jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Jun 27, 2023 17:00:55 GMT
I will be surprised if the no win no fee solicitors are going anywhere near courts at the moment? That is how these companies can keep the no win no fee promise in my experience of these companies.
I assume the focus is on submitting good quality complaints to AC and then the FOS.
They often work on sample cases. Although the FOS have no formal concept of a group, they do frequently fast track other cases after successful claims. Alternatively companies can simply offer the same remedies to all their customers as AC did with the wind turbine loans.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jun 28, 2023 19:06:28 GMT
Legal action against Assetz Capital Access accounts Did you lose money when Assetz Capital refused to release your capital from the Access accounts? Were you a larger investor who was unfairly discriminated against because of managements refusal to action immediately pro-rata distribution of available funds? As a result of the introduction of the secondary market, did your Access Account change from a “simple fixed interest term account” into a complex tradable financial product, which was unrecognisable from what was advertised in the key features? Were you subject to an overnight increase in fees, without the opportunity to withdraw funds from your accounts without penalty? Were you unaware that lenders were required to maintain their investment capital and contribute further funds until development projects were complete? Have you lost funds as a result of Run down? Great British Business Accounts Do you like me believe that Assetz Capital have operated the GBBA’s in an inappropriate & totally unacceptable way. Were your funds invested or reinvested in loans against your wishes? Do you believe the provision funds marketed as safety net were inadequately funded? Do you believe it was wrong that when the provision fund in GBBA was exhausted; a rehashed versions of the original, was launched, resulting in those holding loans in the original account being trapped; no longer having the benefit of revenue streams to fund repayment of investors capital on default loans? Do think it was right that those invested in the first loans to default were paid out capital in full, whilst those invested in the latter loans to default got nothing? Have you not had a capital repayment as a result of your loan being held in the GBBA when investors who held the exact same loan in GBBA2 have had a full capital repayment? When recoveries have been made, have large chunks of your capital been swallowed up by Assetz’s fees? In General Do you believe that the valuations which you relied upon to make your investments decision were incorrect and insufficiently scrutinised and challenged by management? Do you believe Assetz Capital failed to ensure effective risk management and the appropriate credit risk management processes and procedure were in place? Did you find yourself bound by amended terms that you did not have opportunity to review or opt out of? Have you got other examples where you’ve lost money as a result of Assetz Capitals poor management or negligence? If like me, you have invested in your hard earned cash in Assetz Capital and lost money, feel aggrieved but don’t know where to turn. I may have found a solution to your dilemma.
I have found solicitors who deals in this area of law, who has had success acting for investors against other investment companies, or the bank that processed your investment and the FSCS. The good news is they work on a NO WIN NO FEE BASIS. They have not taken any upfront payment from me, which means they are only going to get paid if they win my case. If you like me have already written off your losses here, you’ve got nothing to lose.
They’ve taken all the headache of dealing with my recovery and appear to know what they are doing. I certainly believe I’ve got a much stronger chance of getting my money back with their assistance than without it.
I’m happy to answer any of your questions here, but I’m a layman, so you’re really better off speaking to them direct.
The company concerned is Mendelsons Solicitors please see attached link. mendelsonssolicitors.co.uk/contact-us/
Please be assured I do not work for this company. I do however feel that the more of us that contemplate legal action; the greater the chance of success.
Finally I wish all who been treated unfairly and have lost money all the best in getting some form of compensation, with or without
Mendelsons assistance. Good luck wasting everyone's time with your delusional no win no fee no sense no chance unsophisticated farce, pulling in the gullible into your fantasy investment world misadventure. If you had any understanding of the appropriate procedures that are required to be followed in compliance with necessary steps of escalation of complaints of a registered financial company then you would not be so stupid enough to believe no win no fee ambulance chasers can circumvent necessary steps and procedures. Of course they will tell you otherwise. You are at the NWNF salesperson patsy. They are paid to get leads and will fill your head with empty hope with no understanding of complex financial law. Do you really think they are going to sacrifice masdive resources and time in complexity for your few quid and tears. Get real. Your best chance is to allow AC to wind down as beneficial to you as to them. Stop crying and whinging bout and own your investment decision. Man up and own it. I have no interest if you decide to waste your time but I have in you giving the unsophisticated investors ( aka precious savings account holders ) false hope. With the appropriate amount of respect. You seem to be taking an awful big interest in this topic with your shaming and ridiculing and the confirmation bias of it being an utter waste of time, almost as if there is a conflict of interest and absence of impartiality.
I take it you're assuming the end result will be the courts rather than settlements.
