Quarterlese - the new 5pm update has arrived (AC)

Well said re: no 30 day notice period.

Mr Stuart Law has been the person I have most hated out of the hundreds of folk I come across in my business life for at the last three years, but even I didn't think that he would stoop to this level. To now more-than-double the already-ridiculous new fees to 6.25% pa is beyond belief.

It means that many of us will be left in negative territory, owing Assetz Capital money!

The only reason that Stuart "Look At My Bentley!" Law can get away with this is because of investor apathy.

I can guarantee you that he will continue to hit us with Friday 5pm or 6pm notices informing us that he's going to continue to rape us by extending and increasing new fees as long as you continue to do nothing.

Therefore, read this thread and take action against Assetz. 

If you don't wish to do so, don't use no-win no-fee Mendelsons Solicitors, who are recommended in that thread - there's a quadzillion other law firms etc. - but I'd urge you to take action through whichever means you see fit. Raise complaints about these pirates to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

As somebody has suggested above, if anyone's got contacts in the news - other than that God-awful 'P2P Finance News', which is merely a mouthpiece of scumbags like Assetz and has not published a single word against them in years, as it has received payments from Stuart Law & Co. to publish their 'advertorials' and press releases - that would be ace. 

Likewise, sharing one's experiences on review sites such as Trustpilot and Google Reviews of Assetz Capital and their sister companies might also divert Stuart Law for a second or two away from flicking through brochures showcasing the newest range of Bentleys.

TIME TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE NEVER-ENDING LOOTING AND PLUNDERING. 

The terms are unchanged as they merely specify that AC can charge a fee, there is no statement regarding quantum, so the 30 days doesnt seem to apply. The issue is the level of the fee and whether it is a reasonable level, the FOS has already indicated that this is a potential issue in the previous highlighted partially upheld complaint.  Equally pertinent is whether the fees are fair as they will disproportionately impact MLA lenders as most are unlikely to benefit from the averaging of fees across the winddown period eg those with significant DL biased portfolios which will likely repay earlier (or default) than SME lending. The only people who will likely benefit from the fee average are AA investors

Quite frankly, AC are being idiotic (despite the logic in front loading the fees) ... they might as well write the complaints for lenders themselves

The response of the FCA will be interesting 

The question is why have AC increased the fee 200%+ whilst simultaneously telling lenders they have reduced operational costs?

It would make more sense to maintain a steady income stream throughout the expected 5-year run-off period instead of abruptly ending fees after December 2024. The fee change lacks logic.

Are they capitalizing on performing loans ahead of time, leaving the burden of defaults for lenders to deal with later?

Something smells really fishy here.

That probably is the logic of this change. Grab as much as possible whilst it is still available.

In terms of them heavily front-loading the fees, they are obviously doing that because it's when most money is owed and so they can fill their vaults with as many gold bars as possible.


Most of the Assetz staff remaining will jump ship to other employers when the loans left are the problem ones, so they don't care what happens later on down the line; it's jam today they're concerned about.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Assetz won't end the fees in December 2024. You will get an email at 17:59 on a Friday evening some point in the months running up to that date announcing a long extension of that date.

Assetz changed their policies during and after Covid time and again, and they have done the same during this farcical wind-down with the fees and their timelines. 

Stuart Law has little idea how to run a successful business and, now that he's made a pig's ear of the Assetz Capital vehicle he was driving and realises it is hurtling in the direction of a brick wall, is frenetically screeching it from one direction to another like a crazed lunatic to stop the inevitable almighty crash. 

Yeah, thats basically the gist of my comment ... its the imposition, quantum and inequality of the fee that is the issue and challengeable not the lack of notice. If AC gave 30 days notice it wouldnt change that. Small print is enforceable, IIRC lenders were required to state they had read t&cs prior to investing but the fees arent buried in it anyway but notified in direct communication. I would however question the lack of clear indication of fees being applicable in the banner headline ... there is a false assumption therefore that all investors have had/read the email notification of fees or will read the update on the platform without ensuring this happens.

This does look like a smash and grab raid, get as much in fees as you can knowing you are breaking the rules move money out in form of expenses/directors salary etc then send into administration as not enough money to run the company due to no fees so FOS, legal and other costs won't be paid and then blame this on investors action.

I really hope this is not the case but AC must know 6% fees is bound to wind up investors to a point where a lot of whom will take action