Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,545
|
Post by Mousey on Feb 8, 2023 10:11:51 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 And P2PFN noticed yesterday - " Assetz found to have treated customer unfairly by ombudsman" I'm happy to receive tips and info in confidence if anyone wants to keep me up to date with their own complaints.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Feb 8, 2023 13:16:57 GMT
I too have been very disappointed by the action of AC and have today lodged with them a similar complaint of unfairness. I live in hope rather than expectation.
|
|
ton27
Member of DD Central
Posts: 431
Likes: 267
|
Post by ton27 on Feb 8, 2023 18:11:21 GMT
Given the disdain demonstrated by AC towards retail lenders "hope" certainly has a better chance than "expectation".
|
|
jester
Member of DD Central
Posts: 161
Likes: 203
|
Post by jester on Feb 8, 2023 20:47:56 GMT
I'm on hols with the family and only managed to skim read this thread. I've only got money in the access accounts, can anyone confirm if and how I'm affected and whether I should be submitting a complaint in line with others when I'm back?
|
|
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 Feb 8, 2023 21:21:51 GMT
I'm on hols with the family and only managed to skim read this thread. I've only got money in the access accounts, can anyone confirm if and how I'm affected and whether I should be submitting a complaint in line with others when I'm back? You are affected by the fee which is being deducted from your AA monthly interest payments, a reduction of 0.7% to interest rate paid in Feb (3.3% v 4% target). Depends whether you consider AC taking a fee & its size acceptable or justified.
|
|
deltron
Member of DD Central
Posts: 54
Likes: 66
|
Post by deltron on Feb 8, 2023 23:45:54 GMT
I've received my final response from AC about a complaint I registered regarding the imposition of a new lender fee. It's basically two fingers pointing at their terms saying they can do this so nurr. They quoted another T&C which I thought held no water at all in which they say that by either logging in to the AC account or continuing to keep money in the AC account lenders are accepting the new fee by default. Well, you can't withdraw loan repayments without logging in, and there is no SM operating because AC shut it down without warning and locked the gates, so . . . AC evidently think that lenders should have just abandoned their accounts indefinitely after the fee announcement. How convenient.
My major bone of contention is that lenders shouldn't be funding AC's change of business strategy. That's what business loans are for.
But of course I want the strongest case to present to the FOS so what does someone with experience of this sort of thing suggest? Go after the T&Cs on the basis that AC gave lenders no chance to move their money? Or fling as much mud at AC in the FOS complaint as possible in the hopes that something sticks?
|
|
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 Feb 9, 2023 0:14:40 GMT
I've received my final response from AC about a complaint I registered regarding the imposition of a new lender fee. It's basically two fingers pointing at their terms saying they can do this so nurr. They quoted another T&C which I thought held no water at all in which they say that by either logging in to the AC account or continuing to keep money in the AC account lenders are accepting the new fee by default. Well, you can't withdraw loan repayments without logging in, and there is no SM operating because AC shut it down without warning and locked the gates, so . . . AC evidently think that lenders should have just abandoned their accounts indefinitely after the fee announcement. How convenient.
My major bone of contention is that lenders shouldn't be funding AC's change of business strategy. That's what business loans are for.
But of course I want the strongest case to present to the FOS so what does someone with experience of this sort of thing suggest? Go after the T&Cs on the basis that AC gave lenders no chance to move their money? Or fling as much mud at AC in the FOS complaint as possible in the hopes that something sticks?
