IMPORTANT: Service of Application (MT)

The winddown plan did come into play before administration, it was scuppered by a borrower taking legal action, which is why we are where we are. Some people argued strongly that we should have been here sooner.

In general, investors were led to understand that in the event of a platform failure, a wind down plan would near seamlessly be implemented which should take care of managing the investments in much the same way as the platform would otherwise have done. The reality is of course quite different. The wind down plans either do not operate as intended, or they have insufficient funding to work as intended. This is not the fault of investors. All approved by the FCA however.

It has become clear that platform failure is the major risk with all P2P. It tends to lead to the first negative question being asked of any potential new platform:

1. Exactly how does your wind down plan operate in the event of platform failure?

2. How is the wind down plan funded?

3. What happens if the funds are insufficient?

What I find appalling is the very directors who created this mess unashamedly aim to enrich themselves further. When I think of the loan misrepresentations, poor due diligence, over-valuations, fictitious pledges etc, I can't help but shake my head. It was of no great surprise that the last few substandard loans prior to wind-down attracted negligible bids.

The emergence of the so-called orderly wind-down produced nothing but delays for a whole year plus a pittance recovery for the Newcastle loan. Then came the final nail in the coffin; the legal blunder with a borrower, which precipitated administration. 

The JA including the directors now wish to team up with a conflict administrator, apparently 'a partner', to raid the trust assets. Given the dreadful level of enforcement proceeds, expect scraps, if any, to fall from the masters' table if we spectate. One cannot complain in the future as the outcome of the ruling is binding. 

MT is right up there with Lendy and FS. The FCA is complicit in this scandal so lenders have to battle for their hard-earned funds.   

is there any chance now that LENDY and FS administrators  come up with something like this little nugget from MT.

This is very possibly a very stupid and unworkable idea but experiences with Col, Lendy, FS and now MT have shown that calling in administrators is just a way for administrators to get rich and investors to get ripped off. So, can we fight back?

Maybe we, as investors, should ask the court to throw out the administrators proposals (after all it seems to me that they are asking the court if they can have our money to pay themselves exorbitant fees) and tell them to instead pass all of the details re lenders, borrowers, loan information etc over to an organisation run by the lenders.

Lenders would obviously have to form such an organisation. Maybe we could form a limited company (MT Recovery Ltd) and could do the admin work ourselves. I am retired and would happily do admin for minimum wage. I am sure there are others in the same boat - some possibly with more legal knowledge than I have got.

A limited company would need some working capital - maybe everyone pays in 1% of their investment and get that back first from any recoveries. Obviously issues if some lenders wouldn't/didn't join but court could rule on that situation.

Like I said, probably a stupid idea and unworkable but I am sure we would do a better job than the administrators.

There isn't, but we who have been battered, bruised and right royally shafted by the whole P2P Fiasco are surprised by nothing that the Vested Interests will attempt to get up to .......................