Legal action against Assetz Capital - No Win No Fee

The latest update is trying to convince us that this fee change is good for us because we now have "a now much lower 5-year average fee of 0.88% pa)"  rather than an original  "5-year average fee of 1.3% pa".  I suspect that the reality is though (as the fee is only charged on 'performing loans' ), that the quantity/amount of 'performing loans' will decrease rapidly after Sept, either after they are paid off, or as they go into default.  That means that Assetz still get all their fees upfront at minimal risk, with lenders likely facing ever lowering interest income and increasing capital losses as the book moves to ever higher levels of default loans.  I'm sure Assetz are aware that lenders have worked this out - they just don't care any longer , as long as they get their income with the minimal risk possible and push any risk over to us.

I do understand the current approach is better than administration (by a long way), but any sense of fairness in approach by Assetz is gone.

Good point.  And I've also had it confirmed by Assetz support today that because the fee is 6.25% (June-Sept), the interest paid in those months is unlikely to cover the fee (as well as the accrued fees from previous months, where loans missed interest pymts). So we will likely get paid £0 in June-Sept and then remains a catchup period whereby any accruals (which will be higher because of higher fee) will filter through.  So, I think we're unlikely to see any reasonable interest payments again until the end of the year.

I kind of thought as the charges are above the performing interest rate AC would have to roll up the missing bit, but then it will just be taken out of the monthly available returns. So yes they will probably take part of the capital repayments as well as interest repayments. 
So what incentives is there for AC to improve the costs of administering the accounts infact the more costs not transfered to the other new divisions of the house for as long as possible will be covered at no risk and no cost but by us plus a bit of profit margin. Later I would expect  all the management and office accomodation functions will be owned by the other parts of the business and our use of charged at whatever rate they please to us. There are endless opportunities to extract money from us in operating costs.
AC just need to stand up and committ to wind down our accounts in a controlled manor to the bitter end within common sense without administration and I know they are reading this or we all know it's extract every easy buck and run . No commitment and I will join the legal route even if it's a waste of time. At least it will be a start to destroying their reputation without which they have no future, even the biggest investors know the way we are treated now is the way they can expect to be treated one day in the future.

yes it's not necessary but why not, money in the bank now is in the bank and if the  plan is administration when the rate falls it will not be accessible then. My guess will be an extension of the new temporary rate until just before or after the end of the tax year for what ever tax issues work to AC advantage and good buy retail.

The result of this wind-down will be pivotal in trust, competency and value on the institutional side.

Institutional investors will clearly be overseeing how the retail wind-down plays out. They must be feeling anxious and twitchy given their wing is run by the same people, under the same Assetz Capital umbrella.

Hello everyone, thanks for opening this thread. 
I am open to considering joining a class action, depending on the conditions provided. If those who have been already in touch with solicitors could share any additional information in a DM, it would be much appreciated.

I have seen users (some of whom may or may not be AC trolls) suggesting that the rational thing that a "sophisticated investor" would do is to continue to wait etc. I've been working in the investment management industry myself and unfortunately cannot agree with this view: at the stage we are at, I don't see how letting AC continuing to take advantage of retail investors without doing anything is a rational thing to do. AC has been executing a structured, deliberate and  smart plan, if we leave ethics aside. Post-covid they managed to convince retail investors to back them and take over the old poorly performing loan portfolio, froze them in and shifted all the risk AND the costs onto them, while in parallel they run a profitable business backed by institutional investors: this may be unethical and despicable, but it is fair to say it is also clever and well executed (P2P lending is also one of the few businesses where you can actually try to do something like this). In this context, retail investors are meant to be the suckers, so waiting and hoping is a losing strategy and plays into the plan.

Admittedly, I am a bit surprised that respectable institutional investors are ok with AC's conduct: perhaps I am influenced by my own experience, or perhaps they simply don't expect retail investors to be able to organize themselves and to have their name appear in the press.


I agree, there is no certainty about whether the legal route will bear fruits or not, but as long as costs are reasonable, the incentives are aligned and the professionals involved are respectable, I think it's wise to at least explore it. A combination of a legal action and a press campaign is probably the only way to put pressure on AC (and their investors) to have the interests of Retail Investors protected or at least taken into consideration.