I also received a final response this week and my complaint went to the FOS yesterday. You might want to consider what are non - normal market conditions. Even if it is non - normal market conditions why shut the retail business. The discount mechanism for access accounts and discounting of MLA loans is already in place. What is the fee being used for? There is no extra cost of winding down the retail business. AC gets fees and monthly interest from borrowers. I think the lender fee is being used to fund ongoing development tranches, and if that is the case then I want a piece of those tranches.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Feb 9, 2023 0:45:43 GMT
You might want to consider what are non - normal market conditions. In AC eyes non normal market conditions are when AC say they are, they had a decent case during lockdown but not now, this is the new normal. As I have said before ACs AAs can only function when there is a falling or frozen interest rate, AC locks into loans and future tranches for periods far greater than the notice period on the AAs (worse than the Northern rock model because of the future tranches) so when rates rise and investors want to go elsewhere for a more competitive rate AC locks them in and declares this is a non normal market. This means anytime interest rates rise due to markets doing what markets do AC calls this non normal market conditions, really, seems normal to me. Then AC uses this an excuse to extract more money for it's use elsewhere via additional fees, I think AC have now angered enough investors to start a wave of complaints to the FOS which on the face of it they will lose, even if that don't they will have to stump up £750 for each complaint (win or lose). Be interested in the views for those of us lockin on the first lockin would have a case for the FOS on these fees? if so AC problems will get a lot worse.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 905
Likes: 497
|
Post by rscal on Feb 9, 2023 7:27:44 GMT
You might want to consider what are non - normal market conditions. In AC eyes non normal market conditions are when AC say they are, they had a decent case during lockdown but not now, this is the new normal. As I have said before ACs AAs can only function when there is a falling or frozen interest rate, AC locks into loans and future tranches for periods far greater than the notice period on the AAs (worse than the Northern rock model because of the future tranches) so when rates rise and investors want to go elsewhere for a more competitive rate AC locks them in and declares this is a non normal market. This means anytime interest rates rise due to markets doing what markets do AC calls this non normal market conditions, really, seems normal to me. Then AC uses this an excuse to extract more money for it's use elsewhere via additional fees, I think AC have now angered enough investors to start a wave of complaints to the FOS which on the face of it they will lose, even if that don't they will have to stump up £750 for each complaint (win or lose). Be interested in the views for those of us lockin on the first lockin would have a case for the FOS on these fees? if so AC problems will get a lot worse. Sounds impressive, don't it, until you realise they can fit 100 of those inside one lousy vote to set aside '£75k' every time the assetz sale goes south... [oops, Freudian typo!] [Good points on the vacuity of their position though]
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Feb 9, 2023 8:04:13 GMT
You might want to consider what are non - normal market conditions. In AC eyes non normal market conditions are when AC say they are, they had a decent case during lockdown but not now, this is the new normal. As I have said before ACs AAs can only function when there is a falling or frozen interest rate, AC locks into loans and future tranches for periods far greater than the notice period on the AAs (worse than the Northern rock model because of the future tranches) so when rates rise and investors want to go elsewhere for a more competitive rate AC locks them in and declares this is a non normal market. This means anytime interest rates rise due to markets doing what markets do AC calls this non normal market conditions, really, seems normal to me. Then AC uses this an excuse to extract more money for it's use elsewhere via additional fees, I think AC have now angered enough investors to start a wave of complaints to the FOS which on the face of it they will lose, even if that don't they will have to stump up £750 for each complaint (win or lose). Be interested in the views for those of us lockin on the first lockin would have a case for the FOS on these fees? if so AC problems will get a lot worse. Correct - non normal are when they say they are and I suspect that in this case, their institutional friends the institutions will not finance under the rates that the retail lenders are locked in to. It's a total injustice and whilst AC will never have another retail presence having self shredded their reputation, let's have another lender fee.
This whole episode is raising serious doubts regarding the integrity of AC as a whole. Were the institutions being offered the 'cream' with a few pennies offered to regular MLA investors. Just where are those PF's, assuming they actually exist. The list is endless and certainly the deliberate opaqueness leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I hope complaints made to the FOS are successful.
