investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288 
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Jun 1, 2016 14:44:08 GMT
It might be worth re-reading the old T&Cs and pointing out where you think there has been 'a ...change to the terms' (unilateral or otherwise) in respect of not paying interest on a defaulted loan. I do not see one and therefore I cannot see how SS could possibly be in default - even putting aside the fact that our continuing to use the platform after notification on 11th of May of a change in 'operating procedures' (note the expression - i.e. not T&Cs) is considered acceptance of the change that was made.
Normal notice period is 1 month to enable you to decide if you wish to continue using the platform under the new 'operating procedures', rather than with immediate effect. I probably logged into the platform in the period between the email being sent and my reading it. How can that constitute acceptance?
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Jun 1, 2016 14:52:22 GMT
It might be worth re-reading the old T&Cs and pointing out where you think there has been 'a ...change to the terms' (unilateral or otherwise) in respect of not paying interest on a defaulted loan. I do not see one and therefore I cannot see how SS could possibly be in default - even putting aside the fact that our continuing to use the platform after notification on 11th of May of a change in 'operating procedures' (note the expression - i.e. not T&Cs) is considered acceptance of the change that was made.
There's a link here which was an update from SS pointing out the changes to some t&cs savingstream.co.uk/documents/newstructure.pdfThanks earthbound. From that link, it would seem that the 11 May update should only apply to loans under the new T&Cs.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Jun 1, 2016 14:56:59 GMT
Correction to my previous post - interest on PBL020 wasn't paid to day but WAS paid on 27th May - apparently the date of default. My fault for not scrolling down far enough to see this... I did not receive any interest on 27th. My loan parts are up for sale now, but they were not on 27th, so should not affect things.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 1, 2016 14:57:26 GMT
investibod SS t&cs state continued use of the platform constitutes acceptance.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 1, 2016 15:00:16 GMT
Thanks earthbound. From that link, it would seem that the 11 May update should only apply to loans under the new T&Cs. The 11th may update was applicable from the 11th may. "We have made a slight change to our operating procedures for ‘loans in default’ (we have only ever had one to date) - once we declare a loan to be in default, instead of crediting interest to investor's accounts monthly, interest will accrue on account and will be paid once the loan capital is recovered. This rule will only apply to the loan in default and not other loans, which will operate as usual. Loans in default can continue to be traded on the secondary market. Our solicitors have advised us to implement this as the FCA perceives Lendy's own covering of the interest as a potential cashflow risk to the sustainability of the platform."
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Jun 1, 2016 15:01:24 GMT
It might be worth re-reading the old T&Cs and pointing out where you think there has been 'a ...change to the terms' (unilateral or otherwise) in respect of not paying interest on a defaulted loan. I do not see one and therefore I cannot see how SS could possibly be in default - even putting aside the fact that our continuing to use the platform after notification on 11th of May of a change in 'operating procedures' (note the expression - i.e. not T&Cs) is considered acceptance of the change that was made.
There's a link here which was an update from SS pointing out the changes to some t&cs savingstream.co.uk/documents/newstructure.pdfI am well aware of that - thanks. But it does not deal with my point. SS may have paid interest on the only other previous defaulted loan but it cannot be inferred from the T&Cs - in fact reading the T&Cs interest is not paid until term. When SS paid it before it was merely part of their 'operating procedures' as was made clear in their email of 11th May. Therefore investibod was incorrect to suggest there has been 'a unilateral change to the terms'.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 1, 2016 15:07:11 GMT
I am well aware of that - thanks. But it does not deal with my point. SS may have paid interest on the only other previous defaulted loan but it cannot be inferred from the T&Cs - in fact reading the T&Cs interest is not paid until term. When SS paid it before it was merely part of their 'operating procedures' as was made clear in their email of 11th May. Therefore investibod was incorrect to suggest there has been 'a unilateral change to the terms'. @melador I agree with you, i looked through the old t&cs and couldnt find the statement that said they would pay interest on a defaulted loan, from the link we can only assume that it was added later, that they would pay interest, and then retracted it for purposes of gaining FCA approval.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,333
Likes: 11,552
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 1, 2016 15:14:58 GMT
It might be worth re-reading the old T&Cs and pointing out where you think there has been 'a ...change to the terms' (unilateral or otherwise) in respect of not paying interest on a defaulted loan. I do not see one and therefore I cannot see how SS could possibly be in default - even putting aside the fact that our continuing to use the platform after notification on 11th of May of a change in 'operating procedures' (note the expression - i.e. not T&Cs) is considered acceptance of the change that was made.
