Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 25, 2020 12:22:35 GMT
The waterfall model is in no way enforceable. Over and above the costs of recovery all funds from the sale of the secured assets have to be returned to the lenders of the money, otherwise what is the purpose of secured lending? Isn't this more all to do with the unfairness of the borrowers contracts, they were subjected to ridiculously high default charges by Lendy, which made their financial position much worse. What is now being recovered is being used to pay Lendy's unfair default charges first, should the aim be to get the default charges reversed, releasing more of the recovered funds for Lenders. Or is that part of the argument already? From what I've read it all seems to be about overturning the waterfall from the lenders perspective (not fair to lenders), which seems difficult due to the T&Cs, but borrowers have definitely been treated unfairly in the imposition of (unreasonably) high default charges in the first place.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Aug 25, 2020 13:01:27 GMT
The waterfall model is in no way enforceable. Over and above the costs of recovery all funds from the sale of the secured assets have to be returned to the lenders of the money, otherwise what is the purpose of secured lending? Isn't this more all to do with the unfairness of the borrowers contracts, they were subjected to ridiculously high default charges by Lendy, which made their financial position much worse. What is now being recovered is being used to pay Lendy's unfair default charges first, should the aim be to get the default charges reversed, releasing more of the recovered funds for Lenders. Or is that part of the argument already? From what I've read it all seems to be about overturning the waterfall from the lenders perspective (not fair to lenders), which seems difficult due to the T&Cs, but borrowers have definitely been treated unfairly in the imposition of (unreasonably) high default charges in the first place. Hear what you're saying, Greenwood2 but my response would be: As a cohort, Borrowers had clear and full sight of their Loan Terms before they signed on the dotted line, yet they chose to do so. (I'm taking this 'as a cohort' approach as there will be outliers to that cohort where borrowers ended up defaulting through no fault of their own, but 'as a cohort' Borrowers knew what they were getting into.) On the other hand, Lenders had no sight of the borrower's loan terms and no indication that Lendy default interest rates were so rapaciously punitive, not only to the point where they on occasion crippled borrowers but also to the point where they significantly diminished lenders returns because, whilst they ranked pari passu in the waterfall structure, the amount of interest charged in favour of Lendy, was far above that due to be received by lenders, whilst the lenders capital entitlement remained static. Subsequently, it favoured Lendy to actively mismanage loan recovery. The longer a defaulted loan went unresolved, the greater their portion of the final recovery. For a reminder of how the structure of the borrowers loan terms in conjunction with the waterfall agreement benefit Lendy, take a look at RSM's email from November last year, as captured in the Administration - State of Play & Significant Information (L) thread, particularly the table titled: "Dividend Apportionment". In summary; was it unfair to borrowers? Maybe, but they had every opportunity to say 'no' before taking out the loan. Was it unfair to lenders? Absolutely, not only was key investment information hidden, but changes were made which retroactively disadvantaged lenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by buryfc on Aug 25, 2020 13:03:02 GMT
The waterfall model is in no way enforceable. Over and above the costs of recovery all funds from the sale of the secured assets have to be returned to the lenders of the money, otherwise what is the purpose of secured lending? Isn't this more all to do with the unfairness of the borrowers contracts, they were subjected to ridiculously high default charges by Lendy, which made their financial position much worse. What is now being recovered is being used to pay Lendy's unfair default charges first, should the aim be to get the default charges reversed, releasing more of the recovered funds for Lenders. Or is that part of the argument already? From what I've read it all seems to be about overturning the waterfall from the lenders perspective (not fair to lenders), which seems difficult due to the T&Cs, but borrowers have definitely been treated unfairly in the imposition of (unreasonably) high default charges in the first place. Precisely Greenwood2 - whilst the waterfall provision is being challenged, whether or not that will be successful (and cost a lot more money in legal fees that we will need to chip in to fund) there are things that can be done in the meantime. Firstly default interest at the rate that Lendy has the right to charge is unenforceable - in law it is considered a penalty. Usually you would have a borrower defending the position and as has happened before with Lendy, if challenged, they back down. At the moment no one is challenging it and therefore its being "charged" against the recoveries. Even if we establish this point with RSM (which would be very easy and relatively modest in legal cost to get a court declaration