min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 603
Likes: 170
|
Post by min on Feb 10, 2023 15:48:51 GMT
Just got my reply too - they must be robo-stamping these now, because my begins "Dear Jonathon" and my name isn't Jonathon [YOU know who you are.. you naugthy boy out there in ComplaintLand!] To the gist: Yes, they quote 2.2 ["we may charge a fee..."] and 21 ["Altered Circumstances and Changes to The Terms"]They say: Some 'logic' there, but they continue "Alternatives to the solvent run off were considered, but were assessed to be potentially of much greater detriment to Lenders..." Really, how so? They then suggest it has to be an 'insolvent' run-off in that case [the case were they weren't initially insolvent - b/c you either ARE or you AREN'T] and all that follows. However that would actually be under the terms of the Wind Down Plan, right? But of they address the Plan further having only mentioned it briefly as I had brought it to their attention. Next, Stuart they proceeds under the third option - which is actually the second option under the FCA registered WDA SP to rubbish the whole concept of a loan book disposal ... really gets into it he they do: Stuart The writer then equivocates as if contradicting what you just peddles somehow lends authority to your silken vitriol eloquence: A final bit reads:
Exactly the same letter received here (and I'm not Jonathan) but mine was addressed correctly. Where next? Ombudsman?
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Feb 10, 2023 16:06:47 GMT
Could be that AC have an automated reply to complaints. Looks like my slight tongue in cheek post was right, AC are now just using the same reply to these complaints and reverted to send out Dear John letters.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 642
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Feb 10, 2023 17:02:23 GMT
Basically reading between the lines the message is we cant continue our operations without a lender fee if you dont like it then insolvency is the only option - which is not in your interest (which it is not). The fee is about 1% per year on the value of loans? I would say it was a pretty good deal to run off the loan book and have a good chance of getting a good amount of the money back. I would suggest AC publish costs so creditors can see how the money is being spent. I wouldnt be surprised if SL has not lost quite a bit personally through his AC venture and might be tempted to leave it in the hands of the administrators if this gets overly difficult. He would probably prefer to spend more time virtue signalling on Twitter than deal with what is essentially a failed business venture he had high hopes for at one point. AC was never a patch on Zopa which is the big success story of the P2P era.
Anyhow either way I dont care I have been out of P2P for a few years now and just a few hundred left in AC which from time to time I get a surprise about. Sometimes you have to make compromises and anyone who didnt see these eventual platform collapses coming right from the start probably only has themselves to blame for staying in too long.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Feb 10, 2023 19:55:19 GMT
Basically reading between the lines the message is we cant continue our operations without a lender fee if you dont like it then insolvency is the only option - which is not in your interest (which it is not). The fee is about 1% per year on the value of loans? I would say it was a pretty good deal to run off the loan book and have a good chance of getting a good amount of the money back. I would suggest AC publish costs so creditors can see how the money is being spent. I wouldnt be surprised if SL has not lost quite a bit personally through his AC venture and might be tempted to leave it in the hands of the administrators if this gets overly difficult. He would probably prefer to spend more time virtue signalling on Twitter than deal with what is essentially a failed business venture he had high hopes for at one point. AC was never a patch on Zopa which is the big success story of the P2P era.
Anyhow either way I dont care I have been out of P2P for a few years now and just a few hundred left in AC which from time to time I get a surprise about. Sometimes you have to make compromises and anyone who didnt see these eventual platform collapses coming right from the start probably only has themselves to blame for staying in too long.
Difficult to believe than AC require the lender fee to stay solvent when SL stated that 80% was now non retail. So a fee equivalent to 0.2% of the total loan book will push AC over the edge into bankruptcy, I somewhat doubt it. I too am out as I lost trust in this shower years ago but I do care that AC are shafting the unfortunate lenders now locked in.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 910
Likes: 500
|
Post by rscal on Feb 10, 2023 21:07:16 GMT
I got me a draft FOS complaint so I might as well put it in here for yous can see my thinking.
