rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139 
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Jan 16, 2020 6:15:59 GMT
why have the FCA and FOS not sorted this out and declared these unfair T&Cs null and void.RSM must be aware by now that LB/LY knew very well where all this was going as he did when he created lendy wealth.premeditated and manipulating while his ship was sinking he was getting his speed boat ready to jump ship leaving crew and passengers on board without even a life jacket.LB is looking after his own arse here and by tweaking the T&Cs massively in his favour will do very well from all of this.surely common sense must prevail here.what is the point of these bodies if they can't even see how wrong this is and look into this as a matter of urgency and give us their answer to where we stand once and for all.the length of time LY left these loans accruing default interest which is what LB is after will decimate our miserly returns on his big loan book.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jan 16, 2020 10:10:19 GMT
why have the FCA and FOS not sorted this out and declared these unfair T&Cs null and void.RSM must be aware by now that LB/LY knew very well where all this was going as he did when he created lendy wealth.premeditated and manipulating while his ship was sinking he was getting his speed boat ready to jump ship leaving crew and passengers on board without even a life jacket.LB is looking after his own arse here and by tweaking the T&Cs massively in his favour will do very well from all of this.surely common sense must prevail here.what is the point of these bodies if they can't even see how wrong this is and look into this as a matter of urgency and give us their answer to where we stand once and for all.the length of time LY left these loans accruing default interest which is what LB is after will decimate our miserly returns on his big loan book. As I understand it Lendy (now the administrators) can retain funds recovered above and beyond any costs of that recovery leaving the secured investors who took the risk and enabled the loan in the first place to lose their principal. And now the investors are potentially going to have to pay out more money just to get independent legal representation on the matter. They just killed the P2P industry right there although sadly people have limited knowledge and short memories so no doubt will be preyed upon again in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Jan 16, 2020 11:08:21 GMT
Big investors must band together to oppose the current waterfall arrangements. Smaller investors are not incentivised to take legal action i.e. to throw good money after bad, and their pecuniary support cannot be expected.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jan 16, 2020 12:06:00 GMT
I've had an email off Funding Secure, I see their adminstrators have joined in the "we have to re-onboard everyone" scam that Lendy's administrators perpetrated which enables them to rack up the administration fees.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Jan 16, 2020 12:26:35 GMT
i believe RSM are holding funds from previous recoveries as they are not sure themselves if this waterfall will stand up.the FCA have the power to sort this out. a quick look at the variation of terms which state comsumer rights drafted by the FCA themselves i feel are enough on there own to end this farce.authorised and regulated by the FCA is supposed to give people confidence that they will not be ripped off.
|
|
|
|
Post by brummiefred on Jan 16, 2020 13:12:16 GMT
brightspark Why should smaller investors not contribute towards legal opinion/advice/action at a pro rata contribution (.1% is suggested) Edit thanks @seb8072
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jan 16, 2020 13:53:45 GMT
i believe RSM are holding funds from previous recoveries as they are not sure themselves if this waterfall will stand up.the FCA have the power to sort this out. a quick look at the variation of terms which state comsumer rights drafted by the FCA themselves i feel are enough on there own to end this farce.authorised and regulated by the FCA is supposed to give people confidence that they will not be ripped off. Oh they're definitely holding onto funds.
