|
|
Post by ian999 on Apr 26, 2020 15:36:13 GMT
I'm looking at commissioning a legal opinion on the legality of AC's change of policy.
There are 2 elements to this:
1) that under the current revised procedures for making withdrawals from the Access accounts and the Property Secured Account, larger Lenders are now disproportionately disadvantaged. As joint Lenders we are all meant to have the same exposure pro-rata to our investments - the new queueing system stops that exposure being shared pro-rata.
2) with larger Lenders only being able to take out tiny percentages of the money that they put in, a yearly management charge of 0.9% being charged on the remainder is unfair.
In order for a solicitor to start looking at this, they of course need to see some paperwork.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the best source for AC's terms prior to the recent change and AC's terms now?
Is there anywhere with a concise summary of what has happened - ie the change in the queuing system?
Has anyone already collated this info for their own legal advisors?
Thanks in anticipation......
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 781 
Likes: 889
|
Post by p2pfan on Apr 26, 2020 15:49:26 GMT
It is grossly unfair that larger lenders are being discriminated against and will be left with the dud loans because of it. You can see previous versions of AC's webpages in the Wayback Machine. (Interesting to see what they looked like back in 2013. Though the "Lenders: Earn between 10%-15% pa gross" advertised on their homepage is long gone of course.) |
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428 
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 26, 2020 16:15:21 GMT
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 26, 2020 17:05:24 GMT
I think the issue with a legal challenge to this situation is that by the time the challenge is mounted they will have gone bust anyway, unless they have voluntarily changed things back in the meantime.
It then becomes a question of claiming damages but from whom?
The administrator will presumably not care because its before their time.
The small investors will have left the platform - it seems very unlikely that it would be possible to claim anything from them.
That leaves the directors of the company, in which case I suppose it depends on what assets they have and so on - would likely be messy and go on for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by gobuchul on Apr 26, 2020 17:06:45 GMT
Who in their right mind would pay a solicitor to give a legal opinion on next to nothing being shared unfairly?
I very much agree that the flat rate per access account system is odd, but when you look at the problem in context I suggest the best course of action is to think about something else for a few months and see what happens once the economy is thawed out from the current deep freeze.
The amounts being shared out are peanuts (unsurprisingly) and they make no material difference to any large lenders position. The talk of larger lenders being left with all the dud loans is completely fanciful when you look at the overall loan book size compared to the current withdrawal rate. Also the current situation is temporary and exceptional. If in a few months time we had a few hundred per day being shared out in the same way, then yes you would have a point, but at the moment it is £1 every few days. We all have to wait and see what happens when the money starts flowing again before we get ourselves in a tangle over nothing.
By the way what you are looking for is a breach of contract. Judges are not that worried about things being unfair. The management charge is allowed under the terms so there is no breach of contract.
Also, I'd rather pay AC a fee to have the very best people manage the difficult loans in the best way possible to recover most of my money, rather than pay nothing and get a service to match. I look at it as an investment to minimise my losses.
|
|
victors
Member of DD Central
Posts: 157
Likes: 86
|
Post by victors on Apr 26, 2020 17:13:48 GMT
I think we all accept the system is unfair
I'm sure AC know it is unfair.
I don't feel getting a solicitor involved is going to make any difference. I still have faith, maybe naively, that AC will sort it out.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 26, 2020 17:16:46 GMT
Who in their right mind would pay a solicitor to give a legal opinion on next to nothing being shared unfairly? I very much agree that the flat rate per access account system is odd, but when you look at the problem in context I suggest the best course of acting is to think about something else for a few months and see what happens once the economy is thawed out from the current deep freeze. The amounts being shared out are peanuts (unsurprisingly) and they make no material difference to any large lenders position. The talk of larger lenders being left with all the dud loans is completely fanciful when you look at the overall loan book size compared to the current withdrawal rate. Also the current situation is temporary and exceptional. If in a few months time we had a few hundred per day being shared out in the same way, then yes you would have a point, but at the moment it is £1 every few days. We all have to wait and see what happens when the money starts flowing again before we get ourselves in a tangle over nothing. By the way what you are looking for is a breach of contract. Judges are not that worried about things being unfair. The management charge is allowed under the terms so there is no breach of contract. Also, I'd rather pay AC a fee to have the very best people manage the difficult loans in the best way possible to recover most of my money, rather than pay nothing and get a service to match. I look at it as an investment to minimise my losses.You are happy to pay AC a fee so that they will then lose you less money than they were going to in the first place? I hope your other investment decisions are a bit better thought out.
