garfield
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490 
Likes: 268
|
Post by garfield on Jul 22, 2019 11:26:56 GMT
I'm assuming it still applies, hence not saying any more and not referencing the loan, especially as it's still partially in recovery. I didn't have to sign - it was in the terms of an e-mail. I do see the discussion here is of general interest though.
If the email was from Lendy then did you do something which implied you accepted the terms of it? Hate to suggest it, but have you asked RSM if it still applies/is valid?
If more than one loan really is involved, as others are alleging, I assume the circumstances around each will be different and also the investors involved, some of whom I presume may be oblivious of this?
It's definitely of interest but I find innuendo and speculation aren't very helpful on the whole.
I chose to accept the offer of repayment (I could have held onto the loan parts). We are talking about facts (not speculation) in relation to the latest Times article - this served as a reminder to me. I appreciate it's all a bit hazy. However, Monetus is on the case (as ever!). Another piece of the complex picture that's emerging.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,387
Likes: 2,787
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 22, 2019 12:48:37 GMT
I assume the FCA would say it was all before Lendy were regulated. Lendy promised to pay compensation, promised to be good boys and girls in the future, and got away with a slapped wrist.
|
|
capucino
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90 
Likes: 40
|
Post by capucino on Jul 22, 2019 13:41:45 GMT
Another article from the FT
"The links between a former football chair and a failed P2P lender"
This is becoming to look more like fraud rather than mismanagement.
|
|
bloodycat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 184
Likes: 84
|
Post by bloodycat on Jul 22, 2019 14:23:34 GMT
This is becoming to look more like fraud rather than mismanagement.
The two are not mutually exclusive - in fact it is often mismanagement / incomptence that allows the fraud to take place.
I can't see the article, is it implying Lendy were complicit in any potential fraud or just reporting the murky finacnial dealings of the delinquent borrower which have been reported elswhere in recent months?
I suspect it was primarily the collapse of his group of companies that was the nail in the coffin of Lendy as thety had become rather top reliant on his projects for originating new loans, the later ones of which didn't seem to get off the ground despite several tranches- and now it seems even some of the earler projects might not have been quite as near completion as we were lead to believe.
|
|
capucino
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 40
|
Post by capucino on Jul 22, 2019 14:26:23 GMT
you can google the article to read it but the gist of it is that 27m was lent to companies controlled by the same person. All of them are in administration now.
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Jul 22, 2019 14:30:31 GMT
Others have claimed that Mr *** and Mr Brooke are,or were, mates,,just talk.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jul 22, 2019 14:46:20 GMT
Others have claimed that Mr *** and Mr Brooke are,or were, mates,,just talk. From what I have been informed, Mr. Brookes was "mates" with other borrower(s), besides Mr. ***, before the loan(s) went sour. Out of curiosity, has anyone (unless you are a borrower) ever had a personal meeting recently (say in the last 2+/- years) with Mr LB?
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Jul 22, 2019 14:54:58 GMT
Getting the impression that LENDY were in fact a broker to get money for borrowers who they knew couldn't or wouldn't ever pay back..but they got thier cut up front.. so who cares.!..was that really the business model..if so where do the FCA enter.;??
|
|
capucino
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 40
|
Post by capucino on Jul 22, 2019 15:09:01 GMT
Sounds like London capital and Finance business model. Who would have thought !
|
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Jul 22, 2019 22:19:09 GMT
It would be interesting to know how that qualifies as treating (all) customers fairly. I agree. Shouldn't this process be transparent? Remediating investors then having them sign NDAs seems like a way of quieting people who make a lot of noise but without advertising it. Of course, there may be a perfectly reasonable (and fair) reason for this approach, but I'd like to know what that is. Far be it from me to appear to defend the former clowns running Lendy but on this one, it might have been in the interests of all Lenders (including those disassociated with these specific loans). You see if miss-selling/refunds had been made transparent, it would in all likelihood have discredited the Lendy platform entirely, causing loan funding to dry up. I appreciate that's what happened anyway but that's beside the point.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Jul 22, 2019 22:58:54 GMT
It's also interesting because it's created an unequal situation where some investors have been compensated in full for their mis-sold loans while others haven't received a penny. "When the platform failed in May, almost £600,000 in compensation had still to be paid."
