Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 6,513
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Jan 4, 2023 18:23:33 GMT
The peer-to-peer lending company Assetz has been told to refund fees to a customer who should have been allowed to exit "the contract without accepting the fee” Read the full story here
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 727
Likes: 491
|
Post by jo on Jan 4, 2023 18:27:18 GMT
The peer-to-peer lending company Assetz has been told to refund fees to a customer who should have been allowed to exit "the contract without accepting the fee” Read the full story hereLol. get that stitched.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,789
Likes: 11,010
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 4, 2023 20:50:29 GMT
The peer-to-peer lending company Assetz has been told to refund fees to a customer who should have been allowed to exit "the contract without accepting the fee” Read the full story hereWondered when someone was going to notice that
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,563
Likes: 6,513
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Jan 4, 2023 23:53:22 GMT
The peer-to-peer lending company Assetz has been told to refund fees to a customer who should have been allowed to exit "the contract without accepting the fee” Read the full story hereWondered when someone was going to notice that I'm grateful for the tip someone sent me
|
|
rscal
Posts: 882
Likes: 484
|
Post by rscal on Jan 5, 2023 13:45:00 GMT
The obvious question is: does this have implications for AC's present imposition of a[n equivalent] charging structure - only at a higher rate - to fund the runoff? They opted for that particular strategy and it involves more fees than the more abbreviated approach of offloading the loan book would do. I assume the investor who complained to the FOS back in 2020 was able to 'mostly' exit and since the fees only applied to performing loans [and still would do] they were able to completely exit from fees sooner than the fees were discontinued by AC. Their reward for saying 'no' at the time is a refund now for those fees they could not avoid paying - and those of us who 'stayed' during the fee season of [about?] a year can't say we didn't go along with them. www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3360750.pdfSo as a strategy [noting that no fee has yet been collected despite being proposed*] could we now complain to the FOS about this proposed fee structure - designed to oversee an extended runoff of necessarily performing loans [the default loans don't attract it] when we want to leave - i.e. be able to sell our performing loans - yet are being prevented from doing so? [Now let's find them] www.assetzcapital.co.uk/key-investor-information Which amounts to Term 2.2: That's all there is! Hmm .. Could they rely on this clause as presently worded ? Clearly AC could only now rely on this part: [So what's the best approach to take here?] .. and thinking about it, it seems genuinely unfair. We are being asked to subsidize the cost of managing our existing loans [assuming they perform] which is precisely what the standard fees [Monitoring and exit fee] built into the loan and interest rate differential are designed to cover. That's the basic principle here. Now they come along and try to apply a 'rule' they wrote themselves for a bespoke fee. Has this bespoke fee rule been challenged? I think the FOS man said only a court could decide so he had to apply a case by case test of 'fairness' relating to how AC went about it - which can be 'healed' if they go about things differently the next time. If AC is relying on the original rule to apply a 'you-pay-us-now' fee for a situation they themselves invoked that cuts pretty deep into the whole argument that [to use the double negative] it isn't 'unfair' The starting point has to be to wag this finding under the noses of AC and say you finding the imposition of the rule allowing for the charge to be unfounded# [and leave it at that] they would have to say it founded because la- la- la If you don't like it you have the right to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. You would say to the FOS that the fee is unjustified because it relies on a rule the fairness of which cannot be tested but when you asked AC to not seek to apply the rule in the circumstances they were material in bringing about they disregarded you - and that is 'unfair' in the meaning of their duties as a firm. All you want is any fee that AC would seek to apply consequent to the current situation [post 15 Dec 2022] to be refunded. [#'unfounded' perhaps b/c the purposes of that fee provision are deliberately unstated - so they can role it out every time. Making it a piece-of-string clause whose application is the test of its fairness .. so that weakens the 'get-out' aspect I would argue. Such a deliberately vague clause makes it impossible to judge the reasonableness overall of the contract (which only a court can decide) in advance for the consumer accepting to join. In the absence of clear information therefore, the Ombudsman would have to look into the 'fairness' [what a barn door term!] of choosing to ask for approximately '3%' of performing loans, then '2%' then '1%'. Remember, this is the additional cost AC estimates to be incurring as a result of its own business decision - a decision which would have to be considered the fairest one for the typical investing member. ] Start Here: www.assetzcapital.co.uk/complaints
|
|
jon1982
New Member
Posts: 2
Likes: 17
|
Post by jon1982 on Jan 8, 2023 2:59:09 GMT
I for one will not be taking this lying down. The previous fee implementation, although still a bit f**in' rich in my opinion, it could be argued was due to abnormal market conditions, outside of AC's control.