|
|
|
|
Post by gobuchul on Apr 26, 2020 17:38:54 GMT
.... Also, I'd rather pay AC a fee to have the very best people manage the difficult loans in the best way possible to recover most of my money, rather than pay nothing and get a service to match. I look at it as an investment to minimise my losses.You are happy to pay AC a fee so that they will then lose you less money than they were going to in the first place? I hope your other investment decisions are a bit better thought out. It seems that you are deliberately being obtuse. AC did not create the current economic lockdown, but dealing with it will increase their costs at the same time they have no new loans to cover those costs. This situation is a mess for everyone. I potentially face losing a large part of my life savings (and yes I know that's my own fault), but my best chance of getting out of this mostly unscathed is for AC to invest time and energy in managing the poor loans and carefully walking a tightrope in our interest. None of us want them to recover half a cat (to borrow someone else's comment). Best not to let your anger with AC blind you to the fact that they are your best hope.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 26, 2020 17:52:23 GMT
You are happy to pay AC a fee so that they will then lose you less money than they were going to in the first place? I hope your other investment decisions are a bit better thought out. I seems that you are deliberately being obtuse. AC did not create the current economic lockdown, but dealing with it will increase their costs at the same time they have no new loans to cover those costs. This situation is a mess for everyone. I potentially face losing a large part of my life savings (and yes I know that's my own fault), but my best chance of getting out of this mostly unscathed is for AC to invest time and energy in managing the poor loans and carefully walking a tightrope in our interest. None of use want them to recover half a cat (to borrow someone else's comment). Best not to let your anger with AC blind you to the fact that they are your best hope. I am angry with AC and so are many others. Your comment about AC being our best hope would be correct in any normal situation, but this is not a normal situation. Large investors can do nothing at the moment apart from sit and watch as cash is bled off of their accounts to pay out to smaller investors. AC are most certainly not acting in their best interests. The inevitable conclusion is that large investors would actually be better off if the whole thing just collapsed entirely and the administrators took over. I know that sounds ridiculous but its the least bad alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by james1100 on Apr 26, 2020 18:11:24 GMT
Well it seems to me that you deliberately delegated your money to a collaborative investment earning a sensible interest rate without reading the t's and c's. Dont get me wrong I empathise BUT it is wrong to blame the platform for the situation you (and all of us) find ourselves in. The platforms that remain in this arena are all liquidity restrained (dont fool yourselves) and the best we can hope for is steady management - I am a damn sight happier holding secured loans here than the rubbish in FC, and the obscure in RS, mentioned because I have personal experience of all.
As someone once said 'Moneys too tight to mention' - another great song to go along with all the other isolation playlists
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 26, 2020 18:13:20 GMT
Well it seems to me that you deliberately delegated your money to a collaborative investment earning a sensible interest rate without reading the t's and c's. Dont get me wrong I empathise BUT it is wrong to blame the platform for the situation you (and all of us) find ourselves in. The platforms that remain in this arena are all liquidity restrained (dont fool yourselves) and the best we can hope for is steady management - I am a damn sight happier holding secured loans here than the rubbish in FC, and the obscure in RS, mentioned because I have personal experience of all. As someone once said 'Moneys too tight to mention' - another great song to go along with all the other isolation playlists Assets changed the t+c's after they were read
|
|
|
|
Post by james1100 on Apr 26, 2020 18:20:01 GMT
precisely how?
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 26, 2020 18:25:47 GMT
Well it seems to me that you deliberately delegated your money to a collaborative investment earning a sensible interest rate without reading the t's and c's. Dont get me wrong I empathise BUT it is wrong to blame the platform for the situation you (and all of us) find ourselves in. The platforms that remain in this arena are all liquidity restrained (dont fool yourselves) and the best we can hope for is steady management - I am a damn sight happier holding secured loans here than the rubbish in FC, and the obscure in RS, mentioned because I have personal experience of all. As someone once said 'Moneys too tight to mention' - another great song to go along with all the other isolation playlists Assets changed the t+c's after they were read It is not wrong to blame the platform at all. They took the decision to implement a system that removes cash from large investors accounts and give it to small investors (overnight and without asking anyone). That decision was 100% made by the platform and they are totally to blame for it.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 26, 2020 18:51:57 GMT
Read the FAQ on the Assetz website. Those smart enough to understand it will see the changes spelt out to them.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 26, 2020 19:07:53 GMT
By the way what you are looking for is a breach of contract. Judges are not that worried about things being unfair. The management charge is allowed under the terms so there is no breach of contract. Nope, it's called Material Misrepresentation and it's a type of fraud.
I'd also correct you on unfairness which is a concern to the FCA who regulate and Authorise Assetz.
|
|
