted the loan by their non compliance... This is fully understandable and of course it can be a little worrying when one sees this fall on their doorstep. HCR's prices don't seem too out of this world and (if) they are up to speed on matters then it may be worth people going with them... (personal choice of course)... If it comes to it, I am sure that they will get the required lenders on board. Difficult to see how this is going to go but at the moment it seems like the borrower is "possibly" just stalling for time. Enjoy the holidays and don't sweat a problem that hasn't happened and may never happen.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Dec 24, 2018 20:54:50 GMT
But don't banks own your money when you give it to them (and are then indebted to you)? P2P platforms say that the debt to you is the borrower's, not the platform; the platform is just an agent. Isn't this one of the big differences between P2P and a bank account? That's the difference here that has resulted in all the lenders potentially getting involved as I see it.
And hence the massive pitfalls of fractional reserve banking. If everyone tried to take their money out at the same time the bank would collapse as they tie it all up in non-liquid assets. And no, banks don't own your money. When you make a deposit you are lending them your money in exchange for advertised interest rates. They lend your money out to borrowers and charge interest greater than the interest they are giving you. .. Retail banks absolutely do own the "Bank of England" money you deposit with them. In exchange they give you a form of money that they issue themselves (referred to as a "bank balance"), which they promise to convert into an equivalent amount of "Bank of England" money (or of money issued by any other retail bank) at any time you ask them to do so (subject to various restrictions that may be imposed in exchange for a higher interest rate, such as no withdrawals within X months, or Y days notice or similar).
Conversely, a bank also makes money by exchanging your promise to pay them for their promise to pay whoever you ask them to (also referred to as a "loan"). In that transaction, it is YOUR promise which imposes greater restrictions/risks, and therefore you pay interest to the bank. The bank merely needs to ensure that it holds a sufficient quantity of "Bank of England" money to fulfil its promises, and this is the "reserve", which is normally a fraction of the total amount of all credit balances held at the bank.
I've seen a lot of nonsense written about fractional-reserve banking by various people who, from my point of view, have failed to grasp the nature of the transactions occuring - most of which can be described as exchanging promises to pay issued by one party for promises to pay issued by another.
[Apologies for replying only to an off-topic side discussion, but I don't really have much to say about HCR's services, nor have I (yet) heard anything from them myself]
|
|
one21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 265
|
Post by one21 on Jan 24, 2019 10:31:13 GMT
IF and only IF I'm served at some future point will I consider engaging legal advice. My current intention is to seek advice from a legal firm on a narrow PAYG basis, with the intiial advice covering a) the implications of having to file a defence subsequent to acknowledging the claim b) the implications of not doing anything thereafter vs playing an active role in the defence via HCR This is a weird situation we find ourselves in, and whilst I feel I may need legal advice to make sure I'm not doing something silly (wrt the legal paperwork), I'm not sure I need to contribute to the huge expense of being an active part of the defence.In any discussions I have with a legal firm, I would of course explain that there will be many hundreds more like myself needing similiar advice. The problem is that time will be of the essence if we are indeed served, but given the small probability of being served at all its not worth doing anything in advance, beyond identifting a suitable legal firm to approach. HCR's pricing schedule may or may not be fair for what they are offering, but that may not represent value for money for me personally.
Thank you for this post I think it is most useful. However, if I might add - points you have made under (a) and (b) I would have expected to have been included in the initial advice L has already paid HCR for. Apart from sending us introductory letters before Christmas I’m not sure what other ‘initial advice’ we have received from them. It does seem as though they are rubbing salt into the wound by advising us to pay for our own individual legal advice when that advice would be identical 4-5000 times over.
If this info is not going to be forthcoming from L or HCR, could we not contribute (via say J.....t G......g for example) towards the cost for one of us to obtain this ‘initial advice’,( and share this via the main thread or via L) instead of all 4-5000 having to pay for it individually.?
|
|
dApps
Posts: 91
Likes: 80
|
Post by dApps on Jan 24, 2019 10:46:39 GMT
IF and only IF I'm served at some future point will I consider engaging legal advice. My current intention is to seek advice from a legal firm on a narrow PAYG basis, with the intiial advice covering a) the implications of having to file a defence subsequent to acknowledging the claim b) the implications of not doing anything thereafter vs playing an active role in the defence via HCR This is a weird situation we find ourselves in, and whilst I feel I may need legal advice to make sure I'm not doing something silly (wrt the legal paperwork), I'm not sure I need to contribute to the huge expense of being an active part of the defence. In any discussions I have with a legal firm, I would of course explain that there will be many hundreds more like myself needing similiar advice. The problem is that time will be of the essence if we are indeed served, but given the small probability of being served at all its not worth doing anything in advance, beyond identifting a suitable legal firm to approach. HCR's pricing schedule may or may not be fair for what they are offering, but that may not represent value for money for me personally.
