Legal Opinion / Challenge - Background information required

There is logic if your sole intention is, by continually trying to show AC in a bad light, to attempt to force / coerce/ shame AC management into changing the queue for AAs to first come first served. Unfortunately none of these posters actually realise there is no money right now to pay them back and won't  be until forebearance is over and things return to some sense of normality. So any discussion as to the structure of any queue is unfortunately a mute point, something they seem unable to understand.

They don't understand or accept anything that the many experienced posters here have shared, they are obviously not here to learn anything, which is a shame as there are many things they obviously don't know, such as:

• How GLDV work and that development loans are risky and potential residual value can fluctuate until the development is complete. This is normal for these types of loans an not a function af appalling DD by AC as they claim. My many years of P2P experience tells me that, whilst not perfect,  AC DD has always been among the best.
• That the removed "withdraw all"  function for repayments on the AA accounts has never actually withdrawn capital as due to the fact you were invested in a cash/asset hybrid collective fund you could only ever automatically withdraw any interest payments. If you wanted to withdraw capital you always had to request a separate capital withdrawal for a specific amounts,  which you can still do. This is now being touted as a basis for a legal challenge by these shillers. Really!  you kidding me aren't you.....you need to getyour facts  straight before talking legal chaps. 
• That most AC loans are not amortising and therefore they don't return capital every month, hence why you might have to wait until lthe loan matures to get your capital back unlike most of the loans at places like RS that I know they love so much.

If it does not fit their narative it is ignored. Total waste of time engaging with this bunch of what seem like angry bully boys who seem incapable of recognising that the economic world has just been shaken to it's core and all bets are now off predicting where the future will lead us They are not here to share, or to learn, or perhaps support.

They are here to simply to ram their misplaced anger at their own ill-informed investment choices in everybody's faces until they get what they want.

I think this is why it was removed for the access accounts as it was confusing people. You have always had the 'withdraw' option which queues a withdrawal from the cash pool, now withdrawal queue, and in my experience it was the only was to ever get capital out of any of the access accounts. As you don't really own the loans parts directly, you own a share of a pool of loan parts and cash. It was the cash element of the pool that facilitated the capital withdrawal. function.

I used the term hybrid and collective by way of comparison only and I am obviously not suggesting that AC is doing anything that is outside their P2P operating remit. IFAIU, as investors in the AAs do have loan certificates issued they do hold P2P confirming loans. Additionally, AC has been audited by the FCA as conforming to the regulations governing P2P so I would feel it is unlikely they do not.

Lets say perhaps that there is an abstraction layer that exists between the individual investments and the underlying loans/cash pool. The cash element of the AA funds is there to provide liquidity and operational efficiency but as I understand it this would not need to segregated as it constitutes invested money in the platform and therefore would not be subject to any client money segregation rules.

Do the FOS entertain submissions where the 'at fault' Firm's formal complaints procedure hasn't already been observed?

Edit: if they do, I'm confused as to how / where / why the 8 weeks becomes a factor.

No (again), nothing new will need to be created; the "instrument" you describe is the Access Account itself. Existing Access Account holdings will simply be trade-able from one lender to another at a discount they're both happy with. Once traded, such holdings will be indistinguishable from any other Access Account holding.

Eg. Lenders X and Y both have £1000 holdings in the QAA and £1000 cash. X offers half of his QAA holding (£500) for sale at 20% discount, which Y chooses to buy (for £400). After the trade, X holds £500 in the QAA and has £1400 cash. Y has £1500 in the QAA and £600 cash.

I complained to AC as soon as they changed the system. I have not had a satisfactory response, therefore I am going to the FOS.  I will do a separate thread on this because there appears to be some confusion over it.

I complained to AC as soon as the pool was introduced, as did others