This fee implemenatation is due to a change of strategy by AC. I do not see why I should be bankrolling their switching over to 100% institutional funding. They want a change of direction, they should be paying for it, not me.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,133
Likes: 1,482
|
Post by pikestaff on Jan 9, 2023 10:51:11 GMT
I have emailed to complain, as follows: You have announced that a lender fee is to accrue from 15 December, following the closure of the platform to new retail investors. I consider this to be unfair because:
(1) The closure of the platform to retail investors, switching to 100% institutional funding, was your business decision. You should be paying for your change of direction, not us.
(2) Although your Terms and Conditions give you the right to introduce a fee, I am unable to close my account to avoid it.
The FCA guidance on the fairness of variation clauses says a relevant factor is: "Does the contract give the consumer the right to terminate the contract before or shortly after any variation takes effect?" It goes further and says: "When drafting variation terms, firms should consider the consumer’s freedom to exit the contract if they do not accept the variation, and how they can actually do so...". I am aware of the recent FOS decision which went against Assetz for this reason ( www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3360750.pdf ).
I am sure you will be receiving many similar complaints. You must surely realise that the imposition of the fee was a mistake and should be withdrawn. However, if I am charged a fee I would kindly ask that you refund it. Failing that I will have no option but to complain to the FOS.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by bugs4me on Jan 9, 2023 11:13:40 GMT
I have emailed to complain, as follows: You have announced that a lender fee is to accrue from 15 December, following the closure of the platform to new retail investors. I consider this to be unfair because:
(1) The closure of the platform to retail investors, switching to 100% institutional funding, was your business decision. You should be paying for your change of direction, not us.
(2) Although your Terms and Conditions give you the right to introduce a fee, I am unable to close my account to avoid it.
The FCA guidance on the fairness of variation clauses says a relevant factor is: "Does the contract give the consumer the right to terminate the contract before or shortly after any variation takes effect?" It goes further and says: "When drafting variation terms, firms should consider the consumer’s freedom to exit the contract if they do not accept the variation, and how they can actually do so...". I am aware of the recent FOS decision which went against Assetz for this reason ( www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3360750.pdf ).
I am sure you will be receiving many similar complaints. You must surely realise that the imposition of the fee was a mistake and should be withdrawn. However, if I am charged a fee I would kindly ask that you refund it. Failing that I will have no option but to complain to the FOS.
I'm out of touch with 'charges' these days. But if a complaint is made to the FOS is a charge made against the company ie Assetz or are they allowed a few free strikes.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jan 9, 2023 11:16:45 GMT
From FOS website:
You won’t need to pay a case fee for the first 3 complaints against your business that we deal with in each financial year. From the 4th complaint onwards, we charge a case fee of £750.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by bugs4me on Jan 9, 2023 11:20:02 GMT
From FOS website: You won’t need to pay a case fee for the first 3 complaints against your business that we deal with in each financial year. From the 4th complaint onwards, we charge a case fee of £750. That should concentrate the minds at Assetz Towers if folks follow the lead of pikestaff
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 739
Likes: 729
|
Post by eeyore on Jan 9, 2023 13:56:17 GMT
From FOS website: You won’t need to pay a case fee for the first 3 complaints against your business that we deal with in each financial year. From the 4th complaint onwards, we charge a case fee of £750.I seem to recall from a discussion in the MSE Forum on the SVS Administration saga many, many months ago, that where the subject matter was identical, multiple complaints could be aggregated into one case fee. Since we know that Assetz monitor this forum, no doubt someone is busy checking their exposure to this issue right now... Since I've had no charge made, I've no grounds for a complaint (yet!).
