agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,599
Likes: 4,183
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 7, 2021 9:51:06 GMT
The problem with contracts is that you are not just bound by the terms and conditions which are expressely stated in the contract, you are also bound by a host of other terms courtesy of British law. As an example:
- if you are in breach of contract the agrieved party has an obligation to take reasonable steps to mitigate their loss, and
- if you are in breach of contract the agrieved party is entitled to recover from you any costs that they can show have arisen as a result of the breach (assuming that the written agreement doesn't make provision for this situation)
Given these things, if there has been a breach which has caused the borrower to incurr costs, then who is he going to recover those costs from? He can't go after the platform as his contract is with the lenders.
If we are going to throw the buffer of the platform between borrower and lenders out of the window, then Lenders can also individually pursue borrowers for their money back + interest + damages, in this case that could be 600+ small claims cases! It's not a question of throwing something out, it's about establishng your rights and obligations under any contract you may have signed up to.
The idea of action against borrowers in a small claims court has been suggested previously. Assuming you haven't waived this right (by virtue of documentation you have signed up to) then you can obviously start a claim. However, I believe the majority view was this was unlikely to succeed as the issues were too complex, and the dispute would get elevated to a higher authority (where all similar actions would be joined).
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 713
Likes: 575
|
Post by keystone on Jan 7, 2021 23:12:40 GMT
Arrrgh!, and on it goes. Update just received via email. Even if the next round is won, the borrower can bring his main claim back afterwards! This one single borrower can string this along for years! That's just one of the many problems with P2P, imagine if all the borrowers did this. The model is completely broken. Costs racking up, Moneything was forced into administration because of one case. How was this ever allowed to be marketed at retail investors. Good luck to the corporate investors in the next round.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Mar 17, 2021 14:51:37 GMT
Wot's your current thinking on this Oh Learned & Smarter Than Me Fellow Lenders?
The UNB IFISA is flexible so obvs the time is fast approaching if you want to return IFISA withdrawals made from UNB during the current tax year.
I have left token amounts in my UNB Standard and IFISA accounts and am still unsure about lending again.
The way I see it, the Bag Of Excrement Borrower carries on their legal campaign and wears UNB down to where UNB give up because of Costs or UNB win and are awarded Costs etc, but the BOEB declares Bankruptcy and UNB are considerably out of pocket on their legal costs anyway.
I REALLY like UNB but I only see a Lose/Lose which may affect UNB stability.
I am also bruised enough to know that whatever the "Wind Down/Platform Failure" Plan is, it aint worth Jack Merde.
Am I missing something?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 17, 2021 16:07:45 GMT
Wot's your current thinking on this Oh Learned & Smarter Than Me Fellow Lenders? The UNB IFISA is flexible so obvs the time is fast approaching if you want to return IFISA withdrawals made from UNB during the current tax year. I have left token amounts in my UNB Standard and IFISA accounts and am still unsure about lending again. The way I see it, the Bag Of Excrement Borrower carries on their legal campaign and wears UNB down to where UNB give up because of Costs or UNB win and are awarded Costs etc, but the BOEB declares Bankruptcy and UNB are considerably out of pocket on their legal costs anyway. I REALLY like UNB but I only see a Lose/Lose which may affect UNB stability. I am also bruised enough to know that whatever the "Wind Down/Platform Failure" Plan is, it aint worth Jack Merde. Am I missing something? Yes: 1) Sunken costs. UB have invested a lot in the defence, unlikely to make sense to give up (and then be hit with other party costs too, which will be inflated due to B(OEB) and B's solicitor and B's barrister all being one in the same). 2) Court has previously ordered costs to be paid by B in order for the case to continue because of the risk of not paying you have identified. And B has apparently paid. 3) B appears to have money and assets. But obviously there is increased uncertainty added by all this. And even if you win a case and are awarded and paid costs, you are always a bit out of pocket. EDIT: and I should also say that they CAN'T just "give up"; they are being sued and have to defend themselves unless and until either a) he discontinues the action b) a settlement is agreed between the parties or c) all issues are decided by the Court.
|
|
easynow
Member of DD Central
Popcorn anyone?
Posts: 178
Likes: 147
|
Post by easynow on Mar 17, 2021 20:51:14 GMT
Wot's your current thinking on this Oh Learned & Smarter Than Me Fellow Lenders? The UNB IFISA is flexible so obvs the time is fast approaching if you want to return IFISA withdrawals made from UNB during the current tax year. I have left token amounts in my UNB Standard and IFISA accounts and am still unsure about lending again. The way I see it, the Bag Of Excrement Borrower carries on their legal campaign and wears UNB down to where UNB give up because of Costs or UNB win and are awarded Costs etc, but the BOEB declares Bankruptcy and UNB are considerably out of pocket on their legal costs anyway. I REALLY like UNB but I only see a Lose/Lose which may affect UNB stability. I am also bruised enough to know that whatever the "Wind Down/Platform Failure" Plan is, it aint worth Jack Merde. Am I missing something? SNIP 3) B appears to have money and assets. SNIP Yes, he has ours and is using it to fight us in court......
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Mar 17, 2021 21:07:22 GMT
SNIP 3) B appears to have money and assets. SNIP Yes, he has ours and is using it to fight us in court...... Yes, but we have his tie pin and cuff links can't see him lasting long without them. Hmmm.....
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Mar 22, 2021 11:56:53 GMT
Thank you Fellow Lenders for your wise and informed inputs.
I don't believe ANY Platform can or will wind down/cease trading "elegantly", and regardless of any FCA Approved Wind Down Plans BS ( ! ) it will always be a Complete and Utter Disastrous Mess.