There's a link here which was an update from SS pointing out the changes to some t&cs savingstream.co.uk/documents/newstructure.pdfChange to structure, I think, and Im as guilty as the next, we have been confusing changes to the structure with changes to T&Cs. While new T&Cs were issued with the introduction of the new structure I think that assuming that the statements made regarding what happened under the old structure is the same as the T&Cs is risky. As I have noted several times before PBLs dodnt really have any applicable T&Cs under the old structure. Like meledor I noted the specific use of the term 'operating procedures' used in the email. The question is whether custom & practice is sufficient to claim SS are in breach of any agreements with lenders and whether the statements on the loan page re:monthly interest can be considered part of the loan terms. Without recourse to the loan agreements with SS under the old structure no definitive position is clear.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Jun 1, 2016 15:20:23 GMT
Normal notice period is 1 month to enable you to decide if you wish to continue using the platform under the new 'operating procedures', rather than with immediate effect. I probably logged into the platform in the period between the email being sent and my reading it. How can that constitute acceptance? Where does it say you have a month to accept any changes to the conditions that SS operate under? IMHO if you continue to lend on the platform, that is deemed to be acceptance of all conditions including changes. If you didn't want to lend under those conditions you had the option to sell up and withdraw your money. All of those posters hurling abuse and threats at savingstream should take a look at most of the other p2p sites where defaults appear to be quite common and are (apparently) accepted by the lenders as part of the risk. Risk is part of p2p lending and you will need to accept it or put your money elsewhere. Taking your points in order: -> Where does it say you have a month to accept any changes to the conditions that SS operate under? This was in reply to the previous post. I did not say that I have 1 month to accept the changes. The point I was making is that it is normal practice to give a notice period when changes are being made to a contract. -> IMHO if you continue to lend on the platform, that is deemed to be acceptance of all conditions including changes. If for the moment we accept this to be true, you cannot accept the changes until you know of them. Again I think a notice period would have been appropriate to let people decide if they wish to continue under the new conditions. I have set my pre-funding to zero and not made any further purchases while I see how this is handled. -> If you didn't want to lend under those conditions you had the option to sell up and withdraw your money. True apart from one particular loan which is proving a bit slow to sell for some reason  -> All of those posters hurling abuse and threats at savingstream should take a look at most of the other p2p sites where defaults appear to be quite common and are (apparently) accepted by the lenders as part of the risk. I hope that you do not consider anything I have said to be abuse or threats. I have kept silent on the subject until I have seen what happened with regards to the interest payment today. I think that the communication from SS could have been a lot better regarding this. I can fully understand them not necessarily wanting to do that on this forum due to the hostile reception that they might receive from some people. However I think the hostility might have been less if the communication had been better. -> Risk is part of p2p lending and you will need to accept it or put your money elsewhere. Agree with you entirely. If we had been lending to the eventual borrower then I think that the only discussion is how SS could best maximise the recovery. However, in this case we are lending to SS, so they are the ones who have defaulted on us. SS in turn have a borrower who has defaulted on them, but that is a risk they have taken. As you recently said "Risk is part of p2p lending and you will need to accept it or put your money elsewhere." This applies to SS as well as anyone else. If any of the 'new' loans had defaulted we would be looking for how to maximise the recovery. The same should apply when we are lending to SS.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Jun 1, 2016 15:23:27 GMT
Change to structure, I think, and Im as guilty as the next, we have been confusing changes to the structure with changes to T&Cs. While new T&Cs were issued with the introduction of the new structure I think that assuming that the statements made regarding what happened under the old structure is the same as the T&Cs is risky. As I have noted several times before PBLs dodnt really have any applicable T&Cs under the old structure. Like meledor I noted the specific use of the term 'operating procedures' used in the email. The question is whether custom & practice is sufficient to claim SS are in breach of any agreements with lenders and whether the statements on the loan page re:monthly interest can be considered part of the loan terms. Without recourse to the loan agreements with SS under the old structure no definitive position is clear. Well.. you took your time didn't you have i told you how long iv spent reading those darn t&cs , thanks for clearing things up , i for one am now finished for the time being with SS's T&Cs. 
