|
|
Post by chielamangus on Nov 20, 2014 10:01:14 GMT
Thanks for all the updates. Very useful. Keep it up! ADMIN Note 3rd December 2014:
I have split the tread into two, one for AC's changelog reports and this one for any discussion there of. mrclondon. |
|
warn
Member of DD Central
Curmudgeon
Posts: 638 
Likes: 659
|
Post by warn on Nov 24, 2014 15:21:36 GMT
Any chance of a downloaded Loan Book containing a non-null "Your target" field? Pretty please?
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Nov 24, 2014 15:31:41 GMT
Any chance of a downloaded Loan Book containing a non-null "Your target" field? Pretty please? This is fixed if I download all loans from 'Browse Loans', but not from 'Your Loans'.
|
|
warn
Member of DD Central
Curmudgeon
Posts: 638
Likes: 659
|
Post by warn on Nov 27, 2014 8:53:05 GMT
Any chance of a downloaded Loan Book containing a non-null "Your target" field? Pretty please? This is fixed if I download all loans from 'Browse Loans', but not from 'Your Loans'. And now fixed in "Your Loans" too. Hooray, and thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 27, 2014 14:15:24 GMT
- I can now sort my loans any way I like
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Nov 27, 2014 17:31:19 GMT
A new release went live this afternoon with the following changes: - Lists of loans can now be sorted on column headings
- New "quick search" feature at the top of loan lists to find loans fast.
- New tab and pagination styles throughout.
- Use actual accepted bid amount rather than initial bid amount when calculating "Your Total Investment" on dashboard.
- Changes to Green Account layout on dashboard and new button linking to Green Account details.
- Fix for mobile issues with menu on brochure website.
- Fix to date picker calendar layout on statements.
Was the irritating loss of 'no-limit' on page display intentional? And why is user choice no longer remembered, always reverting to 50? 
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Nov 27, 2014 21:39:02 GMT
Another irritation, in addition to the above. If a loan's details are selected from a 'Loan Book' display, a return to 'Loan Book' will always display in descending Loan No. sequence, regardless of a previously selected sequence. Surely not intentional?  |
|
|
|
Post by Colin on Nov 28, 2014 9:18:47 GMT
Another irritation, in addition to the above. If a loan's details are selected from a 'Loan Book' display, a return to 'Loan Book' will always display in descending Loan No. sequence, regardless of a previously selected sequence. Surely not intentional? We plan to add the no limit option back into the per page choice, but for now there will be a maximum of 76 entries so the 100 per page option will have the same affect. We are investigating ways to remember sort, search, page and per page choices when clicking back from loans or when you first visit the list. This will be forthcoming but we didn't want it to delay the release of column sorting which has been much requested.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Dec 2, 2014 16:03:29 GMT
A new release went live this afternoon with the following changes: - When a withdrawal amount is set or an investment account is set to withdraw principal or interest amounts payments are now first credited to the relevant investment account and then withdrawn to the cash account via a separate transaction, rather than simply being credited directly to the cash account.
- Loans added within the last seven days will have a "New" badge in loan lists.
Looking at my statements I note that the change to the statements appears not to be retrospective, do AC plan to sort out the transactions for the period between the upgrade and this change or will it be the case that we have to live with MLIA and GEIA statements with missing transactions and a CA statement which has transactions that cannot be matched to accounts that they should have occurred in and thus will need to be explained to accountants and anyone else who may require the statements such as the HMRC
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Dec 2, 2014 17:11:59 GMT
Looking at my statements I note that the change to the statements appears not to be retrospective... Nor should it be. The money was previously received directly into the cash account, and going forwards will be bounced via the MLIA, but rewriting history would not seem appropriate to me. You can always modify your own copy of the statements to reflect your preferred method of accounting if that makes you happier. Suppose I let out a property and receive my rent directly into my main current account. Later, for administrative convenience for completing my tax return, I change so that I have a separate property maintenance account into which to I receive the rent (from which I immediately withdraw it into my current account unless there are bills to pay from that account). I don't suppose the bank would entertain the idea of modifying the official copy of my past statements to make it look as though I'd received the past rent via the property maintenance account... however, I may well modify my own copy to add dummy transactions reflecting the transactions that actually happened in a different account, but which I wish to treat as though they happened in that account. Undoubtedly over the next few weeks, we'll start to hear from the people who actively preferred it the old way, asking for a way to have the payments go directly to the cash account without spamming their MLIA or GEIA statements just like they used to be able to do! (I expect I'll be preferring it that way as and when I reach a point where I'm selecting the withdraw repayments option - but my preference isn't strong enough to demand a change back - just a gentle whine about the unnecessary spam on the statement...).
|
|
Vero
Member of DD Central
Posts: 196 
Likes: 163
|
Post by Vero on Dec 2, 2014 17:34:17 GMT
I think the credit card > current account analogy works better.
