starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 296
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Oct 8, 2021 17:55:03 GMT
[Snip] ... but I am sure we would do a better job than the administrators. Not sure I agree with this!
|
|
starfished
Member of DD Central
Posts: 296
Likes: 216
|
Post by starfished on Oct 8, 2021 17:59:11 GMT
It doesn’t really matter how well planned or funded the wind down plan is, legal action taken by borrowers, lenders, creditors or directors against the platform will blow it out of the water every time. Therein lies the inherent problem with all P2P. Is there any solution though? I don't think it is P2P specific (albeit it has emerged as a strong theme recently), see the payday company closures. There is a reason why regulators tend to force stronger banks to take over failing banks/books rather than run them down in isolation. While most will have "contingency" plans many of those will not survive contact with real life...
|
|
dh1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 373
Likes: 383
|
Post by dh1 on Oct 8, 2021 18:37:40 GMT
Wow! What a lot of posts.
This might be a futile attempt to herd cats but I wonder if we might spend a moment or two on the Court thing? That's the juggernaut heading towards us at speed right now.
shw in his post asked relevant questions. By the way, I think the "who pays for mediation" question is for MT (support@moneything.com).
Turning to the big issue (at least one of them) the thrust of the proceedings seem to be that the administrators are not satisfied that they can recover costs, etc with the current legal framework and they need the Court to arrange that they can. If the proceedings fail to deliver that, the outcomes in the MT FAQ "What happens if the Court does not agree with either option?" seem likely. Please read the FAQ.
Whilst I dislike losing money just like everyone else, the Administrators must be able to administrate; and as they aren't a charity, we end up paying - as from other posts, we already knew.
It also seems to me that given the fact that lenders (we) are now Respondents in the proceedings we have a couple of choices - do nothing or make representations - TAKE YOUR OWN ADVICE HERE!
I'm coming to the view that the least worst option is to do nothing. That's based on the view that the Court will want to avoid a collapse of the Administration if at all possible as does everybody else, I hope. Yes, that will mean some extra loss for me in respect of defaulted loans - not all of them are, of course - but it's a lot better than administration ceasing and me losing everything.
We aren't really between a rock and a hard place; more like between a somewhat squidgy hard-ish thing and a 20 metre high and 20 metre thick concrete wall across our M1.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,840
Likes: 11,068
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 8, 2021 20:44:28 GMT
is there any chance now that LENDY and FS administrators come up with something like this little nugget from MT. Lendy ... it's already an issue before the courts, FS quite likely but quistclose
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Oct 8, 2021 21:46:56 GMT
Not aware of the Lendy or FS T&Cs, but isn't the main point the MT admins make that the reimbursement of fees from income from loans and capital repayments ranks after the rights of lenders (and they want to change that)? Is that order similar to the procedures of any other p2p provider? If not L and FS could hardly benefit from the case.
Given it's very unlikely repayments of capital and interest will be 100%+ the administrators wouldn't earn anything for their efforts. They have a reasonable point there that is not necessarily driven by greed and not necessarily against our interests as lenders.
Also: the elaborate level of work they put into the case and the detailed construction of arguments they came up with, suggests they do want the administration job.
Admin costs in other cases seem to be closer to 20% than 2%.
|
|
min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 603
Likes: 170
|
Post by min on Oct 9, 2021 7:55:24 GMT
[Snip] ... but I am sure we would do a better job than the administrators. Not sure I agree with this! We'd have skin in the game. That makes a huge difference. It doesn't matter to them if we get our money back. As long as they get their £500 an hour they'll string it out as long as they can.
|
|
shw
Posts: 51
Likes: 90
|
Post by shw on Oct 9, 2021 8:26:49 GMT
For the millions of cash loans LOST,live (just about) + default,you would think us investors might want to start up an MT Action Group!! This has been suggested a number of times on the forum but no interest. Assume it would have to be a confidential messaging board that P2P sympathisers,or even Directors or snoops cannot infiltrate. At least "like minded" losing investors could exchange serious opinion on the way forward. If we trusted the administration process fee charging regime,or they were independently audited for fairness or that the justice system might be interested we might trust someone is working in our cash recovery best interests - joke. This is a grinding down process that wants us to just give up and say goodbye to our hard earned cash. The leaches will just keep sucking away until we have nothing returned.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,840
Likes: 11,068
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 9, 2021 11:53:09 GMT
And what, if anything can P2P investors realistically do about the situations we have encountered having invested via failed FCA regulated platforms where the wind down plans have not worked adequately for whatever reason? Where are the perceived investor protections? 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. Unfortunately, due to the points made in the FAQ in reference to the BA order, not possible. Lenders would not have the required permissions to undertake the winddown, thats why, without significant expenditure, it has to be MTL or another qualifying party with its associated cost. MTSL has to be part of the equation as it holds the security and the right to enforce it.