I'll sleep on it. Yes, it is quite 'drafty'
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Feb 10, 2023 22:45:02 GMT
<snip>
Anyhow either way I dont care I have been out of P2P for a few years now and just a few hundred left in AC which from time to time I get a surprise about. Sometimes you have to make compromises and anyone who didnt see these eventual platform collapses coming right from the start probably only has themselves to blame for staying in too long.
Like you I've been out of P2P for a while now although I do have a few zombie loans with FS, LY, MT and COL but overall it was profitable on paper although counting my time towards the end of my lending 'career' with these greed merchants the time spent wasted on DD - they were effectively just grade C loan 'opportunities' with highly relevant information deliberately not disclosed.
I cannot concur with anyone still actively involved only have themselves to blame. The forum members make up probably a tiny proportion of the P2P lending community and unless you were a frequent visitor to this forum then no doubt you were or would not have been any the wiser. My grenade would be thrown at point blank range towards the FCA who allowed through their incompetence, laziness, couldn't care less attitude to allow these P2P platforms to emblazon their front web pages with the FCA seal of approval. And, when they, (the FCA) did spot something amiss still allowed the platform(s) to continue operating.
So many a lender was effectively hoodwinked by several P2P platforms with the approval of the FCA - it is that simple in my eyes. Rather like the FSCS, it gives a sense of security. But the FCA.....no doubt we could all go on and on about them and to rub salt in the wounds the guilty FCA staff normally finish up getting promoted or leave with a golden handshake!!
The effect of a failed platform with the unjustifiable administrators fees eating into lenders hard earned cash has had in my opinion a far more serious effect than simply lowering folks bank balances. There have been numerous reports regarding health issues, retirement plans wrecked, etc, etc. Do the platform operators care - nope. Worse still in my book do the FCA care - another nope.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Feb 10, 2023 23:29:56 GMT
<snip>
Anyhow either way I dont care I have been out of P2P for a few years now and just a few hundred left in AC which from time to time I get a surprise about. Sometimes you have to make compromises and anyone who didnt see these eventual platform collapses coming right from the start probably only has themselves to blame for staying in too long.
My grenade would be thrown at point blank range towards the FCA who allowed through their incompetence, laziness, couldn't care less attitude to allow these P2P platforms to emblazon their front web pages with the FCA seal of approval. And, when they, (the FCA) did spot something amiss still allowed the platform(s) to continue operating.
So many a lender was effectively hoodwinked by several P2P platforms with the approval of the FCA - it is that simple in my eyes. Rather like the FSCS, it gives a sense of security. But the FCA.....no doubt we could all go on and on about them and to rub salt in the wounds the guilty FCA staff normally finish up getting promoted or leave with a golden handshake!!
The effect of a failed platform with the unjustifiable administrators fees eating into lenders hard earned cash has had in my opinion a far more serious effect than simply lowering folks bank balances. There have been numerous reports regarding health issues, retirement plans wrecked, etc, etc. Do the platform operators care - nope. Worse still in my book do the FCA care - another nope. Total agree the FCA are a jobsworth group of box tickers not fit for purpose organisation. - They let P2P get away with shoddy practices for far too long, even when they broke the FCA guidelines they do nothing.
- They do nothing to stop insider dealing, the number of times, (one in last few days) shares I have move for no apparent reason then there is an RNS which explains the
movement, FCA do nothing. This would be tracked down and people sent to jail if it was in the US. There is another one of my shares where price moving for no reason, expect bad news next week when report is released.
- Often FCA stop retail investors participating in placing as this is deemed to dangerous when the same retail investors can buy the shares in the market for higher price plus charges and of course 0.5% stamp duty to government.
- Just today my partner was stopped from selling in share account and rebuying in an ISA which can be done over the phone in IWEB as it reduces the costs, it is not allowed because there is KID which must be ticked before you buy and cannot be done on the phone so doubles the costs, another FCA win.
- Every time I open new FSCS protected saving account (quite a few recently now interest rates are rising) I get inundated with documents that no one ever reads putting up the admin costs, another FCA win.