|
|
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 Jan 16, 2020 13:55:48 GMT
why have the FCA and FOS not sorted this out and declared these unfair T&Cs null and void.RSM must be aware by now that LB/LY knew very well where all this was going as he did when he created lendy wealth.premeditated and manipulating while his ship was sinking he was getting his speed boat ready to jump ship leaving crew and passengers on board without even a life jacket.LB is looking after his own arse here and by tweaking the T&Cs massively in his favour will do very well from all of this.surely common sense must prevail here.what is the point of these bodies if they can't even see how wrong this is and look into this as a matter of urgency and give us their answer to where we stand once and for all.the length of time LY left these loans accruing default interest which is what LB is after will decimate our miserly returns on his big loan book. As I understand it Lendy (now the administrators) can retain funds recovered above and beyond any costs of that recovery leaving the secured investors who took the risk and enabled the loan in the first place to lose their principal. Not true. After costs incl Lendy fee for managing recovery (3%) recovered sums are distributed pro-rata based on the sums due to each party to the loan agreement. The issue is the quotient due to Lendy as a result of the undisclosed fees & default interest. That is being challenged. Funds being held are Lendy_s share pending legal clarification of entitlement
|
|
seb8072
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 99
|
Post by seb8072 on Jan 16, 2020 14:34:27 GMT
brightspark Why should smaller investors not contribute towards legal opinion/advice/action at a pro rata contribution (1% is suggested) I agree although I think it was £1 in £1000 which is 0.1%
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Jan 16, 2020 17:49:16 GMT
brightspark Why should smaller investors not contribute towards legal opinion/advice/action at a pro rata contribution (.1% is suggested) Edit thanks @seb8072 Small investors cannot be made to contribute and they have little motivation to do so - it will probably be viewed as throwing good money after bad Realistically it is only those who have larger sums at risk that will have the will and perhaps resources to take things further. I don't relish this state of affairs but I think it is a realistic assessment.
|
|
|
|
Post by gramsky on Jan 16, 2020 17:53:17 GMT
brightspark Why should smaller investors not contribute towards legal opinion/advice/action at a pro rata contribution (.1% is suggested) Edit thanks @seb8072 Small investors cannot be made to contribute and they have little motivation to do so - it will probably be viewed as throwing good money after bad Realistically it is only those who have larger sums at risk that will have the will and perhaps resources to take things further. I don't relish this state of affairs but I think it is a realistic assessment. I am a small investor with c£4.5k tied up, but I would be willing to contribute 5%
|
|
|
|
Post by brummiefred on Jan 16, 2020 18:15:12 GMT
Of course nobody can be made to contribute, but no doubt those that don't are unlikely to refuse any benefits that may accrue from the efforts of others. Hence the suggestion that investors contribute the same percentage of their investment.
|
|
jhamster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 107
Likes: 145
|
Post by jhamster on Jan 18, 2020 22:44:55 GMT
There's also an assumption here that larger investors can afford to throw more money at this, when in many cases we have lost everything and have nothing more to give. The monthly interest formed part of our income which is now gone. Our savings and financial safety net is gone. It's been 8 months and not a single penny has come back. The results speak for themselves, to throw more money at this is ludicrous. Why should I be paying for legal action of those who have received some of their investment back so they can squeeze out a little more, while I stand here having received nothing?
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Jan 19, 2020 19:13:59 GMT
Investors may decide to let matters take their course or to spend money trying to influence how things will pan out. Currently the initial figure being bandied about by some investors who are trying to influence matters in their favour seems to be 0.1%. So for a £4500 loan, £4.50. Undoubtedly there will be further requests and investors may decide not to contribute, at some stage to have a cut off point, or to pursue matters to a conclusion. More heavily exposed lenders may seek their own legal advice or band together to act in concert. There are no easy or correct answers. I wish there were.
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 295
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Jan 20, 2020 9:57:40 GMT
As I understand it Lendy (now the administrators) can retain funds recovered above and beyond any costs of that recovery leaving the secured investors who took the risk and enabled the loan in the first place to lose their principal. Not true. After costs incl Lendy fee for managing recovery (3%) recovered sums are distributed pro-rata based on the sums due to each party to the loan agreement. The issue is the quotient due to Lendy as a result of the undisclosed fees & default interest. That is being challenged. Funds being held are Lendy_s share pending legal clarification of entitlement It's totally true, the "Lendy Contractual Entitlement" can be taken from the investor's principal. Also, apparently there's no pending legal clarificaiton, they intend to take the money. This is why LAG is now trying to raise funds to challenge it.
|
|
