lexo
Posts: 52 
Likes: 30
|
Post by lexo on Oct 10, 2019 18:19:10 GMT
Clearly, RSM is trying to come up with various ways to rip investors off in all ways possibles. E.g., they are making the AML verification process as time-consuming as possible to bill more hours. They probably have come up and will come up with other ways to transfer money from investors' pockets to theirs.
The way the AML verification is done is just another hassle to investors and clearly, RSM has no intentions to make it reasonable and less burdensome.
I'm wondering if investors can do anything to stop RSM to continue to rip them off.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Oct 10, 2019 18:51:21 GMT
Firstly I must say that I don't entirely agree with your premise. I believe the FCA have insisted on AML checks, RSM have sought advice on this from a legal firm so are presumably following the advice. Also, in general terms I don't see much evidence of RSM doing unnecessary things or trying to drag out the administration. However, that aside, RSM fees are one of the few things the Creditor’s Committee members are supposed to have oversight of, so it would probably be a good idea for them to take this up on behalf of ALL investors. Perhaps it should also be noted that RSM stated in their official Joint Administrators' Proposals and Report dated 15 July 2019 “Joint Administrators' remuneration, costs, expenses and creditor decisions …… Details of the Joint Administrators' remuneration, costs and expenses are set out below, and in the attached Appendices. In the event a Creditors' Committee is appointed (which is expected), it is f or the Creditors' Committee, to determine on what basis the administrator is to be remunerated” And “In the event that a Creditors' Committee is not appointed, creditors are asked to approve the following:: …… The Joint Administrators shall be authorised to draw their remuneration based upon time costs limited to the sum of £1.025m (plus VAT) for the first 12 months of the Administration, in accordance with the attached fee estimate.” My bolding. Thus, I would certainly not expect a CC that is representing the interests of all investors to agree to something in excess of that fixed first year fee amount. There was a recent Creditors Committee meeting but I have had no feed-back on that from anyone, and as their members here ( Monetus and wuzimu) have not commented about it, I am considering contacting RSM about this soon if they don’t produce any minutes. |
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 10, 2019 19:17:07 GMT
I agree with some points made by both the previous two posters - esp re creditiors committee and RSM squeezing as much as they can.
Surely it is any business's model to make money for their shareholders? RSM as an IP might be bound by certain rules and regulations but their raison d'etre is to make money and if they see a way to do so whilst complying with those rules presumably they would do so. An obvious (blindingly obvious) route to doing that is to ensure as many hours are worked as possible so long as the rules are complied with. Why would they do anything else?
|
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Oct 10, 2019 19:38:03 GMT
If so,,then the FCA are admitting that AML was poor,,but they still awarded full FCA,,,things just don't add up,,to say the least.
|
|
Garage246
Member of DD Central
Posts: 116
Likes: 209
|
Post by Garage246 on Oct 10, 2019 19:43:42 GMT
If so,,then the FCA are admitting that AML was poor,,but they still awarded full FCA,,,things just don't add up,,to say the least. Quite - they should have insisted that AML was brought up to scratch BEFORE awarding full approval - stinks really.
|
|
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 Oct 10, 2019 20:12:48 GMT
AML rules have just been tightened, don't know if that has a bearing. RSM aren't doing the checks so the only money they will make is any extra administration which won't be done by partners.
|
|
NSFW
Posts: 118
Likes: 58
|
Post by NSFW on Oct 10, 2019 21:01:27 GMT
British citizens aren't required to provide photo ID but no alternatives to it are mentioned in the email + RSM could've asked for original bank statements instead of certified photocopies.
|
|
sydb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 316
|
Post by sydb on Oct 10, 2019 21:46:43 GMT
I haven't come across anything that says it is the FCA getting RSM to do these checks. These are just AML regulations being interpreted by RSM - see 5.3.3 of the Joint Administrators' Proposals.
The AML regs are vague. The only thing that encourages a company to make the process as quick and painless as possible for the client/customer is that the customer might get annoyed and go to a competitor, or write a bad review. RSM have a captive market, and being paid on a delay related scale. Why wouldn't they take their time doing things 'thoroughly' or, at least, making it appear so?