What do people who received compensation from lending works think about the tirade above! Templates are also very popular in these matters.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981 
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Jun 28, 2023 22:36:09 GMT
You seem to be taking an awful big interest in this topic with your shaming and ridiculing and the confirmation bias of it being an utter waste of time, almost as if there is a conflict of interest and absence of impartiality.
I take it you're assuming the end result will be the courts rather than settlements.
What do people who received compensation from lending works think about the tirade above! Templates are also very popular in these matters.
Overthehill I have invested for many decades and experienced more similar issues with investments that have not turned out as expected. I have benefitted from many good investment choices and learned to live with investments that have not performed. I have also learned to my cost that snake ool salesmen providers have only their best interests at heart and not mine regardless of silky banter. All I am trying to state is don't be mugged by legal vacuous banter. These companies will sell you and your investment down the river with an out of court settlement that reimburses their fees with no recompense to the investors once you sell your soul to them. All investors should ask themselves this question. Who will work to achieve the best outcome for you? A company looking to profit and enrich themselves by parasitism or a company (AC) who will do their best in the most difficult of circumstances to return your investment with some form of return. My fear for me and others is that you could end up with nothing. Your decision. I am willing to put my decision in the hands of the company who have an.invested interest in achieving the best outcome for investors. If you bury your head in the sand ( in no win no fee ) don't moan when you get totally fu**** up the a*** and lose everything. Just my opinion. Peace You will find that legal action is no win no fee and the fee is based on a set % of the amount awarded so if there is no chance of winning then you have lost nothing and won't be going down any river or getting mugged etc, however if the Solicitors like yourself believe there is no chance why would they waste their time and money. Why are you so emotional about this using pejorative terms, is there some reason you do not want anyone to take action against AC, given you language this does not look like friendly advice but trying to stop more people joining this case for you own ends or are these AC's.
|
|
donal
New Member
Posts: 2
Likes: 8
|
Post by donal on Jun 29, 2023 6:51:40 GMT
Regarding some of the comments above, apologies but I'm not sure if somebody writing in this thread something like "If you bury your head in the sand ( in no win no fee ) don't moan when you get totally fu**** up the a*** and lose everything" can be taken seriously  A reason to get legal assistance (and press involvement) now is that AC is probably moving towards the next steps of the plan. They are now frontloading the fees on "performing" loans, which suggests that part of these loans will no longer be performing soon enough. This way, they can mark them down to default in a few months while still getting all the projected fees, in fact getting them even earlier on. This also shows, again, how determined AC is in extracting all possible value from the crowd of retail investors. They introduced their new fee structure only a few months ago, so it's unlikely that loans' performance is already so different from recent expectations to make the wind-down impossible with their projected cost structure, at most running a small loss on AC's side, which could be reasonable in a transition of this sort (but of course why doing it when you have free money available?). I'd expect a wave of defaults in a few months on loans, which will be attributed to "worsening market conditions" or the likes, while in fact the situation won't be materially different from now. The loans could be marked down as default today, but of course this would stop them from generating fees. They cannot be held as performing forever, though, hence the frontloading of the fees in order for AC to extract value from them. This will cause another wave of outrage and complaints from this crowd. At some point, AC might then say "we listened" and offer, possibly jointly with their investors, to buy "performing" loans at a discount. Tired and scared retail investors, especially the least well-off ones (who might need the money to face increased living costs), will see this as an opportunity to get at least some of their money back. They'll sell the good loans for pennies on the pound and be left with the bad loans, which AC will of course stop chasing. AC will have the unique opportunity to get a clean loan portfolio at a discount and their opex covered, retail investors will keep the cr*p and the losses. AC will in the meantime continue to reduce the size of their team, hire people into the newco (after paying their salary for months with retail investors' fees) and then cease operations ("we cannot sustain the operating costs to further chase default loans. We took the difficult decision to stop operations. We appointed a liquidator. Thank you very much to all retail investors who believed in us etc." A legal action of any kind, at that point, will be utterly useless. As mentioned in the previous post, AC is implementing a clever, deliberate, ruthless strategy. Every day that passes works in their favour. Just some thoughts. I hope it won't be the case, but hope has never been a solution. Also, so far AC's conduct has proven to be worse and more deliberate than I had feared. As asked before, any input/info about the solicitors contacted? Many thanks |
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 538
Likes: 385
|
Post by toffeeboy on Jun 29, 2023 9:22:29 GMT
