pip
Posts: 542 
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Feb 5, 2020 16:27:04 GMT
In the great scheme of things are not investors creditors to the businesses to which money was lent and not to Lendy. Lendy t&cs prevented investors from approaching lenders directly for repayment i.e. lenders had to recoup their investments via the intermediary Lendy. However once Lendy went into Administration those t & cs become null and void. What is to stop investors individually or as a group or groups taking legal actions against the borrowers as creditors for return of the money? I am not sure of the practicalities but those with large sums at risk might prefer a diy route and others could piggy back along. In short I believe no (apart from the last four loans before administration). I believe that the legal agreements with borrowers is not between lenders and borrowers but between some unknown party and borrowers. Hence there is legally no relationship between lenders and creditors. In addition as you mentioned even if this was legally possible, which i am pretty sure it isn't, then practically it would be near impossible for two reasons. Firstly even large lenders will only own a very small percentage of the loans and a lender would have to take action against potentially hundreds of companies and people to get anywhere. And I suspect most of these borrowers will not just pay up as for all FS's faults I am sure they have at least tried to get paid. Secondly you have to be careful chasing debtors, especially those where it is legally ambiguous as to whether they legally have any relationship to you. All somebody may end up with is a court date for their harassment hearing.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Feb 5, 2020 16:29:05 GMT
In the great scheme of things are not investors creditors to the businesses to which money was lent and not to Lendy. Lendy t&cs prevented investors from approaching lenders directly for repayment i.e. lenders had to recoup their investments via the intermediary Lendy. However once Lendy went into Administration those t & cs become null and void. What is to stop investors individually or as a group or groups taking legal actions against the borrowers as creditors for return of the money? I am not sure of the practicalities but those with large sums at risk might prefer a diy route and others could piggy back along. There are legal obstacles to recovery once administrators are appointed it is those that push the directions of recovery. Individual actions are not allowed as this would lead to chaotic legal minefield. This is the case no matter the company business.
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Feb 5, 2020 17:55:01 GMT
In the great scheme of things are not investors creditors to the businesses to which money was lent and not to Lendy. Lendy t&cs prevented investors from approaching lenders directly for repayment i.e. lenders had to recoup their investments via the intermediary Lendy. However once Lendy went into Administration those t & cs become null and void. What is to stop investors individually or as a group or groups taking legal actions against the borrowers as creditors for return of the money? I am not sure of the practicalities but those with large sums at risk might prefer a diy route and others could piggy back along. Pardon the nit picking but shouldn't 2nd word 2nd line be 'borrowers' ?
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Feb 5, 2020 18:23:58 GMT
Correct thank you!. I have edited the error.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,337
Likes: 11,562
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 5, 2020 20:03:12 GMT
The contracts are between lenders & borrower with Lendy & SSSH party to the contracts as agents. The security is held by SSSHL, they are the only people who can enforce it on behalf of the beneficiaries of the charge ie lenders, Lendy, SSSH, receivers & any delegate. SSSHL can appoint a receiver or administrator under the security charge to carry out the recovery and Lendy as their agent to manage the recovery on their & lenders behalf.
In the case of FS, FS are the security trustee so have the role held by SSSH if the trusts are correctly established for the beneficiaries. That is to be determined. If they are not correct, FS will be the sole beneficiaries (plus the IPs as normal) and lenders will be unsecured creditors of FS.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 6, 2020 2:47:55 GMT
The contracts are between lenders & borrower with Lendy & SSSH party to the contracts as agents. The security is held by SSSHL, they are the only people who can enforce it on behalf of the beneficiaries of the charge ie lenders, Lendy, SSSH, receivers & any delegate. SSSHL can appoint a receiver or administrator under the security charge to carry out the recovery and Lendy as their agent to manage the recovery on their & lenders behalf. In the case of FS, FS are the security trustee so have the role held by SSSH if the trusts are correctly established for the beneficiaries. That is to be determined. If they are not correct, FS will be the sole beneficiaries (plus the IPs as normal) and lenders will be unsecured creditors of FS. If it turns out the trusts aren't correctly established then FS never was a proper P2P platform, so where would that leave the FCA for giving them full authorisation?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 6,990
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on Feb 6, 2020 4:18:35 GMT
If it turns out the trusts aren't correctly established then FS never was a proper P2P platform, so where would that leave the FCA for giving them full authorisation? To use one of Andrew Baileys favorite words that would be 'unfortunate'. It would be another failure on their part but their immunity from legal action would remain in place.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Feb 6, 2020 14:41:02 GMT
If it turns out the trusts aren't correctly established then FS never was a proper P2P platform, so where would that leave the FCA for giving them full authorisation? To use one of Andrew Baileys favorite words that would be 'unfortunate'. It would be another failure on their part but their immunity from legal action would remain in place. So we would be in a similar situation to Collateral, with our only method of recourse being to complain to the FCA, then escalate to the FOS who will hopefully encourage the FCA to voluntarily compensate us for their gross incompetence and misleading/inaccurate statements?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 6,990
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on Feb 6, 2020 15:57:04 GMT
To use one of Andrew Baileys favorite words that would be 'unfortunate'. It would be another failure on their part but their immunity from legal action would remain in place. So we would be in a similar situation to Collateral, with our only method of recourse being to complain to the FCA, then escalate to the FOS who will hopefully encourage the FCA to voluntarily compensate us for their gross incompetence and misleading/inaccurate statements? Not similar to Col. FS was FCA approved so recourse could be made via the FSCS if a suitable case was put together. I'm not saying that route would be easy but it would be the one to take. Col will in my mind be a unique case and since they were never approved the only route to take for Col is directly to the FCA.
|
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Feb 6, 2020 16:20:30 GMT
To use one of Andrew Baileys favorite words that would be 'unfortunate'. It would be another failure on their part but their immunity from legal action would remain in place. So we would be in a similar situation to Collateral, with our only method of recourse being to complain to the FCA, then escalate to the FOS who will hopefully encourage the FCA to voluntarily compensate us for their gross incompetence and misleading/inaccurate statements? Well, I've received a survey request from Complaints Commissioner as a Final Decision has been given about my Complaint to FCA ? Really ?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,886
Likes: 6,990
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on Feb 6, 2020 18:03:02 GMT
So we would be in a similar situation to Collateral, with our only method of recourse being to complain to the FCA, then escalate to the FOS who will hopefully encourage the FCA to voluntarily compensate us for their gross incompetence and misleading/inaccurate statements? Well, I've received a survey request from Complaints Commissioner as a Final Decision has been given about my Complaint to FCA ? Really ? I've not heard anything to that effect before, all complaints are still sitting in limbo whilst the FCA inquiry progresses. If you would like to share anything with me by PM I would be most interested.
|
|
