scooter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 333
|
Post by scooter on Nov 23, 2020 21:00:28 GMT
Hi, I had a response from FO today and one of the parts has me baffled. Genuinely I can't make out what they are saying. Why would they have a T&C which is a reason to change t&cs which is about not disadvantageing customers which allows me to be disadvantaged.? Can anyone give an example which might help.?
1/ FC Financially disadvantaged investors
Disadvantaged by the fees
Section 16 ‘Amendments’ of Funding Circle’s terms and conditions says:
‘16.1. We may make changes to these Investor Terms and Conditions from time to time
without your consent for any of the following reasons:
... To make changes which benefit you or do not disadvantage you;
So I’m satisfied that Funding Circle were entitled to change their terms without your approval.
You’ve pointed out that one of the points in section 16 of their terms quoted above mentions making changes that won’t disadvantage you. You’ve also interpreted this term as ‘not allowing for consumers to be disadvantaged’. However, ‘to make changes which benefit you or do not disadvantage you ‘ is one of the reasons why they may decide to change their terms – but it’s not a requirement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Nov 23, 2020 22:16:30 GMT
Hi, I had a response from FO today and one of the parts has me baffled. Genuinely I can't make out what they are saying. Why would they have a T&C which is a reason to change t&cs which is about not disadvantageing customers which allows me to be disadvantaged.? Can anyone give an example which might help.? 1/ FC Financially disadvantaged investors Disadvantaged by the fees Section 16 ‘Amendments’ of Funding Circle’s terms and conditions says: ‘16.1. We may make changes to these Investor Terms and Conditions from time to time without your consent for any of the following reasons: ... To make changes which benefit you or do not disadvantage you; So I’m satisfied that Funding Circle were entitled to change their terms without your approval. You’ve pointed out that one of the points in section 16 of their terms quoted above mentions making changes that won’t disadvantage you. You’ve also interpreted this term as ‘not allowing for consumers to be disadvantaged’. However, ‘to make changes which benefit you or do not disadvantage you ‘ is one of the reasons why they may decide to change their terms – but it’s not a requirement. It seems clear to me. They are saying that 16.1 gives a list of reasons where they can make changes without your consent. The key point is that they may make the change if any ONE of those reasons is true. Whereas, you misinterpreted it and thought that ALL of those reasons had to be true. I'm not saying that I think the terms are necessarily either fair or reasonable, but they are clear.
|
|
scooter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 333
|
Post by scooter on Nov 24, 2020 0:13:45 GMT
Hi, I had a response from FO today and one of the parts has me baffled. Genuinely I can't make out what they are saying. Why would they have a T&C which is a reason to change t&cs which is about not disadvantageing customers which allows me to be disadvantaged.? Can anyone give an example which might help.? 1/ FC Financially disadvantaged investors Disadvantaged by the fees Section 16 ‘Amendments’ of Funding Circle’s terms and conditions says: ‘16.1. We may make changes to these Investor Terms and Conditions from time to time without your consent for any of the following reasons: ... To make changes which benefit you or do not disadvantage you; So I’m satisfied that Funding Circle were entitled to change their terms without your approval. You’ve pointed out that one of the points in section 16 of their terms quoted above mentions making changes that won’t disadvantage you. You’ve also interpreted this term as ‘not allowing for consumers to be disadvantaged’. However, ‘to make changes which benefit you or do not disadvantage you ‘ is one of the reasons why they may decide to change their terms – but it’s not a requirement. It seems clear to me. They are saying that 16.1 gives a list of reasons where they can make changes without your consent. The key point is that they may make the change if any ONE of those reasons is true. Whereas, you misinterpreted it and thought that ALL of those reasons had to be true. I'm not saying that I think the terms are necessarily either fair or reasonable, but they are clear. No, that's not it. I just said I thought they couldn't disadvantage me by a change in t&cs. The FO seem to be saying that this is a reason why they may make a change, but not a condition of changes... Perhaps I just prove that an averagely intelligent person cannot understand the t&cs... And I am more than averagely intelligent.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Nov 24, 2020 0:35:51 GMT
It seems clear to me. They are saying that 16.1 gives a list of reasons where they can make changes without your consent. The key point is that they may make the change if any ONE of those reasons is true. Whereas, you misinterpreted it and thought that ALL of those reasons had to be true. I'm not saying that I think the terms are necessarily either fair or reasonable, but they are clear. No, that's not it. I just said I thought they couldn't disadvantage me by a change in t&cs. The FO seem to be saying that this is a reason why they may make a change, but not a condition of changes... Perhaps I just prove that an averagely intelligent person cannot understand the t&cs... And I am more than averagely intelligent..... Ah, OK. I guess I'm below the average intelligence line. It does seem fair and reasonable that one party to a contract shouldn't be able to change that contract to the disadvantage of another party without that party's agreement. Perhaps they could if they could argue that it was to the advantage of the majority of the parties. Just thinking out loud here. Hopefully, a well rested legal mind will give you a better answer in the morning.
|
|