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 9, 2023 15:14:18 GMT
Yes, this is a most unfair practice. I have never made a complaint to a p2p firm but this is unavoidable. We had given notice on all our funds before they made the business decision not only to deny access to our funds but also to charge and extra fee (other than their commission) on the funds they tie up. Add to that the position that I cannot leave the access accounts nor sell my MLA loans but they insist they can write new contracts using my access account, rather than use institutional funding, extend the time I am tied up and plan to charge a fee for contracts I do not wish to enter at interest rates I would not touch. Unfair with bells on. Assetz have given unsustainable loans. It's their cost to manage resulting from their business decisions.
|
|
woody
New Member
Posts: 2
Likes: 1
|
Post by woody on Jan 9, 2023 17:08:47 GMT
I have emailed to complain, as follows: You have announced that a lender fee is to accrue from 15 December, following the closure of the platform to new retail investors. I consider this to be unfair because:
(1) The closure of the platform to retail investors, switching to 100% institutional funding, was your business decision. You should be paying for your change of direction, not us.
(2) Although your Terms and Conditions give you the right to introduce a fee, I am unable to close my account to avoid it.
The FCA guidance on the fairness of variation clauses says a relevant factor is: "Does the contract give the consumer the right to terminate the contract before or shortly after any variation takes effect?" It goes further and says: "When drafting variation terms, firms should consider the consumer’s freedom to exit the contract if they do not accept the variation, and how they can actually do so...". I am aware of the recent FOS decision which went against Assetz for this reason ( www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3360750.pdf ).
I am sure you will be receiving many similar complaints. You must surely realise that the imposition of the fee was a mistake and should be withdrawn. However, if I am charged a fee I would kindly ask that you refund it. Failing that I will have no option but to complain to the FOS.
Many thanks- I think this is a very succinct template and have used it to make my own complaint to AC
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Jan 9, 2023 23:03:44 GMT
In case anyone is thinking of taking this to the FOM a couple of my previous posts for reference.
From the FCAs website www.regulationtomorrow.com/eu/fca-finalised-guidance-fairness-of-variation-terms-in-financial-services-consumer-contracts-under-the-consumer-rights-act-2015/In FG18/7, the FCA outlines a number of non-exhaustive areas that it believes firms should have regard to when drafting and reviewing variation terms in financial services consumer contracts. These include and are not limited to the following: • the validity of the reason(s) for using the variation term; • the transparency of the variation term; • provision for notice in the variation term; and • provision for the freedom to exit the contract should a consumer not wish to accept the variation.
• The FCA expects firms to consider FG18/7 when they review their existing contracts and when they draft new ones. Firms should ensure that variation terms in their contracts are transparent and not unfair.
brodies.com/insights/corporate/fca-guidance-on-fairness-of-variation-terms-in-consumer-contracts/ • the contract gives the consumer the right to terminate the contract before or shortly after any variation takes effect
When drafting variation terms, firms should note the consumer's right to exit and how this can be exercised. This should include any financial or practical barriers that would prevent them doing so. • the term strikes a fair balance between the legitimate interests of the firm and the legitimate interests of the consumer In effect, you must consider the contract from the viewpoint of both sides. The FCA notes that provisions favouring a firm may indirectly serve the interests of the consumer as well when both their rights and obligations are considered under the contract and the benefit of the contract to the consumer is considered. This as I read it means if you change the T&Cs the customer must have the freedom to exit. This is what happen at Rate Setter and you had a certain time to exit, from memory 30 days and by not exiting you accepted the new terms.
As addition to the changes to T&Cs AC state that they have a clause which allows changes to the T&Cs, IMO this is not allowed From Competition and Markets Authority test for contracts form.typeform.com/to/Wf3vPP?typeform-source=maxcma.typeform.com If you’ve entered into a contract with a customer that will last for a while, you might want to allow for adjustments at a later date. BUT if you have terms that allow you to change what has been agreed – you’ve got to be clear up-front about how this will work, to be fair.* _ _*
Terms that allow you to make changes at will or without making clear from the outset what changes could happen when and how, are likely to be unfair.*_
Also from attachment Variation clauses are likely to
be unfair if they have the effect
of a ‘blank cheque’, allowing
you to adjust an agreed price
at your discretion, or to change
other important agreed aspects
of the contract to suit yourself.
Attachments: UCT_06_Variation_order.pdf (741.06 KB)
|
|
dave2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 169
Likes: 159
|
Post by dave2 on Jan 10, 2023 3:12:43 GMT
Does this unfair, additional fee also set a precedent for further charges to be made at a later date?
|
|