Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 6,513
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 28, 2022 17:23:19 GMT
A link to a link to my blog post covering todays hearing: p2pindependentforum.com/post/464547/threadSpoiler: Application to join corporate P2P lenders to claim fails If you value this work please consider donating to the cheese fund to support crowd funded journalism
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Nov 28, 2022 21:18:45 GMT
And the borrower pays the costs - *again*. I feel this guy is digging deep to get out of the hole he is in.
A million thanks for your brilliant coverage once again Mousey.
All credit to UB for their courage, but I feel they should have used their provision fund to settle with their lenders at the outset of the legal issues.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 2,984
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 28, 2022 22:00:03 GMT
And the borrower pays the costs - *again*. I feel this guy is digging deep to get out of the hole he is in. A million thanks for your brilliant coverage once again Mousey. All credit to UB for their courage, but I feel they should have used their provision fund to settle with their lenders at the outset of the legal issues. provision fund is paying their legal fees! (far from all will be reimbursed via the costs awards). EDIT: this is not a serious suggestion btw
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Nov 28, 2022 22:16:15 GMT
And the borrower pays the costs - *again*. I feel this guy is digging deep to get out of the hole he is in. A million thanks for your brilliant coverage once again Mousey. All credit to UB for their courage, but I feel they should have used their provision fund to settle with their lenders at the outset of the legal issues. provision fund is paying their legal fees! (far from all will be reimbursed via the costs awards). EDIT: this is not a serious suggestion btw Whatever, but the continued involvement of the lenders has underlain much of the litigation. If they'd taken their lenders out of the equation at the outset, court time would have been much less.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 2,984
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 28, 2022 22:33:55 GMT
provision fund is paying their legal fees! (far from all will be reimbursed via the costs awards). EDIT: this is not a serious suggestion btw Whatever, but the continued involvement of the lenders has underlain much of the litigation. If they'd taken their lenders out of the equation at the outset, court time would have been much less. I don't think taking the lenders out of the equation was an option open to them in the context of this litigation, sadly.
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Nov 29, 2022 9:07:57 GMT
provision fund is paying their legal fees! (far from all will be reimbursed via the costs awards). EDIT: this is not a serious suggestion btw Whatever, but the continued involvement of the lenders has underlain much of the litigation. If they'd taken their lenders out of the equation at the outset, court time would have been much less.
The law supposedly has built in protections and checks against vexatious claims and litigation ever reaching the courts. Otherwise imagine the mayhem where everyone in the UK has money for civil actions ?
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Nov 29, 2022 21:05:07 GMT
Whatever, but the continued involvement of the lenders has underlain much of the litigation. If they'd taken their lenders out of the equation at the outset, court time would have been much less. I don't think taking the lenders out of the equation was an option open to them in the context of this litigation, sadly. The story begins, for those of us lending on these loans, with UB putting a notice on them: "3 Dec 2018: We have started the process to enforce security on the loans, and are ascertaining the right disposal channel." Then "18 Jan 2019: Assets will be consigned for auction next week to be sold March or April." On 5 March 2019, the borrower commences his legal claim for damages against UB and seeks an injunction to prevent this auction of his assets. Not until 10 April 2019 does he issue a court application for disclosure of the names of lenders. So there was a window of opportunity from Dec 2018 to April 2019 when Unbolted COULD have settled with their retail lenders, and that would (a) have returned our investments, and (b) pre-empted the subsequent shenanigans whereby the borrower engaged in multiple court applications centred on the individual lenders. This is all water under the bridge now, but there are lessons that should be learned by platforms with potentially litigious borrowers.
