|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Oct 21, 2014 11:15:26 GMT
Could it be the platform that previously required asset security for loans of £150k + but now seems happy to lend a quarter of a million without security? 
|
|
|
|
Post by mogzi on Oct 21, 2014 12:03:47 GMT
Could it be the platform that previously required asset security for loans of £150k + but now seems happy to lend a quarter of a million without security? Think I know who you are talking about and it's not them. It's one of the smaller platforms.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Oct 21, 2014 12:13:40 GMT
Could it be the platform that previously required asset security for loans of £150k + but now seems happy to lend a quarter of a million without security? Think I know who you are talking about and it's not them. It's one of the smaller platforms. Thanks for the clue!
|
|
|
|
Post by mogzi on Oct 21, 2014 12:15:24 GMT
Companies house is a matter of public record. I hope the platform is suitably grateful that hereabouts is giving them a chance to respond first. No response from the platform yet... Maybe elljay can comment on when we can discuss this openly?
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Oct 21, 2014 12:41:06 GMT
Think I know who you are talking about and it's not them. It's one of the smaller platforms. Thanks for the clue! I hope we can avoid a round of guessing games. Even though this may be public domain information there may be problems on a forum if facts give way to speculation. Unfortunately, as the mods have found elsewhere, there will be unhappy individuals using artful asterisks to try to test any rulings.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Oct 21, 2014 12:45:20 GMT
Think I know who you are talking about and it's not them. It's one of the smaller platforms. Thanks for the clue! And thanks for the message!
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Oct 21, 2014 17:50:42 GMT
<Allo Allo voice> I shall say zis only once! </>
But seriously, no clues or hints please. Just so it's clear, If you don't follow my warning you will be banned.
We've tried one contact and got no reply so far, so to be 100% fair to the company I think we should try once more before letting their name loose on Google. Bear with us for a few hours longer please. Thank you.
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188 
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Oct 21, 2014 18:05:02 GMT
<Allo Allo voice> I shall say zis only once! </> But seriously, no clues or hints please. Just so it's clear, If you don't follow my warning you will be banned. We've tried one contact and got no reply so far, so to be 100% fair to the company I think we should try once more before letting their name loose on Google. Bear with us for a few hours longer please. Thank you. Sounds fair to me
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 21, 2014 18:11:33 GMT
Apparent late filing of accounts can have some entirely justifiable explanations. I mentioned one in an earlier post - a change in the accounting reference date. Another is that before the deadline an application can be made to Companies House for an extension to the filing date giving the (exceptional) reasons why this is justified. However if these reasons are not made public, there is nothing for the credit rating agencies to evaluate in the terms of mitigating circumstances and hence a severe chop in the credit rating is the only possible outcome. I emailed the three reresentatives of RebuildingSociety registered on the forum shortly after midnight this morning to their company email addresses, and suggested that one of them might like to make a comment here. As yet I have not had an acknowledgement, so apologies to nickrebuildings danraj and kylierebsoc if my email disappeared into your spam folders. RebuildingSociety's year end is 31st December, and the free company info sites such as duedil and companycheck are showing the accounts due date as 30th September 2014 and hence as overdue. However Companies House is showing the accounts due date as being 31st October 2014, so not overdue, presumably as a result of an extension having been granted I had hoped the a ReBS representative would have commented on this. Whilst the accounts are apparently not actually overdue, the lack of a credit rating may, or may not have a material impact on the day to day operation of the business. As such I've concluded it only fair that lenders are aware of the circumstances as best as they can be deduced from public domain info. If the representatives of ReBS would like the wording on this post to be amended, please PM me with your concerns. |
|
|
|
Post by mogzi on Oct 21, 2014 18:24:49 GMT
Not sure what I am allowed to say on here but I have just had a Creditsafe alert through for a P2P platform that I am monitoring through my business subscription with Creditsafe. I follow most platforms and businesses I deal with and get regular emails when their ratings etc change. This particular platform has had it's rating scrapped due to what looks like late filing of accounts. Rather worrying tbh that they can't keep their own house in order when they are dealing with hard earned client cash. Good job I wrote 'what looks like..' in the above post!