on) this significantly reduced the amount of interest that Lendy can try to claim they are due under the waterfall. It doesn't stop the waterfall but significantly reduces the "flow". The benefit of how the terms are currently written is that the clause is then "infected" in that if the default rate of interest is considered disproportionate to the risk, Lendy cant then claim a smaller amount of default interest. The clause is effectively unenforceable. Lenders use clauses such as this as many borrowers dont realise its unenforceable and it tends to be used as a negation tool with borrowers. Sometimes they are paid in full, others negotiated settlement - In cases where challenged (as has happened with Lendy in the past) the matter is dropped. Im not involved in LAG but I would hope that they are pursuing this option alongside challenging the waterfall in its entirety as this would in the meantime, reduce what Lendy can take from recoveries / increase what we receive. Im not even sure if RSM would require us to get a court declaration on the matter as firstly their lawyers would accept the point and secondly it makes no difference to what RSM get paid. Bare in mind if Lendy have taken money previously from our contractual entitlement, establishing that the default interest was in fact a penalty would mean that RSM have to reassess previous distributions and make good on the difference from the funds that they are entitled to receive.Its hard to believe that given LAG are challenging the waterfall with £100k of fees, involving lawyers and barristers, they have not considered this so hopefully it be in progress and if not, they need to address this immediately. If any of the LAG team who are dealing with this, can comment, that would be extremely helpful
|
|
|
|
Post by buryfc on Aug 25, 2020 13:25:27 GMT
I hugely admire your indefatigability buryfc , you're a fighting man who enjoys a good scrap when you've been unfairly turned over and screwed. Not unlike myself.  However ....... "I HAVE ENGAGED IRWIN MITCHELL LAW FIRM (TOP 25 IN THE UK) TO REVIEW MY SITUATION AND CONSIDER A CLASS ACTION AGAINST THE FCA AND OTHER AREAS OF REDRESS"I am intrigued. You are a bright fellow so you must be aware that the FCA has been setup in exactly such a way that they are completely, utterly and totally 100% IMMUNE to ANY legal action of ANY kind? What else would explain their Total Arrogance, Gross Incompetence, Evasion of ANY Responsibility, and General Disdain for Consumer Lenders, who they are supposed to Protect? If I have it wrong I'd be very interested to know (we all on here would!) exactly what course of Legal Action against the FCA is available? Ozboy I have spent a great deal of time investigating many matters including things that went on within Lendy. Not only have I spoken to RSM, the FCA, borrowers, borrower Administrations, sales agents but I have spoken to several ex staff of Lendy. The FCA are not immune to legal action. Bare in mind they have already admitted that whilst approving Lendy has caused losses, in not doing so would have caused more!!! That is no defence....and those words have stuck with me ever since they uttered them. Action against the FCA wont be easy, will take time and will be limited in its ultimate recovery for investors. There are other avenues that Irwin Mitchell are now investigating for me that are not currently been explored from anything Ive read on these forums. I think the point to be made is that IF Irwin Mitchell decide that they wish to proceed on our behalf, it will be on a no win no fee basis and if that's the case, they will clearly be confident in the claims success. As you will have seen from my posts on here this last 24 hours, Im not merely here bitching and moaning like some. My points are backed up by robust facts and whilst someone people like quidco might not want to read them, it is pointless us being ignorant to them. The facts actually help us - we WANT the FCA to have approved the waterfall initially. We WANT the FCA to have overseen Lendy having "transparently and fairly" introduced these terms. We WANT the FCA to repeatedly approve the waterfall (up until we challenge RSM on the penal nature of default interest clause) Its all evidential in the FCA's complete failings. However, Im not going to speculate on what actions could be brought aside from what LAG are doing until I have fully established the legal position with Irwin Mitchell. I have suggested to them that we then invite Lendy investors to join them on a webinar at which point we can all hear from the lawyers themselves exactly what we can do and how we can try to recover as much of our money back as possible. I think that LAG's actions are effectively to stem the flow of funds leaking to Lendy which is important (albeit we need to immediately challenge the default interest clause). Im not sure if they are seeking legal actions to attempt to recover our losses. I think that many on this forum and the Lendy investors as a whole will be very interested in deed when I get the final position from Irwin Mitchell.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 25, 2020 15:35:32 GMT
No one from LAG is going to comment on strategy and legal avenues being explored on a public forum or even on a semi-public forum like FB in anything other than vague terms. I doubt anybody is under the illusion that Lendy, friends & family, borrowers etc dont have access.