IMHO.
For that reason I'm erring on the side of caution and probably not investing further with UNB, but will review a few days before Tax Year End.
Thank you all again.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Mar 22, 2021 12:05:31 GMT
Thank you Fellow Lenders for your wise and informed inputs. I don't believe ANY Platform can or will wind down/cease trading "elegantly", and regardless of any FCA Approved Wind Down Plans BS ( ! ) it will always be a Complete and Utter Disastrous Mess. IMHO. For that reason I'm erring on the side of caution and probably not investing further with UNB, but will review a few days before Tax Year End. Thank you all again. I'd say that Growth Street had a fairly "elegant" cessation of trading.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 713
Likes: 575
|
Post by keystone on Mar 22, 2021 15:54:31 GMT
.
|
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 478
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Mar 24, 2021 19:32:01 GMT
Arrrgh!, and on it goes. Update just received via email. Even if the next round is won, the borrower can bring his main claim back afterwards! This one single borrower can string this along for years! That's just one of the many problems with P2P, imagine if all the borrowers did this. The model is completely broken. Costs racking up, Moneything was forced into administration because of one case. How was this ever allowed to be marketed at retail investors. Good luck to the corporate investors in the next round. I felt when the Lendy thing happened that it would have been very good for the industry if they had all put funds into fighting and winning the case there and then and resoundingly so in order to "deter the others". That didnt happen and many of the early names are now gone no doubt helped on by this additional nail in the coffin. It certainly speeded up my pull back from many platforms as a result. I dont expect that my Unit Trusts will try to sue me and I would have hoped that the p2p offers had a legal structure that would have made this sort of thing impossible. I also dont expect that when I buy apples that I am not sued by somebody in the woodwork. But then the supermarkets are aware of that and try to keep the customer happy.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 26, 2021 4:41:14 GMT
Growth Street could have gone so wrong, it was with pure luck investors had their funds returned. The only effective wind down by choice of any note was Landbay, they chose to shut to retail investors and returned everyone's funds straight away to investors bank accounts. GS, LB, RS, OC, (LC) have all been pretty elegant imho, altho ‘by choice’ is subjective it’s the outcome that’s most important.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 26, 2021 13:44:16 GMT
THIS POST DOES NOT RELATE TO THE UNBOLTED LITIGATION
A considerable amount of evidence was put before the court in order to show that the defendant was a serial, and indeed (it was submitted) vexatious, litigant, and intended to use the information supplied for the purpose of threatening, harassing or intimidating members. That would no doubt amount to an improper purpose. I am not going to set this evidence out in detail, but I accept that it (some of which was accepted by the defendant, or accepted with amendments or qualifications) shows that the defendant is willing to employ all means, including civil litigation, criminal prosecutions, regulatory and disciplinary jurisdictions, in order to attack those with whom he is in dispute, and also those who advise and represent them. I do not know if any of these complaints is justified. I will only observe that, if they are, then the defendant is a singularly unfortunate person to have come into contact, in his business life, with so many persons committing criminal, regulatory and disciplinary wrongs in matters in which he has interested himself.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Mar 26, 2021 14:02:18 GMT
I like you Mousey, forever coming up with The Goods! On behalf of most on here, "I thank you."
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 30, 2021 18:52:38 GMT
Talk of the devil god of litigation...
The Unbolted case is in court tomorrow at 10.30am. Details to request a link are in DDC.
A Mousey report to follow.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 31, 2021 18:19:50 GMT
Court considers ‘pollution’ of a P2P loan agreement
Today’s hearing was an application by the Peer-to-Peer lending platform Open Access Finance Ltd (T/A Unbolted) for determination of a Preliminary Issue prior to trial. The issue concerned the consequences resulting from the potential status of eight so-called corporate lenders who had participated (along with some 600 individual retail investors) in lending some £148k to the claimant, secured against valuable chattels.
Mr Iain MacDonald, the barrister representing the P2P platform, told the court that the claimant had made an application to amend his Particulars of Claim to argue that each of the eight corporate lenders “was acting in the course of a business”. If this proposed claim could be successfully argued, it was said the claimant intended to plead that these now-reclassified ‘commercial lenders’ would by virtue of their commercial status breach certain provisions within the Consumer Credit Act (“CCA”) and the Financial Services and Markets Act (“FSMA”). This breach, it was expected to be argued, would render the Loan Agreement unenforceable.
The issue facing the court today was very specifically and very narrowly looking at what is meant by the term ‘Loan Agreement’. Mr MacDonald contended that a P2P agreement was in fact made up of many smaller (in this case some 612) discreet contracts between the borrower and individual investors. This was the position established in The Lendy Loan Litigation. Therefore, a court finding that one of these 612 agreements was unenforceable would have little consequence on the remaining 611.
Mr Richard Roberts, the barrister representing the borrower, argued that their position was the opposite – that a corporate lender acting in a commercial way could contaminate the whole loan by unenforceability.
This was a situation Mr MacDonald described as “rather startling” by referring to the civil and criminal sanctions that could affect an innocent retail investor resulting from breaching the CCA and the FSMA. “The pollution by one commercial lender can have enormous consequences” Mr MacDonald remarked.
In any event Deputy Master Glover, the procedural judge dealing with the application, began the hearing stating “that the determination may be academic as at the moment it’s not clear whether the claimant is going to be advancing the case there was any commercial lending at all”.
Deciding to hear Open Access Finances application on the basis that both parties had prepared for it, Deputy Master Glover told the court that he would reserve his position on both whether he would even consider the preliminary issue, and indeed if so, his judgement on it.
|
|