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Oct 21, 2014 19:30:36 GMT
Apparent late filing of accounts can have some entirely justifiable explanations. I mentioned one in an earlier post - a change in the accounting reference date. Another is that before the deadline an application can be made to Companies House for an extension to the filing date giving the (exceptional) reasons why this is justified. However if these reasons are not made public, there is nothing for the credit rating agencies to evaluate in the terms of mitigating circumstances and hence a severe chop in the credit rating is the only possible outcome. I emailed the three reresentatives of RebuildingSociety registered on the forum shortly after midnight this morning to their company email addresses, and suggested that one of them might like to make a comment here. As yet I have not had an acknowledgement, so apologies to nickrebuildings danraj and kylierebsoc if my email disappeared into your spam folders. RebuildingSociety's year end is 31st December, and the free company info sites such as duedil and companycheck are showing the accounts due date as 30th September 2014 and hence as overdue. However Companies House is showing the accounts due date as being 31st October 2014, so not overdue, presumably as a result of an extension having been granted I had hoped the a ReBS representative would have commented on this. Whilst the accounts are apparently not actually overdue, the lack of a credit rating may, or may not have a material impact on the day to day operation of the business. As such I've concluded it only fair that lenders are aware of the circumstances as best as they can be deduced from public domain info. If the representatives of ReBS would like the wording on this post to be amended, please PM me with your concerns. Aren’t the mods speaking to one another? I thought that anyone dropping names would be banned?!!
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Oct 21, 2014 19:32:13 GMT
So, lets consider what Companies House says about filing of accounts not on time, whether the original time or any extension agreed by Companies House: "the company's officers could be prosecuted because they are personally responsible for ensuring that they submit company information on time. Failing to do so is a criminal offence" It appears that a moderator has asserted that Creditsafe, duedil and companycheck are falsely claiming that the officers of a P2P firm have committed a criminal offence. What response did Creditsafe, duedil and companycheck give when contacted for their response before this negative information about them was posted? |
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 21, 2014 19:33:21 GMT
Apparent late filing of accounts can have some entirely justifiable explanations. I mentioned one in an earlier post - a change in the accounting reference date. Another is that before the deadline an application can be made to Companies House for an extension to the filing date giving the (exceptional) reasons why this is justified. However if these reasons are not made public, there is nothing for the credit rating agencies to evaluate in the terms of mitigating circumstances and hence a severe chop in the credit rating is the only possible outcome. I emailed the three reresentatives of RebuildingSociety registered on the forum shortly after midnight this morning to their company email addresses, and suggested that one of them might like to make a comment here. As yet I have not had an acknowledgement, so apologies to nickrebuildings danraj and kylierebsoc if my email disappeared into your spam folders. RebuildingSociety's year end is 31st December, and the free company info sites such as duedil and companycheck are showing the accounts due date as 30th September 2014 and hence as overdue. However Companies House is showing the accounts due date as being 31st October 2014, so not overdue, presumably as a result of an extension having been granted I had hoped the a ReBS representative would have commented on this. Whilst the accounts are apparently not actually overdue, the lack of a credit rating may, or may not have a material impact on the day to day operation of the business. As such I've concluded it only fair that lenders are aware of the circumstances as best as they can be deduced from public domain info. If the representatives of ReBS would like the wording on this post to be amended, please PM me with your concerns. Aren’t the mods speaking to one another? I thought that anyone dropping names would be banned?!! Yes we are talking to one another, and conclusions do change as more people chip in my more information.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 21, 2014 19:35:39 GMT
So, lets consider what Companies House says about filing of accounts not on time, whether the original time or any extension agreed by Companies House: "the company's officers could be prosecuted because they are personally responsible for ensuring that they submit company information on time. Failing to do so is a criminal offence" It appears that a moderator has asserted that duedil and companycheck are falsely claiming that the officers of a P2P firm are committing a criminal offence. Did the moderators approach duedil and companycheck for their comments before posting the accusation? What was their response? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I think most people would assume that the free info sites don't have access to the companies house details on extensions to filing dates ... if it isn't available on companies house API, there isn't much the free sites can do about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 21, 2014 19:42:14 GMT
What this episode does illustrate, is that care is needed in interpreting the data presented on the free company information web sites, all of which I'm sure have disclaimers that their data is not to be relied upon as 100% accurate etc etc
|
|
