Assetz treated customer unfairly, Financial Ombudsman rules
Mar 23, 2023 18:46:18 GMT
p2pfan and tt like this
Post by rscal on Mar 23, 2023 18:46:18 GMT
Considering the Bulletin received yesterday, I think it constitutes evidence of our case for unfair treatment. Take the section on Company arrangements (as they say) ".. going forward":
My first thought there was "Quantum of saving"? However I now consider it moot since you'd either keep that market open for the full terms of ALL the traded loans or you'd close it. So closing it becomes a necessity regardless of quite how much is being saved. The argument is that there must be SOME cost which is then going to fall (and concentrate) on non exiting holdings.
Moving on..
The team "also manages the existing institutionally funded loan book" eh? "..complying with relevant regulations over that period" eh? - that could not have required any costs in-house IMO as there were no substantive actions taken after 22 December after AC had merely given notice to the FCA of its changed status. If the FCA required additional work then AC did not mention it before today.
"Many colleagues are moving over to the new subsidiary for institutional lending": presumably that's "many" by proportion of the head count since it is 80% by loan value after all. In effect, Stuart is confirming our lender fees have been used to 'pay for' institutional loan servicing costs 'til now - costs which the institutions themselves will be getting separately billed for [aka 'Lender Fees'] or, in other words a subsidy. The "we-no-longer-originate-loans-here" statement is vague in its implications for loss of revenue but, presumably, the arrangement fees allowed a profit on that origination work and that work alone. But if there has been continuing origination of institutional loans subsequent to the closure of the retail platform and market those fees received could be rightly said to be paying for those months of assumed idleness in the retail section. [yeah but.. no but]
It's not right. Stuart's company is clearly using the Membership Fee to skim profit and NOT cover expenses. There might be idleness due to the abruptness with which AC closed shop - in which case these people have contracts with Mr. Law but not with us and any unforeseen (but not unforeseeable) costs arising from that abruptness is again not sustainably attributable to any 'Fee' for being a member of the formerly open platform.
I shall therefore be drawing attention to this helpful admission of "double-dipping" in support of my claim the fees must not stand.
"Assetz SME Capital Limited (100% owned subsidiary)
"This is the regulated P2P lender, now running down its loan book over the coming years.
"Following the end of funding demand for new loans from retail investors in 2022, we closed the platform to new investment in December 2022 and closed the secondary market to help reduce operational costs that could impact investor returns."
"This is the regulated P2P lender, now running down its loan book over the coming years.
"Following the end of funding demand for new loans from retail investors in 2022, we closed the platform to new investment in December 2022 and closed the secondary market to help reduce operational costs that could impact investor returns."
Moving on..
"[Assetz SME Capital Limited] is also reducing in team size as part of that cost reduction, as it no longer originates retail funded loans. It will manage the existing loan book for retail lenders over the coming years. It also manages the existing institutionally funded loan book for the time being.
"The reduction in team size only relates to roles that were unrelated to managing the loan book and its repayment or recovery, and also complying with relevant regulations over that period. Many colleagues are moving over to the new subsidiary for institutional lending below, and the overhead reduction for this business is expected to have been mostly completed by July 2023."
"The reduction in team size only relates to roles that were unrelated to managing the loan book and its repayment or recovery, and also complying with relevant regulations over that period. Many colleagues are moving over to the new subsidiary for institutional lending below, and the overhead reduction for this business is expected to have been mostly completed by July 2023."
"Many colleagues are moving over to the new subsidiary for institutional lending": presumably that's "many" by proportion of the head count since it is 80% by loan value after all. In effect, Stuart is confirming our lender fees have been used to 'pay for' institutional loan servicing costs 'til now - costs which the institutions themselves will be getting separately billed for [aka 'Lender Fees'] or, in other words a subsidy. The "we-no-longer-originate-loans-here" statement is vague in its implications for loss of revenue but, presumably, the arrangement fees allowed a profit on that origination work and that work alone. But if there has been continuing origination of institutional loans subsequent to the closure of the retail platform and market those fees received could be rightly said to be paying for those months of assumed idleness in the retail section. [yeah but.. no but]
It's not right. Stuart's company is clearly using the Membership Fee to skim profit and NOT cover expenses. There might be idleness due to the abruptness with which AC closed shop - in which case these people have contracts with Mr. Law but not with us and any unforeseen (but not unforeseeable) costs arising from that abruptness is again not sustainably attributable to any 'Fee' for being a member of the formerly open platform.
I shall therefore be drawing attention to this helpful admission of "double-dipping" in support of my claim the fees must not stand.