Undoubtibly key LAG members will have access to all sorts of info that could support or undermine your various assumptions but in addition to the above are inevitably subject to NDA & legal privilege.
I would take it as read that they have also considered various avenues that can pursued. There are posts highlighting much of what you have posted so I doubt they are oblivious to them or havent discussed them with lawyers.
On the subject of default interest, you are quite right that anything that can be considered a penalty is not allowed. One might have thought that borrowers who are in hoc for millions as a result would have explored this avenue. At least one, has posted on this forum that he tried and failed. I assume it is also something RSM would have checked up on and presumably it is something that was raised in your conversations with them. Id be very surprised if it isnt something that will be covered in the directions hearing given how prominent it is in the distribution calculations. Obviously any form of legal action against a company in administration is difficult as it usually requires the administrators or the courts permission.
As for action against the FCA. Inevitably difficult due to their statutory immunity but even that does allow a few avenues that can be pursued. Unfortunately, it is likely to require access to FCA communications with Lendy, likely to be confidential & legally privileged, being potentially part of 3 court cases, which will not be readily forthcoming.
Will indeed be interested to see what IM say
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,880
Likes: 6,964
|
Post by duck on Aug 25, 2020 16:45:51 GMT
.... The FCA are not immune to legal action. .... Technically correct as confirmed by John Glenn But this is hardly an opening. FSMA200 provided the general immunity. and to save you looking up Protocol 1
|
|
|
|
Post by buryfc on Aug 25, 2020 16:48:36 GMT
No one from LAG is going to comment on strategy and legal avenues being explored on a public forum or even on a semi-public forum like FB in anything other than vague terms. I doubt anybody is under the illusion that Lendy, friends & family, borrowers etc dont have access. Undoubtibly key LAG members will have access to all sorts of info that could support or undermine your various assumptions but in addition to the above are inevitably subject to NDA & legal privilege. I would take it as read that they have also considered various avenues that can pursued. There are posts highlighting much of what you have posted so I doubt they are oblivious to them or havent discussed them with lawyers. On the subject of default interest, you are quite right that anything that can be considered a penalty is not allowed. One might have thought that borrowers who are in hoc for millions as a result would have explored this avenue. At least one, has posted on this forum that he tried and failed. I assume it is also something RSM would have checked up on and presumably it is something that was raised in your conversations with them. Id be very surprised if it isnt something that will be covered in the directions hearing given how prominent it is in the distribution calculations. Obviously any form of legal action against a company in administration is difficult as it usually requires the administrators or the courts permission. As for action against the FCA. Inevitably difficult due to their statutory immunity but even that does allow a few avenues that can be pursued. Unfortunately, it is likely to require access to FCA communications with Lendy, likely to be confidential & legally privileged, being potentially part of 3 court cases, which will not be readily forthcoming. Will indeed be interested to see what IM say I would have thought just a simple yes or no was vague enough to not cause any concern.
If they have already considered the aspect of legality of the default interest clause, great, if not, Im sure they will.
If a borrower tried and failed to challenge the default interest clause, I would suggest he didn't try very hard as this is standard law. Im aware of 3 borrowers who didn't even use lawyers to challenge it and were successful.
Im more confident in another line of redress than the FCA one but as I said, once Irwin Mitchell and their barrister consider the portions, I will repost on the forum under a specific thread.
And if LAG have considered the additional action that Irwin Mitchell are considering, I think we would have seen evidence of this by now and on boarding of clients in a class action would have commence.
I hope to be able to provide more detail in the coming weeks.
If LAG and Irwin Mitchell are both considering action on behalf of us all, I dont see that as a bad thing. The benefit of Irwin Mitchell is no one is having to pay fees for them to consider the matter.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 25, 2020 19:04:36 GMT
No one from LAG is going to comment on strategy and legal avenues being explored on a public forum or even on a semi-public forum like FB in anything other than vague terms. I doubt anybody is under the illusion that Lendy, friends & family, borrowers etc dont have access. Undoubtibly key LAG members will have access to all sorts of info that could support or undermine your various assumptions but in addition to the above are inevitably subject to NDA & legal privilege. I would take it as read that they have also considered various avenues that can pursued. There are posts highlighting much of what you have posted so I doubt they are oblivious to them or havent discussed them with lawyers. On the subject of default interest, you are quite right that anything that can be considered a penalty is not allowed. One might have thought that borrowers who are in hoc for millions as a result would have explored this avenue. At least one, has posted on this forum that he tried and failed. I assume it is also something RSM would have checked up on and presumably it is something that was raised in your conversations with them. Id be very surprised if it isnt something that will be covered in the directions hearing given how prominent it is in the distribution calculations. Obviously any form of legal action against a company in administration is difficult as it usually requires the administrators or the courts permission. As for action against the FCA. Inevitably difficult due to their statutory immunity but even that does allow a few avenues that can be pursued. Unfortunately, it is likely to require access to FCA communications with Lendy, likely to be confidential & legally privileged, being potentially part of 3 court cases, which will not be readily forthcoming. Will indeed be interested to see what IM say I would have thought just a simple yes or no was vague enough to not cause any concern.
