|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Mar 12, 2020 12:39:29 GMT
looks like we still don`t know what the borrower is appealing against in not repaying the loans only wants the right to claim against 600+ lenders who funded the loans? bully-boy tactics
|
|
jcb208
Member of DD Central
Posts: 821
Likes: 608
|
Post by jcb208 on Mar 12, 2020 12:53:03 GMT
Probably wanted to send all 600+ investors a demand for payment to stop legal action against individuals
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 12, 2020 12:59:30 GMT
.... There are “less than 10” lenders who invested as an “entity” rather than an individual. There may be some differences in the interests of these “corporate investors” and so may not be adequately represented by the "representative lender". The differences are complex. The judge ordered disclosure of the “less than 10” corporate investors to the borrower.Those companies could be everything from genuine corporate blue chip companies right down to one man bands making tuppence a month. It would certainly make me think more than twice to invest via a company in future. Also, I wonder when he has to pay the 42.5K by and what happens if he doesn't? One of them might be me. I invested some money via my limited company, until UB told me that that they had been advised legally that they couldn't lend from business sources. So I have been in drawdown phase since then and all I have left is three hundred quid in 7 of his defaulted loans. I shall be mightily miffed if I get embroiled in this via my company - legal fees even if shared with 10 others will dwarf anything I earned (£599 including the accrued interest on his loans).
|
|
|
Post by failedtheturingtest on Mar 12, 2020 13:04:49 GMT
Many thanks @mousey for attending and reporting! Brilliant work!
This seems like a positive development, although it's not over yet. If I understand this correctly, it sounds like the borrower has failed in his plan to intimidate the 600+ small-scale investors, who would have been relatively easy for him to bully individually. If his battle now has to be taken up against the platform and a representative lender who is sufficiently experienced that he or she can't be intimidated easily, will he bother continuing? I still wonder exactly what wrongdoing is alleged, and how there could be any possibility of arguing that investors could be liable... that doesn't happen with my index funds!
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 1,842
Member is Online
|
Post by archie on Mar 12, 2020 13:10:53 GMT
Enforcement proceedings for the £42500 were stayed until 23rd March 2020 while this appeal was heard.
There doesn't appear to be anything to prevent those proceedings going ahead.
I wonder what happened to the complaint to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,901
Likes: 2,770
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 12, 2020 13:21:29 GMT
Those companies could be everything from genuine corporate blue chip companies right down to one man bands making tuppence a month. It would certainly make me think more than twice to invest via a company in future. Also, I wonder when he has to pay the 42.5K by and what happens if he doesn't? One of them might be me. I invested some money via my limited company, until UB told me that that they had been advised legally that they couldn't lend from business sources. So I have been in drawdown phase since then and all I have left is three hundred quid in 7 of his defaulted loans. I shall be mightily miffed if I get embroiled in this via my company - legal fees even if shared with 10 others will dwarf anything I earned (£599 including the accrued interest on his loans). Sorry to hear that. I'm sure it will work out ok in the long run but I know its easier for me to say that. Your situation is exactly what I was thinking about.
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Mar 19, 2020 19:09:29 GMT
Well this thread has now become a relative haven of tranquillity...
Another blow to our borrower's campaign of intimidation. Even the viruses are against him.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,572
Likes: 6,576
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 20, 2020 19:25:47 GMT
If we assume the borrowers name is Mr Alpha Bravo Charlie it might be completely coincidental that a "CHARLIE AB" is facing a Bankruptcy petition on Monday at a London Court.
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Mar 20, 2020 20:40:39 GMT
If we assume the borrowers name is Mr Alpha Bravo Charlie it might be completely coincidental that a "CHARLIE AB" is facing a Bankruptcy petition on Monday at a London Court. A reminder of the wording of UB's "Status update on borrower litigation" email of 22 January: "In our previous update ... we had stated that we had begun enforcement proceedings in court against the borrower for the unpaid costs order of £42,500. However, we have now agreed to stay the proceedings until the 23 Mar 2020, so that the appeal can be heard first." That date is Monday, but yes perhaps completely coincidental.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,572
Likes: 6,576
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 20, 2020 20:49:39 GMT
If we assume the borrowers name is Mr Alpha Bravo Charlie it might be completely coincidental that a "CHARLIE AB" is facing a Bankruptcy petition on Monday at a London Court. A reminder of the wording of UB's "Status update on borrower litigation" email of 22 January: "In our previous update ... we had stated that we had begun enforcement proceedings in court against the borrower for the unpaid costs order of £42,500. However, we have now agreed to stay the proceedings until the 23 Mar 2020, so that the appeal can be heard first." That date is Monday, but yes perhaps completely coincidental. Ah very interesting. Monday's hearing is actually an 'Adjourned Petition' I understand from Monday 13th January 2020 so that all ties in.
ETA: I note "Mr AB Charlie" is an SRA regulated solicitor and "...suspensions occur automatically, for example if a solicitor is bankrupt."
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,572
Likes: 6,576
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 23, 2020 17:30:50 GMT
The Rolls Buildings, Hearing Room x Before DEPUTY MASTER Nxxxx (Sitting on behalf of CHIEF MASTER Mxxxx) Tuesday 24 March 2020 At 11:00 AM Costs CMC (Telephone Conference) FS-2019-xxxxxx Mr Alpha Bravo Charlie v Open Acess Finance Limited
Nb I note the typo in the word 'Access' hasn't been fixed
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,630
Likes: 4,197
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 23, 2020 17:47:07 GMT
The Rolls Buildings, Hearing Room x Before DEPUTY MASTER Nxxxx (Sitting on behalf of CHIEF MASTER Mxxxx) Tuesday 24 March 2020 At 11:00 AM Costs CMC (Telephone Conference) FS-2019-xxxxxx Mr Alpha Bravo Charlie v Open Acess Finance Limited
Nb I note the typo in the word 'Access' hasn't been fixed
So is this the last chance saloon?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,572
Likes: 6,576
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 23, 2020 17:54:09 GMT
The Rolls Buildings, Hearing Room x Before DEPUTY MASTER Nxxxx (Sitting on behalf of CHIEF MASTER Mxxxx) Tuesday 24 March 2020 At 11:00 AM Costs CMC (Telephone Conference) FS-2019-xxxxxx Mr Alpha Bravo Charlie v Open Acess Finance Limited
Nb I note the typo in the word 'Access' hasn't been fixed
So is this the last chance saloon? More the start of the beginning
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,572
Likes: 6,576
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 24, 2020 12:13:03 GMT
The phone hearing has just finished.
The claimant has 2 months to submit applications based upon the impending disclosure of the 8 corporate lenders.
OAF has 6 weeks to reply.
Then the claimant has 4 weeks to reply again.
The actual CMC was adjourned at request of the claimant.
I understand the Master indicated that realistically the CMC would not commence before September.
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Mar 24, 2020 13:01:17 GMT
playing the system? doesn`t cost the borrower much would really like UB solicitors to be more vigorous in opposing these actions or is it the case of giving the borrower more rope
|
|