|
|
dh1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 373
Likes: 383
|
Post by dh1 on Oct 9, 2021 13:24:31 GMT
For the millions of cash loans LOST,live (just about) + default,you would think us investors might want to start up an MT Action Group!! This has been suggested a number of times on the forum but no interest. Assume it would have to be a confidential messaging board that P2P sympathisers,or even Directors or snoops cannot infiltrate. At least "like minded" losing investors could exchange serious opinion on the way forward. If we trusted the administration process fee charging regime,or they were independently audited for fairness or that the justice system might be interested we might trust someone is working in our cash recovery best interests - joke. This is a grinding down process that wants us to just give up and say goodbye to our hard earned cash. The leaches will just keep sucking away until we have nothing returned. shw succinctly put, I think. Please don't feel obliged in any way to respond to this - but I was wondering if you are planning to make representations as a Respondent (if you are) to the Court proceedings or not? Is anyone else thinking about making representations?
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 9, 2021 15:05:58 GMT
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. Unfortunately, due to the points made in the FAQ in reference to the BA order, not possible. Lenders would not have the required permissions to undertake the winddown. If administrators can try & change the rules, why not lenders. Would a company called MT Recovery Ltd, be classed as lenders anyway. If everyone is prepared to put up 1% & some lenders of sufficient skills are prepared to get involved with the recovery process then I am all for it. With only around £1k left (in the Liverpool loan), then my £10 is neither here nor there, but I guess those with substantial sums invested, are the ones who should dictate matters. Anything to stuff the leeches & the defaulters !!!!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,840
Likes: 11,068
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 9, 2021 16:08:36 GMT
Unfortunately, due to the points made in the FAQ in reference to the BA order, not possible. Lenders would not have the required permissions to undertake the winddown. If administrators can try & change the rules, why not lenders. Would a company called MT Recovery Ltd, be classed as lenders anyway. If everyone is prepared to put up 1% & some lenders of sufficient skills are prepared to get involved with the recovery process then I am all for it. With only around £1k left (in the Liverpool loan), then my £10 is neither here nor there, but I guess those with substantial sums invested, are the ones who should dictate matters. Anything to stuff the leeches & the defaulters !!!! Sorry think you have missed the point. Read the Admins FAQ in relation to the BA and why that would cost more. Winddown involves regulated activities, you need someone who has the relevant permissions or pay to get them (time & cost), not mention systems etc to manage the winddown. Lenders, because that who the OP was talking about doing it, whatever the vehicle used. Edit read also witness statement provided by proposed Con Admin
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 9, 2021 18:10:04 GMT
Sorry think you have missed the point. Read the Admins FAQ in relation to the BA and why that would cost more. Winddown involves regulated activities, you need someone who has the relevant permissions or pay to get them (time & cost), not mention systems etc to manage the winddown. Lenders, because that who the OP was talking about doing it, whatever the vehicle used. Edit read also witness statement provided by proposed Con Admin With respect & you obviously know your stuff, we lenders are always told what we can & cannot do. We need to stand up & be counted, after the way many have been fleeced. The FCA set the rules & do not regulate them. The fraudulent borrowers try every trick in the book to avoid repayment. The failed platforms such as Moneything offerings are sometimes misleading. Look at the final one offered in desperation by them, at Milton Keynes, I think. It was pulled to pieces by prospective investors & eventually pulled. The English law protects the borrower, while the lender languishes. The Government appoints the FCA top man who presided over the recent P2P debacle, to the Bank of England. What chance does the lender have other than to get together & break the rules. !!!!
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Oct 9, 2021 20:50:06 GMT
correct... screw the apperactnics
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 323
Likes: 363
|
Post by mah on Oct 10, 2021 18:25:50 GMT
Looks like they are going to spend our money to go to court to ask the same questions that Lendy admin are asking and are still asking. Must be nice to have zero skin in the game and a big pot of other people’s money to spend. Really hope the FCA and their “light touch” regime are enjoying the show. Yes, the same case as Funding Secure too - use Investors' money to fight against the Investors and when they lose - ah, but we already spent all that money - go figure !
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 323
Likes: 363
|
Post by mah on Oct 10, 2021 18:28:10 GMT
And what, if anything can P2P investors realistically do about the situations we have encountered having invested via failed FCA regulated platforms where the wind down plans have not worked adequately for whatever reason? Where are the perceived investor protections? Guess every Investor should comment (as a Respondent in the case) asking the Court to direct FCA to pay these 'Loan Admin fees' which is due to a lack of any Winddown Plan.
|
|