NSFW
Posts: 118 
Likes: 58
|
Post by NSFW on Nov 20, 2019 11:01:26 GMT
Oops I voted "Yes" by mistake haha. Can't change my vote it seems. I can change my vote by unticking my selection then ticking an alternative. Hmm that works now. Didn't when I first voted yesterday.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Nov 20, 2019 12:00:56 GMT
Already got ~10% of my (small) exposure back so reasonably happy with that, especially - as other have said - in comparison with Collateral. Not happy about the AML ordeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by missydoom on Nov 20, 2019 12:33:56 GMT
Went with "no" as I am one of the many who did not receive any communication regarding the need for verification documents despite receiving the previous e-mailed updates and request to check account details were correct. Wouldn't have had a clue what was happening with regards to that if it weren't for the LAG facebook group.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Dec 19, 2019 17:45:36 GMT
The 6 month proposals have now been uploaded here: rsm.insolvencypoint.com/1084885New 1st year fee estimate has increased to 2.5m.
"Since the date of appointment, the Joint Administrators have incurred time costs totalling £1,736,829. Of this, a total of £500,000 (plus VAT) has been paid and £1,236,829 remains outstanding and due to be paid."
|
|
jhamster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 107
Likes: 145
|
Post by jhamster on Dec 19, 2019 19:03:51 GMT
Add the individual loan administrators fees for recovery, auction firesales, an entire page of other solicitors, creditors to Lendy from the "waterfall", and the net result is being shafted without any lube..
|
|
|
|
Post by banffy on Dec 19, 2019 20:26:04 GMT
What a fecking SHAMBLES, <redacted by moderator> the lot of them, forget about your money now, better joy getting a H... M..
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 691
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Dec 19, 2019 21:41:13 GMT
The 6 month proposals have now been uploaded here: rsm.insolvencypoint.com/1084885New 1st year fee estimate has increased to 2.5m.
"Since the date of appointment, the Joint Administrators have incurred time costs totalling £1,736,829. Of this, a total of £500,000 (plus VAT) has been paid and £1,236,829 remains outstanding and due to be paid."
Thanks, Monetus - I note that I didn't get this email/notification (unlike all the others, up to 29th Nov), which also all appear on the lendy website.
Am I alone?
Any idea which RSM office to contact to get access?
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Dec 19, 2019 22:02:06 GMT
The 6 month proposals have now been uploaded here: rsm.insolvencypoint.com/1084885New 1st year fee estimate has increased to 2.5m.
"Since the date of appointment, the Joint Administrators have incurred time costs totalling £1,736,829. Of this, a total of £500,000 (plus VAT) has been paid and £1,236,829 remains outstanding and due to be paid."
Thanks, Monetus - I note that I didn't get this email/notification (unlike all the others, up to 29th Nov), which also all appear on the lendy website.
Am I alone?
Any idea which RSM office to contact to get access?
The email didn’t come via Lendy, it came directly from RSM via their insolvencypoint website - see details of how to access that here p2pindependentforum.com/post/337980/threadYou can sign up for notifications which was why I got one from them this afternoon. I would expect that the report will appear on the Lendy website at some point as the first one did eventually. Actually it'll probably be filed at Companies House in due course too.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhea117 on Dec 20, 2019 11:19:51 GMT
"Appendix G - Joint Administrators' time cost analysis for the period from 24 May 2019 to 23 November 2019
Total costs - £1,736,829.50
Appendix H - Updated estimate of the Joint Administrators' fees
Total £2,500,000"
How can we find out why the huge increase from the original £1m estimate?
I assume the £2.5m includes the cost to date 23/11/2019 (£1.7m)? God help us if not!
How much as been wasted on inefficient AML checks?
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Dec 20, 2019 11:38:56 GMT
"Appendix G - Joint Administrators' time cost analysis for the period from 24 May 2019 to 23 November 2019
Total costs - £1,736,829.50
Appendix H - Updated estimate of the Joint Administrators' fees
Total £2,500,000"How can we find out why the huge increase from the original £1m estimate? I assume the £2.5m includes the cost to date 23/11/2019 (£1.7m)? God help us if not! How much as been wasted on inefficient AML checks? They're charging about £70k a week to do the administration basically.and most of the recovery work is already farmed out to receivers etc. who obviously are also charging.
|
|
boundah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 368
Likes: 430
|
Post by boundah on Dec 20, 2019 14:59:14 GMT
How can we find out why the huge increase from the original £1m estimate? It sounds like they can justify some of the extra on answering calls and correspondence from us investors: 'A significant amount of time has been incurred liaising with creditors and Investors. The volume of calls and emails in this case has added significant costs to the Administration, as shown in Appendix G'. Much as we're justified in getting impatient and hassling RSM, the only effect it will have is to rack up costs that we will have to pay. RSM won't care; it makes them more money. That makes us crosser, so more likely to complain, which costs us more money, and so on ad infinitum. However much we shout, it won't make things happen any faster. The best thing we can do is sit back and let the administration take its course.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Dec 20, 2019 15:56:42 GMT
How can we find out why the huge increase from the original £1m estimate? It sounds like they can justify some of the extra on answering calls and correspondence from us investors: 'A significant amount of time has been incurred liaising with creditors and Investors. The volume of calls and emails in this case has added significant costs to the Administration, as shown in Appendix G'. Much as we're justified in getting impatient and hassling RSM, the only effect it will have is to rack up costs that we will have to pay. RSM won't care; it makes them more money. That makes us crosser, so more likely to complain, which costs us more money, and so on ad infinitum. However much we shout, it won't make things happen any faster. The best thing we can do is sit back and let the administration take its course. The AML caused this. Given there are lots of small investors they may well have spent more re-onboarding someone than that person had in the platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by vfr800 on Dec 20, 2019 16:22:14 GMT
I think the only estimate they got right was the website fee of £10. The rest are a joke, there won't be a lot left by the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhea117 on Dec 20, 2019 16:36:54 GMT
Their increasing fee is one issue. There will be an audit trail and timesheets etc.
All that money going to Lendy or/and LB just feels wrong. RSM and the FCA should be on our side and fighting for our money. At the very least to restore some of the P2P reputation.
|
|
boundah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 368
Likes: 430
|
Post by boundah on Dec 20, 2019 16:56:23 GMT
Their increasing fee is one issue. There will be an audit trail and timesheets etc. All that money going to Lendy or/and LB just feels wrong. RSM and the FCA should be on our side and fighting for our money. At the very least to restore some of the P2P reputation. Sides, feelings and fighting don't come into it. There's contract law, which there's no point in fighting unless you know a very expensive lawyer who reckons they can outsmart the serried ranks sitting behind RSM and our mate Liam. As for restoring P2P's reputation... 
|
|