|
|
|
|
Post by brianac on Jun 1, 2016 15:43:14 GMT
No change in accrued interest, however Sale Queue is now down to 10k2 Brian Amazingly now actually sold Queue is now 59k26 (I've put the rest up for sale) (And mikes1531 I've noted the interest accrued) Brian for anyone still interested here's the figures (including sale queue) mikes1531 30/5/16 17:50 Value: £100.00 Start date: 08/05/2016 Age: 22 days Interest earned: £0.72 31/5/16 20:23 Value: £100.00 Start date: 08/05/2016 Age: 22 days Interest earned: £0.72 Sale Queue £52,925.29 1/6/16 16:30 Value: £100.00 Start date: 08/05/2016 Age: 22 days Interest earned: £0.72 Sale queue £4,362.88
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Jun 1, 2016 15:49:09 GMT
-> Risk is part of p2p lending and you will need to accept it or put your money elsewhere. Agree with you entirely. If we had been lending to the eventual borrower then I think that the only discussion is how SS could best maximise the recovery. However, in this case we are lending to SS, so they are the ones who have defaulted on us. SS in turn have a borrower who has defaulted on them, but that is a risk they have taken. As you recently said "Risk is part of p2p lending and you will need to accept it or put your money elsewhere." This applies to SS as well as anyone else. If any of the 'new' loans had defaulted we would be looking for how to maximise the recovery. The same should apply when we are lending to SS.
At the risk of repeating myself can you please read the T&Cs?
web.archive.org/web/20150919113942/http://www.savingstream.co.uk/terms
Just because you are lending to SS under the old T&Cs it does not mean that SS is obliged to make you whole on default. Read particularly paragraphs 5 and 12. These are the T&Cs you have agreed to and you are at risk of suffering loss of capital. (I have said elsewhere that I think in reality that is unlikely because of the security for the loan and the provision fund)
There are far too many people on here ignorantly talking of suing SS, or SS is in default, or SS could be in financial difficulties because of this default without showing any evidence that they are in the least bit familiar with the relevant T&Cs. The old T&Cs make very clear that SS is only obliged to pass back to lenders what is recovered (less fees).
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 1, 2016 16:03:12 GMT
I don't think that this update has been posted on this thread (if I have missed it, let me know and I will delete this post)...
from SS update page for PBL20...
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Jun 1, 2016 16:07:25 GMT
It may be just me, but that link took me to the new terms and conditions (whereas ilmoro's link the other day took me to the old t&Cs) and clause 12 clearly refers to Savings Stream Security Holdings acting as agent for lenders and holding the security as such. The security in this case is held by Lendy Ltd (a free Companies Hose check of the borrower will reveal this in minutes) and, whatever relationship lendy Ltd has with the lenders it is clear that it is principal to the borrower, oherwise the security is invalid. |
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Jun 1, 2016 16:15:17 GMT
Didn't have much in it so wasn't hugely concerned but I'm surprised my loan was bought given there was about 50k ahead of me yesterday!
|
|