Thank you for this post I think it is most useful. However, if I might add - points you have made under (a) and (b) I would have expected to have been included in the initial advice L has already paid H for. Apart from sending us introductory letters before Christmas I’m not sure what other ‘initial advice’ we have received from them. It does seem as though they are rubbing salt into the wound by advising us to pay for our own individual legal advice when that advice would be identical 4-5000 times over.
If this info is not going to be forthcoming from L, could we not contribute (via say J.....t G......g for example) towards the cost for one of us to obtain this ‘initial advice’,( and divulge this via the main thread or via L) instead of all 4-5000 having to do it separately.?There could of course be many lenders who are prepared to 'pay their way', but assuming everyone adopted the same attitude as suggested above (even if only for the initial stages) I think HCR would likely not involve themselves further in the case if the only 'contribution' they had received was a couple of hundred pounds (per month). I doubt they'd be too chuffed with individuals potentially attempting to defraud them either. (Unwise to mess with an entity that essentially gets free and unlimited legal representation, I should think.) Edit: As an afterthought, maybe HCR have had sufficient (actual paying) interest to facilitate a payment scheme for micro-lenders (say under a hundred or so lent) so as to not make the min £25/m an almost exclusionary burden. (Or even just reduce the tariff across the board.) Any comment hcrlondon ?
|
|
Grezza
Member of DD Central
Posts: 152
Likes: 101
|
Post by Grezza on Jan 24, 2019 10:57:28 GMT
But if we are served, and the claimant loses, the claimants pay our legal bill? We get our money back in the long run? I don't think the law would wish people to incur high costs when innocent of a chancers claim for millions of pounds.
|
|
one21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 265
|
Post by one21 on Jan 24, 2019 10:58:01 GMT
Hi Mrclondon,
Thank you for this post I think it is most useful. However, if I might add - points you have made under (a) and (b) I would have expected to have been included in the initial advice L has already paid H for. Apart from sending us introductory letters before Christmas I’m not sure what other ‘initial advice’ we have received from them. It does seem as though they are rubbing salt into the wound by advising us to pay for our own individual legal advice when that advice would be identical 4-5000 times over.
If this info is not going to be forthcoming from L or HCR, could we not contribute (via say J.....t G......g for example) towards the cost for one of us to obtain this ‘initial advice’,( and share this via the main thread or via L) instead of all 4-5000 having to do it separately.? There could of course be many lenders who are prepared to 'pay their way', but assuming everyone adopted the same attitude as suggested above (even if only for the initial stages) I think HCR would likely not involve themselves further in the case if the only 'contribution' they had received was a couple of hundred pounds (per month). I doubt they'd be too chuffed with individuals potentially attempting to defraud them either. (Unwise to mess with an entity that essentially gets free and unlimited legal representation, I should think.)I'm not sure I understand this statement, we would not be attempting to defraud them we would source the initial generic info elsewhere and I'm not sure were we are getting free and unlimited legal representation!
|
|
dApps
Posts: 91
Likes: 80
|
Post by dApps on Jan 24, 2019 11:15:58 GMT
But if we are served, and the claimant loses, the claimants pay our legal bill? We get our money back in the long run? I don't think the law would wish people to incur high costs when innocent of a chancers claim for millions of pounds. served, the defendants (various) legal rep(s) would need to request the Court orders the claimant(s) to make a substantial payment as security for those costs. If the case were to proceed without that order having been imposed and met, in the event of the claimant(s) losing, I very much doubt lenders would see their legal costs met. (Even if in conclusion the court were to order it, as would be expected, I suspect the claimants would have some means of pleading poverty.) That Lendy and the Receivers (two entities, both with separate legal counsel, I believe*) has successfully requested a 'substantial' sum to be paid up-front by the claimants by way of security and so ordered by the court to be provided by 01/04 is possibly the best bit of news in this matter so far this year. The claimants have already stated that their legal fees may run to £2M (not an unusual intimidation tactic) so having to stump up an amount in the proximity of that sum twice* by way of security of costs (as well as paying their own legal fees) would be no small undertaking. * - I'm not entirely certain about the separate counsel thing. Maybe someone can confirm or correct? Thx.
