sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Feb 17, 2020 12:03:14 GMT
tbh I think he gets some sort of perverse joy out of playing/gaming the system, let's hope Judgy & Co have other ideas. Based on "I will take their houses of them" he is definitely talking. At most he is entitled to his good (or their value back) and a refund of interest back. If he also gets court costs that will still not mean I or anyone else will loose their homes. FCA may fine unbolted and they could go down. Obviously any other borrower can't claim court costs. So everything we have had and our capital is at risks. I am afraid it just looks so unlikely that I don't intend on loosing sleep over it. At the end of the day its has gone on to long. Specially as we still don't know what he is claiming was wrong with the contract? It's very annoying that he has got an appeal but I will live with it.....as I have not got a choice. Bugger him.... literally With a broom handle!
|
|
|
Post by banffy on Feb 26, 2020 13:28:06 GMT
When is this all likely to get resolved as I have about a dozen x2 with my wifes lot as well and it is dragging on a bit?
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Mar 1, 2020 0:25:17 GMT
When is this all likely to get resolved Tomorrow.......ish
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Mar 1, 2020 10:09:31 GMT
When is this all likely to get resolved as I have about a dozen x2 with my wifes lot as well and it is dragging on a bit? The appeal will be heard 10-13 March. This is the appeal against the court order of 6 Sept 2019. That order required the borrower to pay UB's costs of £42.5K, for the collection of which UB's lawyers started enforcement proceedings, which have now been stayed until 23 March to allow the appeal to be heard first. Personally I think the borrower is simply hoping the appeal will remove the £42.5K costs order, which was clearly a calamity for him. Psychologically as well as financially; I think there is something wrong with this guy. But banffy this is in theory just a preliminary to the main case about technical irregularities in loan management by UB. I hope your wife is not blaming you for tying up her money, because there could be some months to go. Placate her by saying she is still earning interest on the loans.
|
|
|
Post by brummiefred on Mar 10, 2020 11:57:30 GMT
Just as a reminder
The appeal will be heard 10-13 March.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,555
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 10, 2020 12:02:02 GMT
Just as a reminder The appeal will be heard 10-13 March. I suspect it will be a half-day slot within that. I'm keeping half an ear open for the case
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,555
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 10, 2020 13:21:12 GMT
And boom: The Rolls Buildings,
Before MR JUSTICE F*******
Wednesday 11 March 2020 At 10:30 AM
Appeals
CH-2019-XXXXXX XXXXX v Open Access Finance Limited and another
I note this is the same Judge who heard some of the London Loan cases and at least one of the fundingsecure artwork cases.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,844
Likes: 2,758
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 10, 2020 19:14:29 GMT
And boom: The Rolls Buildings,
Before MR JUSTICE F*******
Wednesday 11 March 2020 At 10:30 AM
Appeals
CH-2019-XXXXXX XXXXX v Open Access Finance Limited and another
I note this is the same Judge who heard some of the London Loan cases and at least one of the fundingsecure artwork cases. Was he the same judge that at one point allowed all the contact details to be released ?
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Mar 10, 2020 19:34:15 GMT
And boom: The Rolls Buildings,
Before MR JUSTICE F*******
Wednesday 11 March 2020 At 10:30 AM
Appeals
CH-2019-XXXXXX XXXXX v Open Access Finance Limited and another
I note this is the same Judge who heard some of the London Loan cases and at least one of the fundingsecure artwork cases. Was he the same judge that at one point allowed all the contact details to be released ? No, that was Mr Justice Z******* from the Planet Z**.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,555
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 11, 2020 12:52:17 GMT
Judgement to be handed down at 10.00am tomorrow
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,587
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 11, 2020 13:06:21 GMT
Judgement to be handed down at 10.00am tomorrow Are we going to have a poll on the likely outcome?
|
|
huxs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 218
|
Post by huxs on Mar 12, 2020 11:24:00 GMT
Judgement to be handed down at 10.00am tomorrow Are we going to have a poll on the likely outcome? Anyone know what the result was ?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,555
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 12, 2020 12:13:20 GMT
The hearing finished at about 11.15. I repeat previous comments that Open Access Finance "OAF" have been open and honest with lenders and unlike conduct on platforms such as Lendy and Funding Secure appear to have acted in an honourable and commendable way. Any criticism of the platform based on my ill-informed unqualified remarks would be most unjust. The appeal concerned inter alia two main strands: 1) That the court was wrong to allow a representative to act on behalf of lenders due to provisions in the CCA which would require joinder of all 612 lenders. 2) Additionally, that the court was wrong to appoint OAF as representative of the lenders due to the potential for conflict of interest. The judge ruled that with regards point 1 the material provision referenced in the CCA did not apply in this case and so the court was right to allow the appointment of a representative. The judge ruled that with regards point 2 there were sufficient conflict of interest issues (including what might be agreed to as settlement) and so the court removed OAF as representative of the lenders. OAF have identified and informed a "representative lender" who is active in all outstanding loans to the tune of "thousands". They are willing to act as a second defendant and I understand were present today. OAF sought protection for that lender however to avoid what was described as "Robust Communication" against said lender on social media and by other avenues. I further understand the Representative Lender has or will instruct legal representation preventing direct contact by the borrower which is prohibited under professional standards. All lenders represented in this way will be contacted and made aware of the order. I understand they could then apply to the court to vary the order if they so wish. 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. It is worth noting the borrower did not include grounds in his appeal for challenge of the £42,500 costs awarded after the previous hearing and so was not allowed to plead on that point.
|
|
Ukmikk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 445
Likes: 298
|
Post by Ukmikk on Mar 12, 2020 12:23:28 GMT
Hmmm, thank you for the update @mousey.. Looks like we are not out of the woods yet then.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,844
Likes: 2,758
|
Post by michaelc on Mar 12, 2020 12:31:29 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?
|
|