If they have already considered the aspect of legality of the default interest clause, great, if not, Im sure they will.
If a borrower tried and failed to challenge the default interest clause, I would suggest he didn't try very hard as this is standard law. Im aware of 3 borrowers who didn't even use lawyers to challenge it and were successful.
Im more confident in another line of redress than the FCA one but as I said, once Irwin Mitchell and their barrister consider the portions, I will repost on the forum under a specific thread.
And if LAG have considered the additional action that Irwin Mitchell are considering, I think we would have seen evidence of this by now and on boarding of clients in a class action would have commence.
I hope to be able to provide more detail in the coming weeks.
If LAG and Irwin Mitchell are both considering action on behalf of us all, I dont see that as a bad thing. The benefit of Irwin Mitchell is no one is having to pay fees for them to consider the matter.
It seems to me that one of the issues with challenging the default clause is that it is not a penalty on lenders, though there is obviously a detrimental impact, so the exact grounds it could be challenged is unclear. Far easier to raise it as part of the directions hearing on the conduct of the administration than mount a separate challenge. The issue as far as lenders are concerned would relate to agency law ie Lendy making a secret profit as a result. While the issue of penalties is standard law there are limitations on it . For a start, AIUI the supreme court ruling that seems to be current basis of law, makes the circumstances and nature of the contract relevant and to some extent excludes commercial contracts, assuming both parties would be advised and are likely to be of equal bargaining power so are best judges of the consequences of the breach ie the penalty. Also seems to be numerous caveats which make the law on penalties very subjective. (NB Personally i consider it penal but then Id consider an £85 parking fine penal but seemingly it isnt. Hey, Im not a lawyer) Interesting to see that some borrowers were able to challenge it, though I would contend that challenging Lendy on the subject is somewhat different to challenging an administrator. I would assume RSM are confident in the legal basis for the application of default interest. Are you able to share which loans were successful? Always been a lot of talk about class action ... question is where does the money come from if you win or how much do IM take? Guess that depends on the target, though all have their issues. Addressing the waterfall pursues a known pot of money, both current & future.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 25, 2020 19:17:43 GMT
No one from LAG is going to comment on strategy and legal avenues being explored on a public forum or even on a semi-public forum like FB in anything other than vague terms. I doubt anybody is under the illusion that Lendy, friends & family, borrowers etc dont have access. Undoubtibly key LAG members will have access to all sorts of info that could support or undermine your various assumptions but in addition to the above are inevitably subject to NDA & legal privilege. I would take it as read that they have also considered various avenues that can pursued. There are posts highlighting much of what you have posted so I doubt they are oblivious to them or havent discussed them with lawyers. On the subject of default interest, you are quite right that anything that can be considered a penalty is not allowed. One might have thought that borrowers who are in hoc for millions as a result would have explored this avenue. At least one, has posted on this forum that he tried and failed. I assume it is also something RSM would have checked up on and presumably it is something that was raised in your conversations with them. Id be very surprised if it isnt something that will be covered in the directions hearing given how prominent it is in the distribution calculations. Obviously any form of legal action against a company in administration is difficult as it usually requires the administrators or the courts permission. As for action against the FCA. Inevitably difficult due to their statutory immunity but even that does allow a few avenues that can be pursued. Unfortunately, it is likely to require access to FCA communications with Lendy, likely to be confidential & legally privileged, being potentially part of 3 court cases, which will not be readily forthcoming. Will indeed be interested to see what IM say I would have thought just a simple yes or no was vague enough to not cause any concern.
If they have already considered the aspect of legality of the default interest clause, great, if not, Im sure they will.