|
|
|
Post by df on Dec 1, 2022 22:16:25 GMT
I don't think taking the lenders out of the equation was an option open to them in the context of this litigation, sadly. The story begins, for those of us lending on these loans, with UB putting a notice on them: "3 Dec 2018: We have started the process to enforce security on the loans, and are ascertaining the right disposal channel." Then "18 Jan 2019: Assets will be consigned for auction next week to be sold March or April." On 5 March 2019, the borrower commences his legal claim for damages against UB and seeks an injunction to prevent this auction of his assets. Not until 10 April 2019 does he issue a court application for disclosure of the names of lenders. So there was a window of opportunity from Dec 2018 to April 2019 when Unbolted COULD have settled with their retail lenders, and that would (a) have returned our investments, and (b) pre-empted the subsequent shenanigans whereby the borrower engaged in multiple court applications centred on the individual lenders. This is all water under the bridge now, but there are lessons that should be learned by platforms with potentially litigious borrowers. IIRC UB was going to settle with us, but FCA didn't allow them to do it.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 2,984
|
Post by IFISAcava on Dec 1, 2022 22:21:30 GMT
The story begins, for those of us lending on these loans, with UB putting a notice on them: "3 Dec 2018: We have started the process to enforce security on the loans, and are ascertaining the right disposal channel." Then "18 Jan 2019: Assets will be consigned for auction next week to be sold March or April." On 5 March 2019, the borrower commences his legal claim for damages against UB and seeks an injunction to prevent this auction of his assets. Not until 10 April 2019 does he issue a court application for disclosure of the names of lenders. So there was a window of opportunity from Dec 2018 to April 2019 when Unbolted COULD have settled with their retail lenders, and that would (a) have returned our investments, and (b) pre-empted the subsequent shenanigans whereby the borrower engaged in multiple court applications centred on the individual lenders. This is all water under the bridge now, but there are lessons that should be learned by platforms with potentially litigious borrowers. IIRC UB was going to settle with us, but FCA didn't allow them to do it. exactly this. That whole a platform can't also have skin in the game thing.
|
|
|
Post by df on Dec 1, 2022 23:18:55 GMT
IIRC UB was going to settle with us, but FCA didn't allow them to do it. exactly this. That whole a platform can't also have skin in the game thing. Protecting consumers by not allowing them to have their investments back when the platform was willing do it. "We aim to make financial markets work well so that consumers get a fair deal." www.fca.org.uk/about#:~:text=do%2Fthe%2Dfca-,About%20the%20FCA,consumers%20get%20a%20fair%20deal. I'm a simple soul, I don't see how this "deal" is meant to be "fair" - if UB repaid I would've reinvested it in UB loans or elsewhere and earn some interest on my cash - instead my money is locked and I've no idea if I ever get it back or not. I'm struggling to see it as a fair deal.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Dec 2, 2022 0:18:21 GMT
exactly this. That whole a platform can't also have skin in the game thing. Protecting consumers by not allowing them to have their investments back when the platform was willing do it. "We aim to make financial markets work well so that consumers get a fair deal." www.fca.org.uk/about#:~:text=do%2Fthe%2Dfca-,About%20the%20FCA,consumers%20get%20a%20fair%20deal. I'm a simple soul, I don't see how this "deal" is meant to be "fair" - if UB repaid I would've reinvested it in UB loans or elsewhere and earn some interest on my cash - instead my money is locked and I've no idea if I ever get it back or not. I'm struggling to see it as a fair deal. In theory the cash is still earning interest. Whether there's sufficient value in the security to pay it when we eventually win is doubtful given the time its taking though.
|
|
|
Post by vindhi on Dec 2, 2022 5:45:32 GMT
FYI - The Court has ordered that the borrower pay Unbolted £15k plus VAT towards their legal costs by December 28th.
|
|
markyg61
Member of DD Central
Posts: 336
Likes: 236
|
Post by markyg61 on Dec 2, 2022 8:21:53 GMT
FYI - The Court has ordered that the borrower pay Unbolted £15k plus VAT towards their legal costs by December 28th.
IIRC he was ordered to pay £45k previously after losing a previous round.... Surely it's getting to the point where he just gives up due to mounting costs ?
|
|
|
Post by df on Dec 2, 2022 17:13:26 GMT
FYI - The Court has ordered that the borrower pay Unbolted £15k plus VAT towards their legal costs by December 28th.
IIRC he was ordered to pay £45k previously after losing a previous round.... Surely it's getting to the point where he just gives up due to mounting costs ?
I hope so, but it seems to me that anyone in the right state of mind would've given up long time ago (or just repay what they borrowed in the first place). It's just a speculation, but I think he could've been inspired by the Lendy's "London loan" borrower. She was determined to keep what she has already borrowed and make investors to pay her more money to settle the case.
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Dec 2, 2022 18:27:52 GMT
It's just a speculation, but I think he could've been inspired by the Lendy's "London loan" borrower. She was determined to keep what she has already borrowed and make investors to pay her more money to settle the case. The borrower actually cites the London Loan case in his 6 September 2019 application against UB in the High Court - so this is certain dfWhere I would speculate is that he was encouraged by the considerable distress evident on this very forum re. the London Loan. I've been relatively pleased by the more chilled attitude shown by those of us on 'Cashing out because of court case'. Keep it up guys!
|
|