The whole thing stinks and is designed to keep certain senior members of staff living in the manner they have become accustomed to.
|
|
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 Feb 9, 2023 10:16:45 GMT
I've received my final response from AC about a complaint I registered regarding the imposition of a new lender fee. It's basically two fingers pointing at their terms saying they can do this so nurr. They quoted another T&C which I thought held no water at all in which they say that by either logging in to the AC account or continuing to keep money in the AC account lenders are accepting the new fee by default. Well, you can't withdraw loan repayments without logging in, and there is no SM operating because AC shut it down without warning and locked the gates, so . . . AC evidently think that lenders should have just abandoned their accounts indefinitely after the fee announcement. How convenient.
My major bone of contention is that lenders shouldn't be funding AC's change of business strategy. That's what business loans are for.
But of course I want the strongest case to present to the FOS so what does someone with experience of this sort of thing suggest? Go after the T&Cs on the basis that AC gave lenders no chance to move their money? Or fling as much mud at AC in the FOS complaint as possible in the hopes that something sticks?
I also received a final response this week and my complaint went to the FOS yesterday. You might want to consider what are non - normal market conditions. Even if it is non - normal market conditions why shut the retail business. The discount mechanism for access accounts and discounting of MLA loans is already in place. What is the fee being used for? There is no extra cost of winding down the retail business. AC gets fees and monthly interest from borrowers. I think the lender fee is being used to fund ongoing development tranches, and if that is the case then I want a piece of those tranches. The tranches are funded from the AA free cash pot. The AA holdings in the loan increase with each drawdown. The fee is to cover the loss of arrangement fee & 'excess' costs of winddown ... like you I'm sceptical on both these.
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 738
Likes: 820
|
Post by p2pfan on Feb 9, 2023 10:36:55 GMT
Assetz Capital have just rejected my latest complaint, with weaselly word to try to justify the imposition of these hefty new fees.
Therefore, I will have a complaint going into the FOS today.
Let's file so many complaints about AC with the FOS that they have to hire an army of new staff just to deal with the amount of additional paperwork.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Feb 9, 2023 10:48:24 GMT
Assetz Capital have just rejected my latest complaint, with weaselly word to try to justify the imposition of these hefty new fees. Therefore, I will have a complaint going into the FOS today. Let's file so many complaints about AC with the FOS that they have to hire an army of new staff just to deal with the amount of additional paperwork. Could be that AC have an automated reply to complaints. From experience FOS will not hire new staff but take a long time to deal each complaint, they will get there in the end but I take your point. The problem with AC is that they are full of hubris and self entitlement, they think they can get away with anything, this will soon get to the point that the FOS fees will be more than they get for the additional fees they have imposed.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 9, 2023 11:24:45 GMT
I also received a final response this week and my complaint went to the FOS yesterday. You might want to consider what are non - normal market conditions. Even if it is non - normal market conditions why shut the retail business. The discount mechanism for access accounts and discounting of MLA loans is already in place. What is the fee being used for? There is no extra cost of winding down the retail business. AC gets fees and monthly interest from borrowers. I think the lender fee is being used to fund ongoing development tranches, and if that is the case then I want a piece of those tranches. The tranches are funded from the AA free cash pot. The AA holdings in the loan increase with each drawdown. The fee is to cover the loss of arrangement fee & 'excess' costs of winddown ... like you I'm sceptical on both these. A bit more than sceptical on that. The cost of winding down the loans should not increase. It's the normal process with the borrowers and the rates are low. On the arrangement fees they say: 'Lender Fees The ceasing of new retail lending means a significant drop in our income for the retail part of the business' But they are still doing the new lending and gaining the arrangement fees for their business. It's just that they have chosen to apply those arrangement fees to the institutional business and to ring-fence the costs of the retail business. There is no material change to their fee income, it is just an accounting device to allocate the fee income, other than new tranches of retail loans, to the institutional business. It was their choice to cease retail lending, based on their previous lending at unsustainably low rates. I assume we have no visibility of the institutional lending at the time the decision was made. Were the 5%ers (net) dumped on retail Access Accounts and the 8%ers given to institutional?
|
|
|
Post by bob2010 on Feb 9, 2023 12:39:32 GMT
I've also raised a complaint. They shouldn't be able to get away with this.
|
|