Regarding some of the comments above, apologies but I'm not sure if somebody writing in this thread something like "If you bury your head in the sand ( in no win no fee ) don't moan when you get totally fu**** up the a*** and lose everything" can be taken seriously A reason to get legal assistance (and press involvement) now is that AC is probably moving towards the next steps of the plan. They are now frontloading the fees on "performing" loans, which suggests that part of these loans will no longer be performing soon enough. This way, they can mark them down to default in a few months while still getting all the projected fees, in fact getting them even earlier on. This also shows, again, how determined AC is in extracting all possible value from the crowd of retail investors. They introduced their new fee structure only a few months ago, so it's unlikely that loans' performance is already so different from recent expectations to make the wind-down impossible with their projected cost structure, at most running a small loss on AC's side, which could be reasonable in a transition of this sort (but of course why doing it when you have free money available?). I'd expect a wave of defaults in a few months on loans, which will be attributed to "worsening market conditions" or the likes, while in fact the situation won't be materially different from now. The loans could be marked down as default today, but of course this would stop them from generating fees. They cannot be held as performing forever, though, hence the frontloading of the fees in order for AC to extract value from them. This will cause another wave of outrage and complaints from this crowd. At some point, AC might then say "we listened" and offer, possibly jointly with their investors, to buy "performing" loans at a discount. Tired and scared retail investors, especially the least well-off ones (who might need the money to face increased living costs), will see this as an opportunity to get at least some of their money back. They'll sell the good loans for pennies on the pound and be left with the bad loans, which AC will of course stop chasing. AC will have the unique opportunity to get a clean loan portfolio at a discount and their opex covered, retail investors will keep the cr*p and the losses. AC will in the meantime continue to reduce the size of their team, hire people into the newco (after paying their salary for months with retail investors' fees) and then cease operations ("we cannot sustain the operating costs to further chase default loans. We took the difficult decision to stop operations. We appointed a liquidator. Thank you very much to all retail investors who believed in us etc." A legal action of any kind, at that point, will be utterly useless. As mentioned in the previous post, AC is implementing a clever, deliberate, ruthless strategy. Every day that passes works in their favour. Just some thoughts. I hope it won't be the case, but hope has never been a solution. Also, so far AC's conduct has proven to be worse and more deliberate than I had feared. As asked before, any input/info about the solicitors contacted? Many thanks Let me start by saying I don't trust what you are writing when you appear to have joined the site shortly after this whole no win no fee debate started and all of your posts are in favour of the case even scaremongering that AC loans are going to default or be put into default. You are making a lot of accusations about AC practices that I assume you have some form of proof to back up. My personal opinion is similar to Marks although no way near as strong and I believe you are alienating the best option for us to get the most money back, do I like that this is through AC HELL NO but it is in my opinion the best option. I have seen the legal route used before and all that happens is the P2P company shuts up shop and hands the reigns over to administrator who take most of the money for themselves including our capital. Who do your solicitors think is going to pay out the money? As I understand it the new side (institutional) of the business is a separate company so that won't be covering these costs and I doubt there is any money in the old company left except for the fees that AC are taking so if you win then anyone that didn't join you foots the bill as far as I can see hence the divide that you are getting on this site. Final though, if you potentially needed the money then it shouldn't have been anyway near any P2P site at all and there are plenty of requirements to make sure you understood that before investing.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Jun 29, 2023 10:18:12 GMT
Regarding some of the comments above, apologies but I'm not sure if somebody writing in this thread something like "If you bury your head in the sand ( in no win no fee ) don't moan when you get totally fu**** up the a*** and lose everything" can be taken seriously A reason to get legal assistance (and press involvement) now is that AC is probably moving towards the next steps of the plan. They are now frontloading the fees on "performing" loans, which suggests that part of these loans will no longer be performing soon enough. This way, they can mark them down to default in a few months while still getting all the projected fees, in fact getting them even earlier on. This also shows, again, how determined AC is in extracting all possible value from the crowd of retail investors. They introduced their new fee structure only a few months ago, so it's unlikely that loans' performance is already so different from recent expectations to make the wind-down impossible with their projected cost structure, at most running a small loss on AC's side, which could be reasonable in a transition of this sort (but of course why doing it when you have free money available?). I'd expect a wave of defaults in a few months on loans, which will be attributed to "worsening market conditions" or the likes, while in fact the situation won't be materially different from now. The loans could be marked down as default today, but of course this would stop them from generating fees. They cannot be held as performing forever, though, hence the frontloading of the fees in order for AC to extract value from them. This will cause another wave of outrage and complaints from this crowd. At some point, AC might then say "we listened" and offer, possibly jointly with their investors, to