liso
Member of DD Central
Posts: 389 
Likes: 394
|
Post by liso on Nov 29, 2020 14:02:13 GMT
MB, director of the borrowing company on this upcoming loan, was previously director/owner of another construction company A***** D*********** Ltd, now dissolved. At the time of the dissolution, AD Ltd had 6 outstanding charges, all in favour of a finance company, CB Ltd. None of these charges were satisfied.
MB was also owner of a business finance company, A***** B******* F****** Ltd, also now dissolved.
In 2018, MB/ABF were involved in a court case because of their negligent (or worse) financial misrepresentation of their client (in which MB netted over 50K in commission and the client lost their home).
The judge's comments in the case are worth noting. He described MB as "an unsatisfactory witness" and he said "I find it impossible to place much if any reliance on M* B***'s evidence".
In his written summary the judge directed that a copy of the judgement be sent to the FCA "because I have made certain findings of fact concerning the conduct of M* B*** and ABF".
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 540 
Likes: 410
|
Post by metoo on Nov 29, 2020 19:41:36 GMT
liso thanks for sharing this. Will you send the information to CP? Just regarding the company that dissolved with charges shown as outstanding, it is not unusual for charges to be left without being filed as satisfied. If the company owed CB money that was not repaid, CB would have been able to appoint receivers if there were merit in doing so. That said, compulsory strike-off was discontinued/suspended 3 years in a row and accounts not filed, suggesting perhaps issues/slowness with repayment.
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 739
Likes: 827
|
Post by p2pfan on Dec 1, 2020 16:58:18 GMT
Interesting. Thank you for sharing that with us.
Loan now pushed back to 8 December 2020.
Don't have the full details on it yet, of course, but this also seems like a higher risk development in a rural location - the type that usually run into problem after problem and overrun (e.g. 12 months with such CrowdProperty loans often means 18 or 24 months) - so I'll probably be skipping it.
I can already see M.B. rolling out the excuses for not paying back lenders when he stated he would, blaming the impact of Brexit etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Dec 7, 2020 11:40:56 GMT
Did anyone check if CP were aware of the director's colourful past? There was no recognition of it in the loan details today, unlike the Ab*rg*l* loan.
|
|
liso
Member of DD Central
Posts: 389
Likes: 394
|
Post by liso on Dec 7, 2020 12:53:06 GMT
Did anyone check if CP were aware of the director's colourful past? There was no recognition of it in the loan details today, unlike the Ab*rg*l* loan. I will not be investing in this, so didn't pursue it with CP. Maybe worth raising it with them if you're interested in lending on it.
|
|
Ukmikk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 445
Likes: 298
|
Post by Ukmikk on Dec 7, 2020 14:26:55 GMT
Did anyone check if CP were aware of the director's colourful past? There was no recognition of it in the loan details today, unlike the Ab*rg*l* loan. I will not be investing in this, so didn't pursue it with CP. Maybe worth raising it with them if you're interested in lending on it. Simpler just to avoid. Thanks for flagging up liso
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 540
Likes: 410
|
Post by metoo on Dec 8, 2020 10:09:14 GMT
Well, the former companies (including the one long removed from Companies House, where the one of that name appearing there now is an unrelated company) and career details are mentioned in the loan notes, so I do expect CP are aware of the details in this thread. Likely factors taken into account may be the fact that despite the judge's remarks, there was no case brought against the director, that it was a different type of business, that there was disagreement about what happened, and the original events in question were 12 years ago. I guess CP have to take everything into account, and consider the risk in the loan, as do lenders.
As it goes, there are 1,086 investors in this. Exit will depend on a CP refinance on to a development facility, I guess around £2m, but the first tranche will likely just refi this loan or a bit more.
Unlike the A******* loan that also filled, and had a history in P2P, this one was so small it was almost inevitable it would fill.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 3,137
|
Post by jonno on Dec 8, 2020 10:19:25 GMT
Well, the former companies and career details are mentioned in the loan notes, so I do expect CP are aware of the details in this thread. Likely factors taken into account may be the fact that despite the judge's remarks, there was no case brought against the director, that it was a different type of business, that there was disagreement about what happened, and the original events in question were 12 years ago. I guess CP have to make a decision on what to take into account, and consider the risk in the loan, as do lenders. As it goes, there are 1,086 investors in this. Exit will depend on a CP refinance on to a development facility, I guess around £2m. The wild west of P2P is incredibly risky enough without knowingly investing in a project belonging to someone with this kind of track record. I have simply avoided and will await the next offering.
|
|
|
|
Post by multiaccountmanager on Dec 8, 2020 11:21:30 GMT
As a matter of curiosity I set the Autoinvest ceiling to the minimum £50 and was allocated the full £50 which is the first 100% allocation as far as I recall.
In recent history, a £225K project would be around the 30% mark (with much higher ceilings, but afaik the % allocated is fixed for each fund raise).
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 540
Likes: 410
|
Post by metoo on Dec 8, 2020 12:08:05 GMT
As a matter of curiosity I set the Autoinvest ceiling to the minimum £50 and was allocated the full £50 which is the first 100% allocation as far as I recall. In recent history, a £225K project would be around the 30% mark (with much higher ceilings, but afaik the % allocated is fixed for each fund raise). Surely if you ask for £50, you always get £50 (or nothing), as they cannot allocate less. I think the allocation here may have been around only 8%. The average investor got £207.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Dec 8, 2020 14:04:00 GMT
As a matter of curiosity I set the Autoinvest ceiling to the minimum £50 and was allocated the full £50 which is the first 100% allocation as far as I recall. In recent history, a £225K project would be around the 30% mark (with much higher ceilings, but afaik the % allocated is fixed for each fund raise). Surely if you ask for £50, you always get £50 (or nothing), as they cannot allocate less. I think the allocation here may have been around only 8%. The average investor got £207. Yes, a friend of mine was allocated 8.15% of her maximum pledge. Personally, I decided to skip it.
|
|
firedog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 380
Member is Online
|
Post by firedog on Dec 8, 2020 14:16:07 GMT
As a matter of curiosity I set the Autoinvest ceiling to the minimum £50 and was allocated the full £50 which is the first 100% allocation as far as I recall. In recent history, a £225K project would be around the 30% mark (with much higher ceilings, but afaik the % allocated is fixed for each fund raise). Surely if you ask for £50, you always get £50 (or nothing), as they cannot allocate less. I suppose they can allocate less if you have autoinvest turned on. For example they took the last £3 out of my autoinvest for one recent raise! No idea how that works, as I had some in my autoinvest (under £50) this morning, yet it wasn't touched.
|
|