In answer to the OP, I can't see any way to stop RSM doing what they like, within their regulated area, other than by what the Lendy Action Group are attempting to do which is closely monitor them and keep in dialogue.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Oct 11, 2019 4:23:45 GMT
documents required by 31st oct then allow at least 21 days before contacting RSM.well that's another month stretched out of this.we might see some of our funds by the new year. will all the lenders who have passed AML be able to access their accounts and withdraw their funds while this is going on.
|
|
bulletbill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 223
|
Post by bulletbill on Oct 11, 2019 12:32:11 GMT
I agree with some points made by both the previous two posters - esp re creditiors committee and RSM squeezing as much as they can. Surely it is any business's model to make money for their shareholders? RSM as an IP might be bound by certain rules and regulations but their raison d'etre is to make money and if they see a way to do so whilst complying with those rules presumably they would do so. An obvious (blindingly obvious) route to doing that is to ensure as many hours are worked as possible so long as the rules are complied with. Why would they do anything else? It seems you are saying the mission of the Administrator is to milk as much money from investors as is legally allowable and that we should expect nothing better 
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Oct 11, 2019 13:04:19 GMT
The legally stipulated aim of an administrator is to return as much money as possible to creditors on whose behalf they are working. Where RS* have got creative to gas up their invoice is in acting like they're the AML police despite the FCA previously approving Lendy's onboarding processes .
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Oct 11, 2019 16:00:16 GMT
RSM don't appear to have any trustpilot reviews yet. Time to put that right?
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Oct 11, 2019 16:21:21 GMT
If so,,then the FCA are admitting that AML was poor,,but they still awarded full FCA,,,things just don't add up,,to say the least. My point exactly.
|
|
sydb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 316
|
Post by sydb on Oct 12, 2019 23:24:51 GMT
If so,,then the FCA are admitting that AML was poor,,but they still awarded full FCA,,,things just don't add up,,to say the least. My point exactly. The FCA have admitted that they awarded FCA approval in order that Lendy perform the remediation tasks set to them by the FCA (such logic would appear to many people bizarre, but that's what they said - see other threads). If improving AML procedures was on the remediation task list the FCA instructed Lendy to do, it would have been pretty easy for Lendy to make amends before they folded. We know this did not happen.
Therefore, it might be sensible to assume that either: a) FCA did not consider Lendy's AML procedures to be within the scope of their approval process (I think most people would think this strange), or
b) FCA examined and concluded Lendy's AML procedures to be adequate, or
c) FCA were remiss in identifying a deficiency in Lendy's AML procedures (FCA should be held accountable, as well as for giving approval to what they had identified was a substandard organisation in the first place), or d) the rules have tightened regarding AML procedures since FCA review (have they? don't think so) - this does not necessarily exclude (c)
If (b) and not (d) then RSM are performing an unnecessary delaying and work creation tactic. It would be possible that RSM believe that any AML procedure performed by Lendy would not be applicable to their forthcoming (we hope) distribution of funds, if it not for the fact that they identified in the Joint Administrators' Proposals that Lendy's AML procedures had 'certain deficiencies'. This statement in the Joint Administrators' Proposals would imply RSM are concluding (a) or (c) and/or (d).
Is there another analysis?
|
|
NSFW
Posts: 118
Likes: 58
|
Post by NSFW on Oct 12, 2019 23:37:09 GMT
The FCA have admitted that they awarded FCA approval in order that Lendy perform the remediation tasks set to them by the FCA (such logic would appear to many people bizarre, but that's what they said - see other posts). If improving AML procedures was on the remediation task list the FCA instructed Lendy to do, it would have been pretty easy for Lendy to make amends before they folded. We know this did not happen.
Therefore, it might be sensible to assume that either: a) FCA did not consider Lendy's AML procedures to be part of their approval process (I think most people would think this strange), or
b) FCA examined and concluded Lendy's AML procedures to be adequate, or
c) FCA were remiss in identifying a deficiency in Lendy's AML procedures (FCA should be held accountable, as well as for giving approval to what they had identified was a substandard organisation in the first place), or d) the rules have tightened regarding AML procedures since FCA review (have they? don't think so) - this does not necessarily exclude (c)
If (b) and not (d) then RSM are performing an unnecessary delaying and work creation tactic. It would be possible that RSM believe that any AML procedure performed by Lendy would not be applicable to their forthcoming (we hope) distribution of funds, if it not for the fact that they identified in the Joint Administrators' Proposals that Lendy's AML procedures had . This statement in the Joint Administrators' Proposals would imply (a), (c) or (d).
Is there another analysis?
Lendy's AML procedures were fine. I failed their online checks and had to email high quality photos of documents. I think the term 'certain deficiencies' means that Lendy's approach wasn't Victorian enough for RSM.
|
|