buy "performing" loans at a discount. Tired and scared retail investors, especially the least well-off ones (who might need the money to face increased living costs), will see this as an opportunity to get at least some of their money back. They'll sell the good loans for pennies on the pound and be left with the bad loans, which AC will of course stop chasing. AC will have the unique opportunity to get a clean loan portfolio at a discount and their opex covered, retail investors will keep the cr*p and the losses. AC will in the meantime continue to reduce the size of their team, hire people into the newco (after paying their salary for months with retail investors' fees) and then cease operations ("we cannot sustain the operating costs to further chase default loans. We took the difficult decision to stop operations. We appointed a liquidator. Thank you very much to all retail investors who believed in us etc." A legal action of any kind, at that point, will be utterly useless. As mentioned in the previous post, AC is implementing a clever, deliberate, ruthless strategy. Every day that passes works in their favour. Just some thoughts. I hope it won't be the case, but hope has never been a solution. Also, so far AC's conduct has proven to be worse and more deliberate than I had feared. As asked before, any input/info about the solicitors contacted? Many thanks Let me start by saying I don't trust what you are writing when you appear to have joined the site shortly after this whole no win no fee debate started and all of your posts are in favour of the case even scaremongering that AC loans are going to default or be put into default. You are making a lot of accusations about AC practices that I assume you have some form of proof to back up. My personal opinion is similar to Marks although no way near as strong and I believe you are alienating the best option for us to get the most money back, do I like that this is through AC HELL NO but it is in my opinion the best option. I have seen the legal route used before and all that happens is the P2P company shuts up shop and hands the reigns over to administrator who take most of the money for themselves including our capital. Who do your solicitors think is going to pay out the money? As I understand it the new side (institutional) of the business is a separate company so that won't be covering these costs and I doubt there is any money in the old company left except for the fees that AC are taking so if you win then anyone that didn't join you foots the bill as far as I can see hence the divide that you are getting on this site. Final though, if you potentially needed the money then it shouldn't have been anyway near any P2P site at all and there are plenty of requirements to make sure you understood that before investing. I for one do trust what has been posted, it may not be the case but it is a reasonable assumption to make on why AC front loaded the fees, they did this for a reason and IMO the reason is for the benefit of AC, either a large number of loans will default or they are preparing to put this into administration or perhaps both but only after they have sucked out as much cash for themselves as they can. Who does not need money, if you have excess give it to charity not to P2P companies like AC. Just my opinion AC will do what they want taking as much cash from investors as they can until they are stopped and the legal action or at least the threat is the only hope of stopping them, it may not work but what else can you do when AC are acting like this.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,376
Likes: 2,780
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 29, 2023 10:26:30 GMT
Overthehill I have invested for many decades and experienced more similar issues with investments that have not turned out as expected. I have benefitted from many good investment choices and learned to live with investments that have not performed. I have also learned to my cost that snake ool salesmen providers have only their best interests at heart and not mine regardless of silky banter. All I am trying to state is don't be mugged by legal vacuous banter. These companies will sell you and your investment down the river with an out of court settlement that reimburses their fees with no recompense to the investors once you sell your soul to them. All investors should ask themselves this question. Who will work to achieve the best outcome for you? A company looking to profit and enrich themselves by parasitism or a company (AC) who will do their best in the most difficult of circumstances to return your investment with some form of return. My fear for me and others is that you could end up with nothing. Your decision. I am willing to put my decision in the hands of the company who have an.invested interest in achieving the best outcome for investors. If you bury your head in the sand ( in no win no fee ) don't moan when you get totally fu**** up the a*** and lose everything. Just my opinion. Peace You will find that legal action is no win no fee and the fee is based on a set % of the amount awarded so if there is no chance of winning then you have lost nothing and won't be going down any river or getting mugged etc, however if the Solicitors like yourself believe there is no chance why would they waste their time and money. Why are you so emotional about this using pejorative terms, is there some reason you do not want anyone to take action against AC, given you language this does not look like friendly advice but trying to stop more people joining this case for you own ends or are these AC's. What happens if you win, but the company has no funds to pay out the award? Do you still have to pay the % to the solicitor since they 'won'? And potentially cover their costs if they can't get them from the company? I couldn't see their T&Cs when I tried to look before, the link didn't work. Do you have a contract with them with everything spelt out?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 29, 2023 11:35:21 GMT
