shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563 
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 3, 2020 17:06:03 GMT
I hadn't foreseen (and I think that the FCA themselves also hadn't foreseen) that when a platform goes bust the "living will" wouldn't really count for much because instead the administrators sweep in, with no particular obligation to act in investors' interests (although I still wonder about treating customers fairly)
Is there maybe some useful smallprint that can save us (and indeed save p2x) which would force administrators to honour the p2p pledge?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 3, 2020 17:33:44 GMT
I hadn't foreseen (and I think that the FCA themselves also hadn't foreseen) that when a platform goes bust the "living will" wouldn't really count for much because instead the administrators sweep in, with no particular obligation to act in investors' interests (although I still wonder about treating customers fairly)
Is there maybe some useful smallprint that can save us (and indeed save p2x) which would force administrators to honour the p2p pledge?
I don't think lenders are customers as they don't pay the platform for their services, the borrowers are customers because they pay fees. When (most) platforms charged lender fees the lenders objected and the fees got put fully on the borrower side, perhaps going back to lenders paying some fees would put them in a better or at least a definable position. Lenders seem to have no definable status with the platforms. I don't see how Administrators seem to manage to cut the lenders off from the borrowers, I thought our direct contract was with the borrowers, but the administrators seem to choose to manage the loans for the benefit of the defunct platform (and it's creditors) not the lenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by propman on Mar 4, 2020 9:38:43 GMT
I hadn't foreseen (and I think that the FCA themselves also hadn't foreseen) that when a platform goes bust the "living will" wouldn't really count for much because instead the administrators sweep in, with no particular obligation to act in investors' interests (although I still wonder about treating customers fairly)
Is there maybe some useful smallprint that can save us (and indeed save p2x) which would force administrators to honour the p2p pledge?
I don't think lenders are customers as they don't pay the platform for their services, the borrowers are customers because they pay fees. When (most) platforms charged lender fees the lenders objected and the fees got put fully on the borrower side, perhaps going back to lenders paying some fees would put them in a better or at least a definable position. Lenders seem to have no definable status with the platforms. I don't see how Administrators seem to manage to cut the lenders off from the borrowers, I thought our direct contract was with the borrowers, but the administrators seem to choose to manage the loans for the benefit of the defunct platform (and it's creditors) not the lenders. I Thought the platforms stopped charging lenders fees when HMRC stopped investors getting tax relief for them.
As for the administrators, they still collect the money for the investors, but most platforms allow the platform to take @reasonable@ additional charges if required. This allows the high administrators costs to justify taking money from the investors for their recovery services!
|
|
easynow
Member of DD Central
Popcorn anyone?
Posts: 178
Likes: 147
|
Post by easynow on Mar 4, 2020 9:43:13 GMT
Proplend deduct a fee from investors returns.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 4, 2020 11:23:45 GMT
I hadn't foreseen (and I think that the FCA themselves also hadn't foreseen) that when a platform goes bust the "living will" wouldn't really count for much because instead the administrators sweep in, with no particular obligation to act in investors' interests (although I still wonder about treating customers fairly)
Is there maybe some useful smallprint that can save us (and indeed save p2x) which would force administrators to honour the p2p pledge?
I don't think lenders are customers as they don't pay the platform for their services, the borrowers are customers because they pay fees. When (most) platforms charged lender fees the lenders objected and the fees got put fully on the borrower side, perhaps going back to lenders paying some fees would put them in a better or at least a definable position. Lenders seem to have no definable status with the platforms. I don't see how Administrators seem to manage to cut the lenders off from the borrowers, I thought our direct contract was with the borrowers, but the administrators seem to choose to manage the loans for the benefit of the defunct platform (and it's creditors) not the lenders. I get the point, but still to a consumer, which we are, it's pretty similar to buying shares and there we are customers (of Hargreaves for instance).
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 4, 2020 11:40:30 GMT
I don't think lenders are customers as they don't pay the platform for their services, the borrowers are customers because they pay fees. When (most) platforms charged lender fees the lenders objected and the fees got put fully on the borrower side, perhaps going back to lenders paying some fees would put them in a better or at least a definable position. Lenders seem to have no definable status with the platforms. I don't see how Administrators seem to manage to cut the lenders off from the borrowers, I thought our direct contract was with the borrowers, but the administrators seem to choose to manage the loans for the benefit of the defunct platform (and it's creditors) not the lenders. I get the point, but still to a consumer, which we are, it's pretty similar to buying shares and there we are customers (of Hargreaves for instance). Do you pay Hargreaves for transactions?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 4, 2020 11:45:07 GMT
I don't think lenders are customers as they don't pay the platform for their services, the borrowers are customers because they pay fees. When (most) platforms charged lender fees the lenders objected and the fees got put fully on the borrower side, perhaps going back to lenders paying some fees would put them in a better or at least a definable position. Lenders seem to have no definable status with the platforms. I don't see how Administrators seem to manage to cut the lenders off from the borrowers, I thought our direct contract was with the borrowers, but the administrators seem to choose to manage the loans for the benefit of the defunct platform (and it's creditors) not the lenders. I Thought the platforms stopped charging lenders fees when HMRC stopped investors getting tax relief for them.
As for the administrators, they still collect the money for the investors, but most platforms allow the platform to take @reasonable@ additional charges if required. This allows the high administrators costs to justify taking money from the investors for their recovery services!
Yes, because lenders complained bitterly that they weren't tax deductible, I remember the discussions from the Zopa forum at the time.
|
|
justme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 203 
Likes: 89
|
Post by justme on Mar 4, 2020 13:33:09 GMT
Do you really think if we paid for services the administrations would have had different outcome? It would have been the same IMO but with us paying for it directly as well as indirectly at present by our money being raided for fees, "living wills" are not worth the paper they are written on.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 4, 2020 14:52:36 GMT
I must say I feel like I am a customer.
But to stop administrators/creditors trying to lawyer that protection away, it might be that the first thing a platform could do to make us more secure is charge us something (peppercorn even)?
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 6, 2020 12:21:14 GMT
I don't think lenders are customers as they don't pay the platform for their services, the borrowers are customers because they pay fees. Actually it looks like we ARE customers according to the FCA, although mind you it is written in deepest gobbledygook www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/G252.html (e) (in relation to debt collecting) a person within (i) to (iv) in relation to whom the firm takes steps to procure the payment of a debt due under a credit agreement or a consumer hire agreement or a P2P agreement (whether or not that person is a party to the credit agreement or consumer hire agreement or P2P agreement):
|
|
squid
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 204
|
Post by squid on Mar 6, 2020 13:00:39 GMT
It has been my experience to date that the Financial Ombudsman Service considers that as a lender via FCA regulated P2P firms, I was indeed a customer of those firms. There was also a landmark ruling about the same issue in relation to an investment in a similar sector where over a thousand complaints were upheld by the FOS in which investors in a failed investment product promoted by a FCA regulated firm - but otherwise entirely independent from the investment - were eventually considered to be customers or clients of the promoting firm.
|
|
