rscal
Posts: 916
Likes: 504
|
Post by rscal on Feb 13, 2023 9:26:59 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.
quote 21.2 right back at them: The change on the face of it is disadvantageous to every customer. They can only argue a switchover is beneficial without notice if doing so averts an immediate or prospective danger which they said nothing about two weeks before. What they mean by not giving notice is that funds were leaving the [cough, 'retail'] platform and the show was up so no notice, sorry. In respect of fees, it cannot be argued that notice was required on[e] way or the other. It is a different issue that goes back to the original problem with a membership fee clause [2.2] which is that is overly broad instead of a menu based provision. That's the line of attack most likely to succeed still.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 5,763
|
Post by duck on Feb 13, 2023 17:04:04 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.
A point (among others) that I have raised in my complaint to the FOS.
|
|
dave2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 171
Likes: 160
|
Post by dave2 on Feb 13, 2023 17:21:44 GMT
1. Using 2.2. and 21. of the terms and conditions, AC could introduce a membership fee of 21% capital value per month on lenders.
2. The fees they have introduced are heavily front loaded, not a sign of good intent.
3. Are the borrowers being treated fairly, does the law prevent an AC "rundown fee" being imposed on their existing loans?
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 646
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Feb 13, 2023 20:01:04 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. For me the largest gamble was that the platform went bust that is why I was always hopping to the latest greatest platform. AC does not look like it is in good shape and can't really understand how they are going to make mega bucks doing the same thing except with a few large creditors. Who in their sane mind is going to want to make high risk secured loans on property at the moment.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Feb 13, 2023 20:23:37 GMT
Haven't looked on here for a long time, but I see this place has imploded. I lost all faith in this shower after the "flat rate distribution system"/"small investor bailout" of 2020 and got out ASAP afterwards as did many others. The access accounts now seem to have joined all of their other disastrous accounts with the added bonus for AC that they can lock investors in and bleed them dry for the next 5 years. My FOS complaint on the small investor bailout was addressed (eventually), but a long time after the decision had been reversed so that is possibly a worthwhile avenue to pursue. Otherwise maybe some sort of action group as has been seen on other failed platforms. Good luck to those stuck in this, hopefully there will at least be a return of some capital at the end of it. It would appear that, whilst it was a nightmare at the time, the small investor bailout turned out to be a blessing in disguise.
|
|
|
Post by oliveau on Feb 14, 2023 12:04:20 GMT
Got my 'boilerplate' response from AC last week, so I have now submitted a complaint to FOS: Assetz Capital operate a peer to peer platform. I have been investing in their Manual Lending Acount since December 2017. From about July 2020 to April 2021 the platform were charging Lender Fees due to Covid 19 affecting the income stream and this was reasonably acceptable conduct. However, on 15th December 2022 Assetz out of the blue announced that they were closing the platform to retail investors and closing the MLA market place . Both of these closures were immediately effective. In addition Assetz announced that they would be re-introducing Lender Fees, and the first fees were charged to my account from 1 February 2022. I find that this action by Assetz is totally unfair to lenders because: Assetz in their response to my complaint have quoted 'Terms and Coditions'. However I do not think that the voluntary closure of retail lending should allow the imposition of 'Terms & Conditions' upon lenders 1.Assetz took a business decision to close the business to retail lenders, so lenders should not be asked to fund the cost of implementing the changes which arise from a management decision. 2. The immediate closure of the 'Secondary Market' meant that I was unable to exit from the platform [albeit I may have had to accept a small loss on my loan portfolio]. I made a written complaint to Assetz which they have dismissed - see attached files below.***** In terms of p2p, I think I've had enough now, having been completely 'castrated' by BLN/Thincats/ESF, and now the AC shambles. Even some of my Kuflink loans are looking a bit perilous - I fear because of UK financial conditions. I'm not reinvesting as loans mature.
Tighter Regulation of p2p is very overdue.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,251
Likes: 2,694
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Feb 15, 2023 8:57:01 GMT
Got my 'boilerplate' response from AC last week, so I have now submitted a complaint to FOS: Assetz Capital operate a peer to peer platform. I have been investing in their Manual Lending Acount since December 2017. From about July 2020 to April 2021 the platform were charging Lender Fees due to Covid 19 affecting the income stream and this was reasonably acceptable conduct. However, on 15th December 2022 Assetz out of the blue announced that they were closing the platform to retail investors and closing the MLA market place . Both of these closures were immediately effective. In addition Assetz announced that they would be re-introducing Lender Fees, and the first fees were charged to my account from 1 February 2022. I find that this action by Assetz is totally unfair to lenders because: Assetz in their response to my complaint have quoted 'Terms and Coditions'. However I do not think that the voluntary closure of retail lending should allow the imposition of 'Terms & Conditions' upon lenders 1.Assetz took a business decision to close the business to retail lenders, so lenders should not be asked to fund the cost of implementing the changes which arise from a management decision. 2. The immediate closure of the 'Secondary Market' meant that I was unable to exit from the platform [albeit I may have had to accept a small loss on my loan portfolio]. I made a written complaint to Assetz which they have dismissed - see attached files below.***** In terms of p2p, I think I've had enough now, having been completely 'castrated' by BLN/Thincats/ESF, and now the AC shambles. Even some of my Kuflink loans are looking a bit perilous - I fear because of UK financial conditions. I'm not reinvesting as loans mature.