- Directors by law must maximise the return for shareholders, now so many directors do what they want especially in the ESG area reducing or losing money for shareholders, FCA do nothing.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 642
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Feb 11, 2023 8:17:40 GMT
<snip>
Anyhow either way I dont care I have been out of P2P for a few years now and just a few hundred left in AC which from time to time I get a surprise about. Sometimes you have to make compromises and anyone who didnt see these eventual platform collapses coming right from the start probably only has themselves to blame for staying in too long.
Like you I've been out of P2P for a while now although I do have a few zombie loans with FS, LY, MT and COL but overall it was profitable on paper although counting my time towards the end of my lending 'career' with these greed merchants the time spent wasted on DD - they were effectively just grade C loan 'opportunities' with highly relevant information deliberately not disclosed.
I cannot concur with anyone still actively involved only have themselves to blame. The forum members make up probably a tiny proportion of the P2P lending community and unless you were a frequent visitor to this forum then no doubt you were or would not have been any the wiser. My grenade would be thrown at point blank range towards the FCA who allowed through their incompetence, laziness, couldn't care less attitude to allow these P2P platforms to emblazon their front web pages with the FCA seal of approval. And, when they, (the FCA) did spot something amiss still allowed the platform(s) to continue operating.
So many a lender was effectively hoodwinked by several P2P platforms with the approval of the FCA - it is that simple in my eyes. Rather like the FSCS, it gives a sense of security. But the FCA.....no doubt we could all go on and on about them and to rub salt in the wounds the guilty FCA staff normally finish up getting promoted or leave with a golden handshake!!
The effect of a failed platform with the unjustifiable administrators fees eating into lenders hard earned cash has had in my opinion a far more serious effect than simply lowering folks bank balances. There have been numerous reports regarding health issues, retirement plans wrecked, etc, etc. Do the platform operators care - nope. Worse still in my book do the FCA care - another nope.
I totally agree that the regulator is probably totally incompetent. I was in a court case involving the predecessor the FSA - I was not personally in their firing line but someone I worked with was in some very hot water. It was pretty obvious that the people from the regulator were pretty much out of their depth and did not have a grasp of what had gone on even though they were now bringing action against this individual. The reality is they are government bureaucrats who are basically dealing with something that is often complex and deceptive by nature. As for whether the FCA did anything to improve the P2P sector I suspect they kept the real scam artists away but as you say it might have given people a false sense of security in what was still a pretty shady sector - but alot of the financial services industry outside of retail banking and insurance is pretty shady.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Feb 11, 2023 14:31:15 GMT
If Regulators don't understand complex issues the solution is to make complaints simple i.e. investors agreed to fund loans. AC agreed the fees with borrowers to be paid to lenders and the amount AC themselves were to receive for their services. Now AC are demanding an increase in the proportion of the fee paid to themselves for their services whilst closing the loan book which stops investors from withdrawing from the altered arrangement. That is unfair. The Regulators should get it shouldn't they?
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 642
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Feb 11, 2023 19:30:08 GMT
If Regulators don't understand complex issues the solution is to make complaints simple i.e. investors agreed to fund loans. AC agreed the fees with borrowers to be paid to lenders and the amount AC themselves were to receive for their services. Now AC are demanding an increase in the proportion of the fee paid to themselves for their services whilst closing the loan book which stops investors from withdrawing from the altered arrangement. That is unfair. The Regulators should get it shouldn't they?
Personally I dont think it is any more unfair than someone who goes to a Casino and loses more than they can afford. I agree the FCA has some part in this, but that is the problem with the society we live in - people are encouraged not to take responsibility for their own actions. Get arid of the oversized government and make people realise they are responsible for their own destiny - then you wont need a bunch of overpaid bureaucrats to protect you from your own folly.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 744
Likes: 734
|
Post by eeyore on Feb 12, 2023 10:42:53 GMT
If Regulators don't understand complex issues the solution is to make complaints simple i.e. investors agreed to fund loans. AC agreed the fees with borrowers to be paid to lenders and the amount AC themselves were to receive for their services. Now AC are demanding an increase in the proportion of the fee paid to themselves for their services whilst closing the loan book which stops investors from withdrawing from the altered arrangement. That is unfair. The Regulators should get it shouldn't they?