If a borrower tried and failed to challenge the default interest clause, I would suggest he didn't try very hard as this is standard law. Im aware of 3 borrowers who didn't even use lawyers to challenge it and were successful.
Im more confident in another line of redress than the FCA one but as I said, once Irwin Mitchell and their barrister consider the portions, I will repost on the forum under a specific thread.
And if LAG have considered the additional action that Irwin Mitchell are considering, I think we would have seen evidence of this by now and on boarding of clients in a class action would have commence.
I hope to be able to provide more detail in the coming weeks.
If LAG and Irwin Mitchell are both considering action on behalf of us all, I dont see that as a bad thing. The benefit of Irwin Mitchell is no one is having to pay fees for them to consider the matter.
I don't know about Irwin Mitchell, but there have been a lot of complaints about no win no fee, in that there can be no action for ages (literally years) and if you then try to stop the action (because you have given up hope) you do get billed for work done so far. Hopefully IM are not like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by buryfc on Aug 25, 2020 20:49:52 GMT
It seems to me that one of the issues with challenging the default clause is that it is not a penalty on lenders, though there is obviously a detrimental impact, so the exact grounds it could be challenged is unclear. Far easier to raise it as part of the directions hearing on the conduct of the administration than mount a separate challenge. The issue as far as lenders are concerned would relate to agency law ie Lendy making a secret profit as a result. While the issue of penalties is standard law there are limitations on it . For a start, AIUI the supreme court ruling that seems to be current basis of law, makes the circumstances and nature of the contract relevant and to some extent excludes commercial contracts, assuming both parties would be advised and are likely to be of equal bargaining power so are best judges of the consequences of the breach ie the penalty. Also seems to be numerous caveats which make the law on penalties very subjective. (NB Personally i consider it penal but then Id consider an £85 parking fine penal but seemingly it isnt. Hey, Im not a lawyer) Interesting to see that some borrowers were able to challenge it, though I would contend that challenging Lendy on the subject is somewhat different to challenging an administrator. I would assume RSM are confident in the legal basis for the application of default interest. Are you able to share which loans were successful? Always been a lot of talk about class action ... question is where does the money come from if you win or how much do IM take? Guess that depends on the target, though all have their issues. Addressing the waterfall pursues a known pot of money, both current & future. ilmoro - it doesn't matter that a clause is not a penalty on a lender (ironic eh) - the fact is such a clause because of the penal effect, is not enforceable so Lendy have no right to enforce it and have no right therefore to take a 50% share of it....because it doesn't exist.
Ive had considerable "exposure" to such challenges and yes you are right....if two parties of equal bargaining power negotiate and conclude in a "business to business" arrangement that they are content to such charges, then there is an argument (its still not binary).
Ive seen a default interest clause drawn up in the same clause as standard interest and "infected" the clause to the degree that standard interest could not be charged at all.
We are consumers.
We had no involvement in the clause.
The borrowers had no power to argue or negotiate the clause.
I can assure you if challenged, the clause will not stand up.
When coupled with the fact that Lendy are only seeking to apply the clause to "add on interest (of a penal nature) that is not being paid from by the borrower" this on exacerbates the argument.
Ive been advised by two sets of law firms that this is unequivacly the case.
It doesn't really matter that an administrator is in place - they actually have a higher duty of obligation and cannot simply ignore matters of law just because they are administrators.
Of course they are all for the clause and the waterfall....its their payday and "they are only enforcing the terms set out before them" " they have to represent the creditors as a whole, not just the secured ones" etc etc
Its the fact that NO ONE has challenged it. Now that LAG are stepping up to do so....RSM have agreed to set the funds aside (on the advice of their lawyers) but I presume this is on the challenge of the waterfall being introduced without our consent (that we actually gave Lendy the right to change terms on our behalf without our consent)....not on the specific fact that the default interest clause is unenforceable.
I would be happy with the waterfall....as long as there is no default interest...and this is the argument Im trying to frame.
I cant comment on what LAG are trying to achieve but given that they have been providing rafts and rafts of evidence of everything Lendy has done wrong etc, it doesn't feel like a challenging a specific matter of law. I presume they are exploring every angle and rightly so and given that RSM have agreed to put aside this "contractual entitlement" we are not loosing anything at the moment other than time.
By the way a £85 Parking fine is only penal if its done in reverse in that it doubles etc if you dont pay it in a certain time limit - is this exact point of law why they switched to £60 fine but £30 if you pay it in 30 days. If you dont it reverts back to £60 - same effect but within the law.