Tighter Regulation of p2p is very overdue.TC should be a warning to AC lenders, AC may do the same as TC if extensive claims are upheld by the FOS, ie, separate the retail part (if they haven't already) make that part bankrupt due to not enough money to pay claims (and/or rundown the loan book without the extra fees) and bring in the administrators. That really hasn't worked out well for lenders!
|
|
rscal
Posts: 916
Likes: 504
|
Post by rscal on Feb 15, 2023 15:56:21 GMT
TC should be a warning to AC lenders, AC may do the same as TC if extensive claims are upheld by the FOS, ie, separate the retail part (if they haven't already) make that part bankrupt due to not enough money to pay claims (and/or rundown the loan book without the extra fees) and bring in the administrators. That really hasn't worked out well for lenders! Do you have a more constructive suggestion of how trapped customers could get a better deal then ... offer to split the difference perhaps?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,251
Likes: 2,694
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Feb 15, 2023 17:53:50 GMT
TC should be a warning to AC lenders, AC may do the same as TC if extensive claims are upheld by the FOS, ie, separate the retail part (if they haven't already) make that part bankrupt due to not enough money to pay claims (and/or rundown the loan book without the extra fees) and bring in the administrators. That really hasn't worked out well for lenders! Do you have a more constructive suggestion of how trapped customers could get a better deal then ... offer to split the difference perhaps? I don't know. Is there any mechanism to negotiate? I have no clue how an individual lender can influence the outcome. Form an action group? That hasn't seemed to achieve much (yet anyway) with other platforms.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 957
Likes: 647
|
Post by alender on Feb 15, 2023 19:19:18 GMT
Do you have a more constructive suggestion of how trapped customers could get a better deal then ... offer to split the difference perhaps? I don't know. Is there any mechanism to negotiate? I have no clue how an individual lender can influence the outcome. Form an action group? That hasn't seemed to achieve much (yet anyway) with other platforms. We tried to negotiate with AC during the last lock in, we were happy to meet somewhere in the middle but was pointless, they would not budge, they give the impression they are always right and you should just go away, they are so full of hubris and self entitlement. However after a lot of pressure they eventually dropped the non pro rata payments so a reasonable win but not as the result of negotiating. The only thing they are looking for is to maximise their bottom line and the only chance of getting anywhere with them is to go to the FOS, this as you state may not be a good option but is the only one AC have left for it's investors.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,880
Likes: 11,104
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 15, 2023 19:56:30 GMT
I don't know. Is there any mechanism to negotiate? I have no clue how an individual lender can influence the outcome. Form an action group? That hasn't seemed to achieve much (yet anyway) with other platforms. We tried to negotiate with AC during the last lock in, were happy to meet somewhere in the middle but was pointless, they would not budge, they give to impression they are always right and you should just go away, they are so full of hubris and self entitlement. However after a lot of pressure they eventually dropped the non pro rata payments so a reasonable win but not as the result of negotiating. The only thing they are looking for is to maximise the bottom line and the only chance of getting anywhere with them is to go to the FOS, this as you state may not be a good option but is the only one AC have left for it's investors. The reasons for the the flat rate system is covered in a FOS rulings ... basically they had the tech to do it but not anything else so in order to allow all lenders to have access to some money they went with it until they could set up a better system. Those complaints published in relation to this were rejected.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 957
Likes: 647
|
Post by alender on Feb 15, 2023 20:32:55 GMT
The reasons for the the flat rate system is covered in a FOS rulings ... basically they had the tech to do it but not anything else so in order to allow all lenders to have access to some money they went with it until they could set up a better system. Those complaints published in relation to this were rejected. I sure you are correct from the information available but I find this hard to believe (to say the least), this implies that the software was available for flat rate before lock in but did not have software for pro rata. If they developed this after lock in then they went deliberately for the flat rate scheme, also no mention that the flat rate scheme was temporary they just dropped it without warning after a lot of pressure. Also seem to remember that AC said they were using flat rate as it was the fairest not because they were not in a position to make pro rata payments.
|
|
|
Post by oliveau on Feb 16, 2023 10:53:58 GMT
TC should be a warning to AC lenders, AC may do the same as TC if extensive claims are upheld by the FOS, ie, separate the retail part (if they haven't already) make that part bankrupt due to not enough money to pay claims (and/or rundown the loan book without the extra fees) and bring in the administrators. That really hasn't worked out well for lenders! Do you have a more constructive suggestion of how trapped customers could get a better deal then ... offer to split the difference perhaps? I think that FOS may have to tread a little more warily this time knowing that their [correct] response to the TC claims brought the platform down.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 16, 2023 14:00:48 GMT
Best that AC avoid the problem then, by removing unfair fees.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,251
Likes: 2,694
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Feb 16, 2023 14:07:50 GMT
Best that AC avoid the problem then, by removing unfair fees. If AC say they need the fees to fund the orderly wind down, then that might amount to the same thing. Heads you lose tails they win.
|
|