|
|
Post by diamon89 on Oct 14, 2021 10:21:21 GMT
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Oct 15, 2021 1:31:01 GMT
It seems then that, if it can be established that the monies that the plaintiff lent via FS became part of the 'common pool' of funds available for loan, a Quistclose trust may not apply.
Apply or not, it would be good to know a) to which specific loan the application is being made, and b) how much this legal action is costing, funding for which will no doubt eventually come from our pockets, one way or another.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426 
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Oct 15, 2021 2:53:09 GMT
It seems then that, if it can be established that the monies that the plaintiff lent via FS became part of the 'common pool' of funds available for loan, a Quistclose trust may not apply. Apply or not, it would be good to know a) to which specific loan the application is being made, and b) how much this legal action is costing, funding for which will no doubt eventually come from our pockets, one way or another. My understanding is that the plaintiff had various loans, (at least 15 and of widely varying amounts) in the same way as other lenders on the site. He was very well known to one of the directors and was asked to lend money to FS. The question of a Quistclose trust didn't arise until after the plaintiff's largest loan was repaid on 17th Nov 2020. I'm also aware of another lender who was invited to lend the same amount to FS (as claimed by Quistclose) at around the same time. That was a straightforward loan to the company FS.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 15, 2021 12:40:09 GMT
looks to me that this is a spoiling tactic and has zero chance of success for the plaintiff - all we will get is increase costs and delay ?
|
|
|
|
Post by westcountryfunder on Oct 15, 2021 15:34:12 GMT
looks to me that this is a spoiling tactic and has zero chance of success for the plaintiff - all we will get is increase costs and delay ? If the claim has no merit and has little chance of success then hopefully costs will be awarded aginst the plaintiff, but only if the administrator's counsel asks for costs. Trouble is that the administrators have no incentive to do so - they'll get their costs paid either way, if not from the plaintiff then from us.
I have zero confidence in the entire administrative process when it comes to failed P2P companies.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by rocky1 on Oct 15, 2021 16:34:58 GMT
administrators act without any personal liability or comeback. a bit like the FCA,platform directors,RICS valuers,receivers,a lot of p2p borrowers etc.well thats how the the shady schemes of p2p seems to be turning out.secured lending to a max 70% ltv,the asset will be sold to return your investment in the event of default.maybe after a few years it might be after every other tom dick and harry have finished rubbing their hands and moved onto the next money tree that bears the fruit of lenders money just waiting to be eaten away.
|
|