Personally I dont think it is any more unfair than someone who goes to a Casino and loses more than they can afford. I agree the FCA has some part in this, but that is the problem with the society we live in - people are encouraged not to take responsibility for their own actions. Get arid of the oversized government and make people realise they are responsible for their own destiny - then you wont need a bunch of overpaid bureaucrats to protect you from your own folly.
Sorry, no, the analogy with gambling losses at a casino doesn't seem quite right. Perhaps a better analogy for the casino situation is where the punter buys the casino's chips, uses the chips on his or her choice of gambling and then wants to cash-in the winnings and any remaining chips. In my analogy to AC, the casino says "No, we've decided to allow only corporate entities to gamble here, you can't have cash for your chips until we've unwound all the betting and, by-the-way, we're going to deduct an extra fee from the value of the chips you want to cash-in". Wouldn't that be a better fit?
|
|
|
Post by scepticalinvestor on Feb 13, 2023 8:06:07 GMT
Personally I dont think it is any more unfair than someone who goes to a Casino and loses more than they can afford. I agree the FCA has some part in this, but that is the problem with the society we live in - people are encouraged not to take responsibility for their own actions. Get arid of the oversized government and make people realise they are responsible for their own destiny - then you wont need a bunch of overpaid bureaucrats to protect you from your own folly.
Sorry, no, the analogy with gambling losses at a casino doesn't seem quite right. Perhaps a better analogy for the casino situation is where the punter buys the casino's chips, uses the chips on his or her choice of gambling and then wants to cash-in the winnings and any remaining chips. In my analogy to AC, the casino says "No, we've decided to allow only corporate entities to gamble here, you can't have cash for your chips until we've unwound all the betting and, by-the-way, we're going to deduct an extra fee from the value of the chips you want to cash-in". Wouldn't that be a better fit? Perfectly summarised.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Feb 13, 2023 8:44:18 GMT
Personally I dont think it is any more unfair than someone who goes to a Casino and loses more than they can afford. I agree the FCA has some part in this, but that is the problem with the society we live in - people are encouraged not to take responsibility for their own actions. Get arid of the oversized government and make people realise they are responsible for their own destiny - then you wont need a bunch of overpaid bureaucrats to protect you from your own folly.
I agree with your comments in general but not in this particular case. The responsibility for this fiasco is AC's and to a lesser extent the FCA, as such the FCA should live up to their responsibilities and ensure companies like AC with moral deficits live up to their responsibilities. This was not not meant to to a win or lose gamble but an investment with risks attached, no where did I see the phase Plese Gamble Responsibly. Nowhere in the T&Cs did it state you will be at risk from AC shutting down these accounts and locking you in because of a commercial decision that AC have got bigger fish to fry and we can't be bothered with you any more, also since you now mean nothing to us we will perform a money grab on your accounts as we believe the FCA are so useless they will do nothing.
|
|
|
Post by bob2010 on Feb 13, 2023 8:55:09 GMT
Like others, I received a final response letter In the opening section they quoted this:
3. Any amendments will be posted on the Website as soon as reasonably practicable. By continuing to use the Website, by either logging in or leaving investments within Investment Accounts or Access Accounts on a daily basis, each Lending Member agrees to be bound by the amended Terms.
This is obviously an unfair term as there was no option but to login in order to withdraw the investment, which of course they had blocked as no notice was given.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Feb 13, 2023 9:20:17 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. Received mine at the weekend. My complaint to the FOS will major on the fact that the fee is unfair because we had no chance to move our money to avoid it It will also emphasise that Assetz remains in business. This being so, I think the "alternatives" described in the response (any of which would also have led me to complain) are unrealistic straw men and cannot justify the choice to levy a fee. PS rscal I will NOT be complaining about Assetz not adopting the standby plan. It would have been much worse for us (as effectively covered in the "alternatives" in Assetz' response to me). In my view it would have been inappropriate, and fundamentally unfair, to adopt it when Assetz remains in business.
|
|