Why are we requested to submit a proof of debt when repayments fall short, given that our balances are automatically updated on the plaform. Just more red tape @ c £500/hr!
Because thats the way the process works. You arent automatically eligible to be a creditor so you have to submit a claim and then the admin will verify it using the evidence available (at this point they may just review your account rather than requesting supporting docs as is normal)
Except the information for supporting docs, is obtained from the platform same as for admin - so its just more time for them to book and charge to us. Quite sickening really!
I take maximise to refer to an amount, not a percentage.
Administrators refer to recoveries as %, ie 80p in £1 so not unreasonable to assume maximise is defined in the same terms. Getting creditors 80p in £1 is better than 50p in the £ and that can be achieved by having recovered more or having less creditors. What looks better on the CV, recovered £1m, creditors got 1p in £, or recovered £1m, creditors got 80p in £? They will follow their statutory duties. Onus is on the creditor to claim not the admin to actively seek out creditors beyond publising their appointment/contacting stakeholders.
This is retail, I would expect the administrator to have a duty not to treat investors unfairly. Google isn't giving me a quick answer, and I think you're likely to have a better command of the facts so, maybe; your interpretation seems very wrong to me, but then that's become par for the course
Interests declared: I have shares in Assetz, Syndicate Room, The Housecrowd. They are as nothing compared to my investments on and reliance on the good health of many other platforms here.
Administrators refer to recoveries as %, ie 80p in £1 so not unreasonable to assume maximise is defined in the same terms. Getting creditors 80p in £1 is better than 50p in the £ and that can be achieved by having recovered more or having less creditors. What looks better on the CV, recovered £1m, creditors got 1p in £, or recovered £1m, creditors got 80p in £? They will follow their statutory duties. Onus is on the creditor to claim not the admin to actively seek out creditors beyond publising their appointment/contacting stakeholders.
This is retail, I would expect the administrator to have a duty not to treat investors unfairly. Google isn't giving me a quick answer, and I think you're likely to have a better command of the facts so, maybe; your interpretation seems very wrong to me, but then that's become par for the course
Thats not an unreasonable view and I wouldnt be surprised if that is what actually happens, accepting all claims on the basis of one claim. Im afraid Ive become overly cynical as more dirt is revealed and now look for the most narrow, unfavourable interpretation of rules, regs etc.
Minor shareholder in AC, BO, FO, CP, WA, Pfi, Ccube, Sdrs, AE, ABL. AC beta test. LAG, MTAG, FSAG
PLEASE NOTE : All opinions and observations made on this forum are my own view and made in a personal capacity. I have no links to any platform nor am I a financial professional so posts should not be considered financial advice or promotion. I accept no responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in my posts.
Prem Sikka, professor of accounting at Sheffield University, said: “It’s like medieval priests: when things go wrong, they make a sacrifice. But it points to fundamental issues about the organisational culture.”