Some of these loans are also under Model 1 terms so investors in them face potentially being unsecured creditors in the administration. Agreed / interesting / thank you. Is this something that is likely to be covered by any Creditors Committee (understanding that not of the details may be made public)? I believe this is outside of the remit of the CC as it’s more of a legal/regulatory matter. Mis-sold investors who didn’t receive the compensation they were entitled to prior to Lendy’s collapse are now likely to be classified as unsecured creditors in the administration so their prospects for recovery are pretty bleak indeed. There’s also the question of why the FCA gave their seal of approval to Lendy in July 2018 knowing full well they had mis-sold loans and to quote Lord Myners: “Whether the FCA’s authorisation gave it a sense of regulatory approval and endorsement, which encouraged people to feel they had been vetted.” Was the FCA’s full authorisation entirely appropriate given there were confirmed cases of mis-selling and did it encourage people to invest and put further capital at risk? Should dividends have been paid and assets moved to group companies when Lendy still owed 600k in remediation payments to mis-sold investors? Complex times indeed...
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334
Likes: 11,557
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 23, 2019 0:46:41 GMT
Agreed / interesting / thank you. Is this something that is likely to be covered by any Creditors Committee (understanding that not of the details may be made public)? I believe this is outside of the remit of the CC as it’s more of a legal/regulatory matter. Mis-sold investors who didn’t receive the compensation they were entitled to prior to Lendy’s collapse are now likely to be classified as unsecured creditors in the administration so their prospects for recovery are pretty bleak indeed. There’s also the question of why the FCA gave their seal of approval to Lendy in July 2018 knowing full well they had mis-sold loans and to quote Lord Myners: “Whether the FCA’s authorisation gave it a sense of regulatory approval and endorsement, which encouraged people to feel they had been vetted.” Was the FCA’s full authorisation entirely appropriate given there were confirmed cases of mis-selling and did it encourage people to invest and put further capital at risk? Should dividends have been paid and assets moved to group companies when Lendy still owed 600k in remediation payments to mis-sold investors? Complex times indeed... Hmmm, almost as if you knew what mud was being Hurled next 🤔 www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/lendy-investors-fury-at-1-8m-dividend-m8pkn673nNot read as run out of freebies
|
|
rrrupert
Member of DD Central
Posts: 121
Likes: 99
|
Post by rrrupert on Jul 23, 2019 11:57:48 GMT
Taken from the final paragraph of that Times article,
"A spokesman for the FCA said authorising Lendy left it “better able to take any necessary action to protect the interests of consumers”. A decision to not authorise may have left Lendy unable to trade, he added. “This could have led to increased consumer harm.”"
Seems a very strange kind of regulatory logic was used.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jul 23, 2019 12:24:36 GMT
Taken from the final paragraph of that Times article, "A spokesman for the FCA said authorising Lendy left it “better able to take any necessary action to protect the interests of consumers”. A decision to not authorise may have left Lendy unable to trade, he added. “This could have led to increased consumer harm.”" Seems a very strange kind of regulatory logic was used. Maybe they learnt something from Collateral?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jul 23, 2019 12:37:20 GMT
Taken from the final paragraph of that Times article, "A spokesman for the FCA said authorising Lendy left it “better able to take any necessary action to protect the interests of consumers”. A decision to not authorise may have left Lendy unable to trade, he added. “This could have led to increased consumer harm.”" Seems a very strange kind of regulatory logic was used. “ better able to take any necessary action to protect the interests of consumers” <-- Maybe in an ideal world, but surely not one where LB was at the helm! What subsequently materialised was that the consumers STILL went down, and LB continued receiving salary and benefits from Lendy for nearly a year longer. Conclusion, the FCA decision benefited LB, not the consumers.
|
|