|
|
dApps
Posts: 91
Likes: 80
|
Post by dApps on Jan 24, 2019 11:32:04 GMT
There could of course be many lenders who are prepared to 'pay their way', but assuming everyone adopted the same attitude as suggested above (even if only for the initial stages) I think HCR would likely not involve themselves further in the case if the only 'contribution' they had received was a couple of hundred pounds (per month). I doubt they'd be too chuffed with individuals potentially attempting to defraud them either. (Unwise to mess with an entity that essentially gets free and unlimited legal representation, I should think.)I'm not sure I understand this statement, we would not be attempting to defraud them we would source the initial generic info elsewhere and I'm not sure were we are getting free and unlimited legal representation! My apologies. I misunderstood your suggestion and inferred you were thinking one person should sign up to HCR's 'offer' and then share the info with multiple (potentially several hundred or even thousand) other parties. However, I now infer that the suggestion is to contact AN Other legal firm as a collective, negotiate as a collective, and agree with that AN Other firm that dissemination of the advice / information can be made to the collective. Is that correct? If so, I think my 'not enough money to continue' observation would still apply. Said AN Other firm would need to get up to speed (which is what Lendy paid for HCR to do) and then be retained on an ongoing basis until the claim materialises or not, and that would still likely cost thousands - maybe even tens of thousands. (And see the edit on my original comment. Maybe hcrlondon can advise on a rate revision.) However, given recent events, I'm still of the opinion to do nothing until a claim is received. That's if a claim is received and only if a claim is received. We now know 414 is the magic number. (4pm on the first day of the fourth month.)
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare on Jan 24, 2019 12:28:38 GMT
I'm not sure I understand this statement, we would not be attempting to defraud them we would source the initial generic info elsewhere and I'm not sure were we are getting free and unlimited legal representation! My apologies. I misunderstood your suggestion and inferred you were thinking one person should sign up to HCR's 'offer' and then share the info with multiple (potentially several hundred or even thousand) other parties. However, I now infer that the suggestion is to contact AN Other legal firm as a collective, negotiate as a collective, and agree with that AN Other firm that dissemination of the advice / information can be made to the collective. Is that correct? If so, I think my 'not enough money to continue' observation would still apply. Said AN Other firm would need to get up to speed (which is what Lendy paid for HCR to do) and then be retained on an ongoing basis until the claim materialises or not, and that would still likely cost thousands - maybe even tens of thousands. (And see the edit on my original comment. Maybe hcrlondon can advise on a rate revision.) However, given recent events, I'm still of the opinion to do nothing until a claim is received. That's if a claim is received and only if a claim is received. We now know 414 is the magic number. (4pm on the first day of the fourth month.) Nope, it's Lendy and the receivers that may be 'in the clear' on 414, according to the update the borrower has not yet served proceedings on any individual lenders so our sword of Damocles will remain as is.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare on Jan 24, 2019 12:39:07 GMT
Further to my last comment. a quick search on th'internet suggests that claims can be made up to 6 years from the date on which the contract is alleged to have been breached, so we've got a few years to wait yet.
