sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Sept 7, 2019 9:06:08 GMT
It's good news, but i don't think it's the end yet. Agreed. I think this is a setback but not necessarily the end of it, depends on how the borrower reacts. I think this ruling relates to the issue of individual lenders rather than the 'case' as a whole. It would be great of course if he does drop the case now. Of course I'm no expert. Yep just the individual lenders. The cost to date are only unbolted's not his own. £42,500 isn't pennies , at least not to me. I would not be surprised if he jacked it in at this stage But didn't tell unbolted. Just left them/us in limbo till unbolted said sod it and flogged his goods. By then maybe even now, the goods may not be covered by there auction value. I would like to know what he was claiming was technically illegal in unbolted's terms and conditions? Anyone know?
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Sept 7, 2019 9:21:34 GMT
I read Unbolted’s comms to mean that the borrower had to pay the £42k towards legal fees already incurred defending against providing individual lenders details rather than future costs My understanding was also that the case had no real legal basis but was only being brought because the borrower thought he could intimidate individual lenders. Now he can’t it will be interesting to see if it is progressed My conspiracy theory is - he's got the "get individual lenders details" idea from "The London" borrower's case where the court decided in favour of such request  I hope this failed attempt will deter any future adventurous borrowers to pursue this path. But what were the details that he managed to glean? Their email addresses and names? Big deal like I would be bothered.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Sept 7, 2019 9:26:51 GMT
Does anyone know whether the £42k will now effectively form a first charge against our security? Even if it did I'd be happy to suffer a haircut in order to see this "gentleman" get his comeuppance, but just wondering where we stand with regards to Unbolted ecovering the £42k. Unbolted are wholly responsible for the costs not us. If he doesn't pay up he can't take his claim any further. I expect he will start by not paying up in a hurry.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,042 
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 7, 2019 9:39:31 GMT
Does anyone know whether the £42k will now effectively form a first charge against our security? Even if it did I'd be happy to suffer a haircut in order to see this "gentleman" get his comeuppance, but just wondering where we stand with regards to Unbolted ecovering the £42k. Unbolted are wholly responsible for the costs not us. I think the query is what happens to the £42k bill if the borrowers only assets are those pledged as security against our loans. I assume if he was made bankrupt UB would be an unsecured creditor in the queue with the rest?
|
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Sept 7, 2019 9:45:02 GMT
Yep just the individual lenders. The cost to date are only unbolted's not his own. £42,500 isn't pennies , at least not to me. I would not be surprised if he jacked it in at this stage But didn't tell unbolted. Just left them/us in limbo till unbolted said sod it and flogged his goods. By then maybe even now, the goods may not be covered by there auction value.
Very likely scenario, yes, and I hope UB will now be emboldened to take a more proactive line, i.e. give him a deadline when his assets will go to auction.
|
|
p2pmark
Member of DD Central
Posts: 218
Likes: 187
|
Post by p2pmark on Sept 7, 2019 13:02:37 GMT
My understanding is that he only lost the case regarding disclosing lenders' details. He could still pursue his broader case that the original terms were not legally binding in some way.
But I get the impression his case was spurious and he was trying to bully UB by threatening the lenders.
I guess his next plan will be to try to do a deal where he drops his case in return for not paying the 42k.
|
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Sept 7, 2019 13:25:27 GMT
no if`s or butt`s
ordered to pay £42k towards Unbolted's legal costs
within 28 days.
if not wouldn`t this be a comtempt of court
i don`t think the judge would be happy if it`s not paid?
so 4/10/19
|
|
savernake
Member of DD Central
Posts: 174
Likes: 142
|
Post by savernake on Sept 9, 2019 9:53:45 GMT
Is there anywhere where we can see a transcript of the court hearing? I would be interested to read the arguments made by both sides, and of course the judge's verdict.
I'm not sure if this sort of information is in the public domain?