If a bank decided to account for all refunds (sales) made to your credit cards (MLIA, GEIA) on your current account statement (CA), instead of on your credit card statements, where the corresponding purchases went and where they actually belong [using the flawed logic "because that's where the cash will end up"] then, when they realise their mistake yes, I would expect them to rectify all of their mistake, including retrospectively.
This is a fix, not a design enhancement, and all of the incorrect statements should be fixed.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Dec 2, 2014 17:47:24 GMT
I am unfortunately coming to the conclusion that change management is already close to coming apart. My reason for this thinking is that many of the so called fixes appear to be being made on an individual account basis. So what is happening to those individuals who haven't got the knowhow to realise their accounts are in the same mess? Are they just being left in a mess or what?
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Dec 2, 2014 18:44:57 GMT
I think the credit card > current account analogy works better.
If a bank decided to account for all refunds (sales) made to your credit cards (MLIA, GEIA) on your current account statement (CA), instead of on your credit card statements, where the corresponding purchases went and where they actually belong [using the flawed logic "because that's where the cash will end up"] then, when they realise their mistake yes, I would expect them to rectify all of their mistake, including retrospectively.
This is a fix, not a design enhancement, and all of the incorrect statements should be fixed. The statements are not incorrect [at least, not in this respect...] - they are a true record of the movements of cash the system did at that time. Lets go with your "refunds onto a payment card" analogy though.... Suppose I buy stuff from a wholesaler on a "sale or return" basis. Historically I paid directly from my current account, and received the refund when I returned stuff directly to my current account. Later, the wholesaler introduces their own prepaid card from which all future sale-or-return purchases must be made, I can transfer funds between this payment card and my current account at will. By default they also process refunds direct to my payment card, but also give me the option to continue to receive the refunds direct to my current account, which I choose to do. They then introduce a separate payment card for their "green account" which selects some of the same stock for me, but operates under different terms and conditions. But I soon find that I cannot easily tell apart the "refund for X boxes of widgets" from each account, and my accountant was also complaining that he had to cross-reference two different statements to figure out whether the number of widgets in my stock room balanced with the number of widgets I'd paid for. The wholesaler then provides a solution where they'll initially do the refund onto the payment card, and then immediately transfer the balance from the payment card to my current account. This ensures I know what account to allocate each payment to, and allows my accountant to review a single statement for any future transactions. Under these circumstances, I would not expect the wholesalers to then go back and modify the past transactions to make it appear as though I'd received the refunds onto the payment card and transferred them to my current account. Nor would I expect my bank to modify the past refund transactions on my current account to make it appear as though they were transfers from the relevant payment card. Other customers of the wholesaler who were quite happy receiving their refunds direct into their current account then start questioning why the wholesaler is now putting lots of unnecessary transactions on their payment card statement....
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Dec 2, 2014 19:09:14 GMT
I am unfortunately coming to the conclusion that change management is already close to coming apart. My reason for this thinking is that many of the so called fixes appear to be being made on an individual account basis. So what is happening to those individuals who haven't got the knowhow to realise their accounts are in the same mess? Are they just being left in a mess or what? Where a problem has caused an error on an individual account, I see no problem with fixing that one account to correct something. However, system(ic) problems, that apply to all users, all loans (or all owners of loan X since date Y) should be fixed for all users, whether they've noticed or not. I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea that only the small percentage of customers that noticed got things corrected. I've said elsewhere, surely it's much harder to just patch accounts to "appear correct" than it is to find and fix the underlying problem for all. That would be a regulatory nightmare waiting to happen.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Dec 2, 2014 20:30:35 GMT
I am unfortunately coming to the conclusion that change management is already close to coming apart. My reason for this thinking is that many of the so called fixes appear to be being made on an individual account basis. So what is happening to those individuals who haven't got the knowhow to realise their accounts are in the same mess? Are they just being left in a mess or what? Where a problem has caused an error on an individual account, I see no problem with fixing that one account to correct something. However, system(ic) problems, that apply to all users, all loans (or all owners of loan X since date Y) should be fixed for all users, whether they've noticed or not. I wouldn't be comfortable with the idea that only the small percentage of customers that noticed got things corrected. I've said elsewhere, surely it's much harder to just patch accounts to "appear correct" than it is to find and fix the underlying problem for all. That would be a regulatory nightmare waiting to happen. What you suggest about systemic problems is I fear the case. I have been watching what has been going on from the side-lines and this Forum but have not noticed any changes occurring to my account. This would IMHO suggest that AC are only correcting the problems brought up by individuals but my hypothesis implies that what is happening to one account is happening to all. Some of you guys have the time and knowledge to ferret around looking for errors in your accounts but I certainly don't. I have neither time or inclination to do the necessary research. The consequence of which is that I have to accept what AC put out of the system as fact and of high integrity, trusting that any mistakes will be corrected for all investors. Am I naïve or stupid? If so I guess I must be amongst the majority of AC investors the bulk of which are probably ignorant of all these problems.
It does not appear to me that AC have communicated with all its investors to point out there may or may not be errors in their accounts, or that AC have encountered some major systems problems.
|
|