|
|
one21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 265
|
Post by one21 on Jan 24, 2019 13:11:34 GMT
I'm not sure I understand this statement, we would not be attempting to defraud them we would source the initial generic info elsewhere and I'm not sure were we are getting free and unlimited legal representation! My apologies. I misunderstood your suggestion and inferred you were thinking one person should sign up to HCR's 'offer' and then share the info with multiple (potentially several hundred or even thousand) other parties. However, I now infer that the suggestion is to contact AN Other legal firm as a collective, negotiate as a collective, and agree with that AN Other firm that dissemination of the advice / information can be made to the collective. Is that correct? If so, I think my 'not enough money to continue' observation would still apply. Said AN Other firm would need to get up to speed (which is what Lendy paid for HCR to do) and then be retained on an ongoing basis until the claim materialises or not, and that would still likely cost thousands - maybe even tens of thousands. (And see the edit on my original comment. Maybe hcrlondon can advise on a rate revision.) However, given recent events, I'm still of the opinion to do nothing until a claim is received. That's if a claim is received and only if a claim is received. We now know 414 is the magic number. (4pm on the first day of the fourth month.) Hi dApps thanks for your reply, Yes that is what I was proposing ie the initial 'form filling exercise' as mrclondon referred to. It is this that I would have expected HCR to have been included as initial advice. However, as we are not privy to the initial L remit / payment given to them perhaps not! However, if for example if HCR sent an email to all lenders proposing say £5 - 10 one off fee, for the initial form filling exercise - £25000 -50,000 wouldn't be a bad days work in my reckoning. Also, it would be useful to be given an estimate of HCR’s total fee divided by every lender (as opposed to a few hundred) pro-rata or whatever is deemed equitable. This would provide a more realistic figure as opposed to what they have on the table at the moment. It has been suggested that they could offer a NWNF service also, considering they have been given such a substantial ready made clientele.
|
|
dApps
Posts: 91
Likes: 80
|
Post by dApps on Jan 24, 2019 21:03:59 GMT
Nope, it's Lendy and the receivers that may be 'in the clear' on 414, according to the update the borrower has not yet served proceedings on any individual lenders so our sword of Damocles will remain as is. Further to my last comment. a quick search on th'internet suggests that claims can be made up to 6 years from the date on which the contract is alleged to have been breached, so we've got a few years to wait yet. I think one of us has misunderstood the informational point made in item 1 from Lendy's update of 23/01/19. I re-read it several times and I don't think it's me. But it certainly could be. nightmare, can you (or anyone else) confirm or correct my understanding that the waiting for lenders will be permanently over (one way or the other) on, or before, 4pm, April 1st please? Thx. (I suppose there's always scope for the borrower to attempt to bring some additional contrivance against Lendy, Receivers, lenders, Uncle Tom Cobley and all at some future date, but the 414 deadline I refer to relates to this particular chapter in the whole sorry tale.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Jan 24, 2019 21:24:57 GMT
I think one of us has misunderstood the informational point made in item 1 from Lendy's update of 23/01/19. I re-read it several times and I don't think it's me. But it certainly could be. nightmare , can you (or anyone else) confirm or correct my understanding that the waiting for lenders will be permanently over (one way or the other) on, or before, 4pm, April 1st please? Thx. (I suppose there's always scope for the borrower to attempt to bring some additional contrivance against Lendy, Receivers, lenders, Uncle Tom Cobley and all at some future date, but the 414 deadline I refer to relates to this particular chapter in the whole sorry tale.) Without quoting the relevant bit from the update, to save admin having to edit, and then publicly disgrace me with banishment. My interpretation was and still is that if we are not served by the date you quote, that option is no longer available to the borrower. Logically a date had to be set for that, it could not be left as an option indefinitely. So yes I agree with your version.
|
|
dApps
Posts: 91
Likes: 80
|
Post by dApps on Jan 24, 2019 21:30:26 GMT
I think one of us has misunderstood the informational point made in item 1 from Lendy's update of 23/01/19. I re-read it several times and I don't think it's me. But it certainly could be. nightmare , can you (or anyone else) confirm or correct my understanding that the waiting for lenders will be permanently over (one way or the other) on, or before, 4pm, April 1st please? Thx. (I suppose there's always scope for the borrower to attempt to bring some additional contrivance against Lendy, Receivers, lenders, Uncle Tom Cobley and all at some future date, but the 414 deadline I refer to relates to this particular chapter in the whole sorry tale.) Without quoting the relevant bit from the update, to save admin having to edit, and then publicly disgrace me with banishment. My interpretation was and still is that if we are not served by the date you quote, that option is no longer available to the borrower. Logically a date had to be set for that, it could not be left as an option indefinitely. So yes I agree with your version. Thanks VI, appreciated. (And I posted that before reading the other post on the London loan. I then reported my own post, explaining such. Well, as best I could in 256 letters.) The 414 date is already known by all parties so I'm not (as far as I can tell) letting the cat out of the bag here.
|
|