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,436
|
Post by registerme on Sept 9, 2019 9:56:29 GMT
Is there anywhere where we can see a transcript of the court hearing? I would be interested to read the arguments made by both sides, and of course the judge's verdict. I'm not sure if this sort of information is in the public domain? I guess it's also possible that Unbolted might have one / a precis of their lawyer's opinions of what transpired?
|
|
dermot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 863
Likes: 517
|
Post by dermot on Sept 9, 2019 16:20:04 GMT
Is there anywhere where we can see a transcript of the court hearing? I would be interested to read the arguments made by both sides, and of course the judge's verdict. I'm not sure if this sort of information is in the public domain? I guess it's also possible that Unbolted might have one / a precis of their lawyer's opinions of what transpired? I think UB would want to keep their legal strategy under wraps as long as possible, for all the obvious reasons. For now, I'm happy things seem to be moving in the right direction.
|
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 479
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Sept 10, 2019 5:44:06 GMT
I read Unbolted’s comms to mean that the borrower had to pay the £42k towards legal fees already incurred defending against providing individual lenders details rather than future costs My understanding was also that the case had no real legal basis but was only being brought because the borrower thought he could intimidate individual lenders. Now he can’t it will be interesting to see if it is progressed My conspiracy theory is - he's got the "get individual lenders details" idea from "The London" borrower's case where the court decided in favour of such request I hope this failed attempt will deter any future adventurous borrowers to pursue this path. I would have liked to have seen an aggressive collective response from the p2p industry when this first happened. I would also like to be sure that the nature of the contracts always used will not make it possible for a lender to lose more the initial stake. I dont experience this sort of thing when buying apples from the supermarket and p2p is just a form of investment for which there are a lot of alternatives. I think that it would have been in their interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by markaldrich on Sept 10, 2019 19:31:23 GMT
My conspiracy theory is - he's got the "get individual lenders details" idea from "The London" borrower's case where the court decided in favour of such request I hope this failed attempt will deter any future adventurous borrowers to pursue this path. I would have liked to have seen an aggressive collective response from the p2p industry when this first happened. I would also like to be sure that the nature of the contracts always used will not make it possible for a lender to lose more the initial stake. I dont experience this sort of thing when buying apples from the supermarket and p2p is just a form of investment for which there are a lot of alternatives. I think that it would have been in their interests. Agreed. Pulled all my money out of p2p on the back of this. I don’t need the grief
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Sept 10, 2019 21:58:51 GMT
My conspiracy theory is - he's got the "get individual lenders details" idea from "The London" borrower's case where the court decided in favour of such request I hope this failed attempt will deter any future adventurous borrowers to pursue this path. I would have liked to have seen an aggressive collective response from the p2p industry when this first happened. I would also like to be sure that the nature of the contracts always used will not make it possible for a lender to lose more the initial stake. I dont experience this sort of thing when buying apples from the supermarket and p2p is just a form of investment for which there are a lot of alternatives. I think that it would have been in their interests. I'm not sure how a collective response would work. Is there any central body that represents all p2p firms or a network that can deliver the concern? What do you think they could possibly do to make this response effective?
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on Sept 11, 2019 16:07:01 GMT
Unbolted are wholly responsible for the costs not us. I think the query is what happens to the £42k bill if the borrowers only assets are those pledged as security against our loans. I assume if he was made bankrupt UB would be an unsecured creditor in the queue with the rest? This is a fair question. I haven't looked at Unbolted's T&Cs yet, but, if the borrower doesn't pay this legal bill and also defaults on his loans, I wonder whether the platform has the right to deduct the £42k from the proceeds of the assets, before they repay investors... I tend to believe they don't, since this legal proceeding is independent from the loan recovery per se. Any thoughts on this?
|
|
picnicman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 238
Likes: 216
|
Post by picnicman on Sept 11, 2019 17:44:41 GMT
I think the query is what happens to the £42k bill if the borrowers only assets are those pledged as security against our loans. I assume if he was made bankrupt UB would be an unsecured creditor in the queue with the rest? This is a fair question. I haven't looked at Unbolted's T&Cs yet, but, if the borrower doesn't pay this legal bill and also defaults on his loans, I wonder whether the platform has the right to deduct the £42k from the proceeds of the assets, before they repay investors... I tend to believe they don't, since this legal proceeding is independent from the loan recovery per se. Any thoughts on this? These are protected loans and so even if UB take the course of action you set out (which I doubt) UB have to make up any shortfall on capital to lenders from their own funds. Any failure to do so would wreck the platform as lenders would lose all trust. Just my view for what it is worth. Cheers P
|
|