At the moment I cant share which loans were successful in challenging the penalty interest as Ive got a number of borrowers onside to assist us and the evidence they have provided has been so under agreement of an NDA for now but believe me....they have been shafted in many cases as much as we have.
On one loan the amount of fees that have been charged and interest added that's all been paid for by ourselves is outrageous.
On extensions, 6 figure "extension fees" added at the last minute on a take or leave it basis, then deducted from the advance so Lendy received it in cash from our funds rather than sent to the developer....your eyes "will" when this comes out, weep when you see what Lendy has been doing.
Ive focused a lot on the borrowers and assisted them in many cases (I have a background in areas that have helped them) and in doing so, exposed so much and I would implore LAG to do the same.
Whilst challenging the waterfall does in deed address current and future funds to some degree (hence why Im banging the drum about the default clause to remove Lendy right to take interest before capital - ie NO NEED to defeat the Waterfall clause....just remove the ability for it to hurt - Im focused on my overall losses and this is where Irwin Mitchell are making significant progress.
LAG can continue to fight the good fight and I thank them for everything they are doing - there is no harm in other avenues being pursed and coming at the same problem from a different angle.
I wasnt aware that they are working on an action to recover our losses, I thought they were just challenging the waterfall.
|
|
|
|
Post by buryfc on Aug 25, 2020 20:55:28 GMT
I don't know about Irwin Mitchell, but there have been a lot of complaints about no win no fee, in that there can be no action for ages (literally years) and if you then try to stop the action (because you have given up hope) you do get billed for work done so far. Hopefully IM are not like that. Greewood2 - If Irwin Mitchell conclude there is a strong case of action, they will explain to you on a webinar how long the matter will take - yes, if we pull out just because we have given up hope, they would be quite entitled to recover their costs, but then if there is no financial reason to pull out why would you? Simple - you just dont pull out. What we are discussing would be in court within 9 months with a result (either way) within the year. And at the end of the day no one has to proceed if they dont want to.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Aug 26, 2020 6:50:40 GMT
Again, no evidence that this constitutes approval of any kind of model. No you are absolutely right quidco..... The FCA just allowed Lendy to slip in the waterfall provision The FCA just ignore the matter every time a distribution is made back to Lenders at huge expense to lenders The FCA dont bother enforcing their own requirements placed upon Lendy and therefore create risk and criticism for themselves The FCA just dont bother doing exactly what they are there to do....ensure that investors are treated fairly You picked a strange sentence to quote - if the FCA require detailed weekly cash-flow reports....this would show what would be paid from recoveries, what Lendy would retain and what would go back to investors.....do you not think they would question why so little would be paid to investors and so much be retained by Lendy / RSM? Its interesting that you are trying so hard to ignore the facts and hold up some belief that despite the blinding obvious (and our bank accounts when recoveries are finally distributed) that the waterfall has just be missed and ignored by the FCA. I wasn't being selective it was the only sentence in your post about what the FCA actually did during this period. I just don't get from that activity of scanning cashflow reports and getting notified about recoveries (which lenders did also) that the FCA were down in the legal weeds understanding, evaluating and contextualisig all the the T&Cs and then "approving" them (by some dubious authority). Apparently they didn't even do a site visit to the ailing failing Lendy for 14 months during this time period. If you have other information then fair enough, I'm just going by what is publically known about their activities. We have after all subsequently found that the directors sent millions to the Marshall Islands in "payment" of a fake invoice to an offshore entity they controlled. FCA obvs approved that one as well by the criteria that it was allowed to happen.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Aug 26, 2020 10:04:42 GMT
What we are discussing would be in court within 9 months with a result (either way) within the year. What's your time estimate for the trial length?
|
|
|
|
Post by supernumerary on Aug 27, 2020 17:54:09 GMT
“Success is the ability to go from failure to failure without losing your enthusiasm” ― Winston Churchill Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by tinkerbell59 on Sept 9, 2020 21:25:34 GMT
I don't know about Irwin Mitchell, but there have been a lot of complaints about no win no fee, in that there can be no action for ages (literally years) and if you then try to stop the action (because you have given up hope) you do get billed for work done so far. Hopefully IM are not like that. can you say whether Irwin Mitchell are considering/already involved in a class action on a no win no fee basis please?
|
|