Let me start by saying I don't trust what you are writing when you appear to have joined the site shortly after this whole no win no fee debate started and all of your posts are in favour of the case even scaremongering that AC loans are going to default or be put into default. You are making a lot of accusations about AC practices that I assume you have some form of proof to back up. My personal opinion is similar to Marks although no way near as strong and I believe you are alienating the best option for us to get the most money back, do I like that this is through AC HELL NO but it is in my opinion the best option. I have seen the legal route used before and all that happens is the P2P company shuts up shop and hands the reigns over to administrator who take most of the money for themselves including our capital. Who do your solicitors think is going to pay out the money? As I understand it the new side (institutional) of the business is a separate company so that won't be covering these costs and I doubt there is any money in the old company left except for the fees that AC are taking so if you win then anyone that didn't join you foots the bill as far as I can see hence the divide that you are getting on this site. Final though, if you potentially needed the money then it shouldn't have been anyway near any P2P site at all and there are plenty of requirements to make sure you understood that before investing. I for one do trust what has been posted, it may not be the case but it is a reasonable assumption to make on why AC front loaded the fees, they did this for a reason and IMO the reason is for the benefit of AC, either a large number of loans will default or they are preparing to put this into administration or perhaps both but only after they have sucked out as much cash for themselves as they can. Who does not need money, if you have excess give it to charity not to P2P companies like AC. Just my opinion AC will do what they want taking as much cash from investors as they can until they are stopped and the legal action or at least the threat is the only hope of stopping them, it may not work but what else can you do when AC are acting like this. It would seem reasonably obvious why AC are doing this without resorting to conspiracy theories ... perfectly 'legitimate' business reasons It is an inevitably fact that the income from a loanbook being runoff will diminish over time at a disproportionate rate to the costs of the work involved due to amortisation, redemptions and yes, loans becoming distressed. Costs of operating the platform are largely fixed, managing amortising loans costs the same while fee income decreases (x% of a smaller amount is less) and managing distressed loans have costs that have to be covered from a diminishing pool of performing loans. Then there are the upfront costs of shutting down lending ... there are inevitably functions not required by the institutional side eg platform development, and duplication of functions between retail & institutional which become redundant, & the costs associated with winding those down. There is also an element of charging the full lender base for their historic use of the platform rather than just those left at the end. It is therefore not surprising that AC have front loaded the fees to ensure they have sufficient reserves to manage the full course of the runoff ... anyone with any knowledge of the collapse of platforms can see why this is necessary. However, the big question is whether & to what extent the runoff should be funded by lenders ... hence the 'legitimate' First off, FCA winddown plans are supposed to ensure there are sufficient resources to allow an orderly winddown, either through retained funds or ongoing fee income, and be robust enough for this to happen. I have yet to see any explanation from AC as to why their runoff isnt funded inline with their winddown plan. Second, this isnt a business ceasing to operating but merely pivoting. Again there has been no clear explanation as to why the pivot isnt being funded from the continuation business ... the institutional business has developed on the basis of income from the retail side, goodwill, tech, staff etc and should therefore should compensate the retail side accordingly. Not seen any evidence of that.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jun 29, 2023 11:37:37 GMT
Can AC simply and legally insulate and isolate the Institutional and Retail funding/companies ? I imagine that is what interests the legal people ? Have retail lenders been unfairly treated, prejudiced or financially penalized compared to institutional lenders ? e.g. How many employees are being funded by the drawdown fees but also doing other work beneficial to the institutional loanbook?
AC's callousness is making LendingWorks look like Snow White.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 2,615
|
Post by keitha on Jun 29, 2023 12:01:04 GMT
OK hands up not in Assetz, so I'm unbiased.
A small company I own shares in started legal action against a very large company, and took funding for the legal action from a company that provides funding for legal on a "no win no fee basis" the small company secured a payout with the agreement of the court.
IIRC the payout was about £100 million the company got £20 million the other £80 million went to the funding company to cover fees and a success payment ( which is I suppose how they make money ) but for me it stank that the no-win no fee company took 80%.
|
|
|
|
Post by garreh on Jun 29, 2023 12:20:26 GMT
Who do your solicitors think is going to pay out the money? Perhaps AC could cover the expenses with the funds they are profiting from throughout the remaining year, which happen to be my own funds. It makes me wonder. Let's face the reality, once winter arrives, there will likely be another modification to the terms that raises the fee or extends it until summer, accompanied by a tempting offer like "it reduces the 5-year average to 0.7% - how amazing!" This leads to frustration among retail investors, who come here to express their grievances, only to be met with individuals who insist that everything is fine and that AC has our best interests at heart, and so on. This situation is not solely a flawed business model - AC seems to be intentionally and maliciously crafting a scheme to ultimately benefit themselves by utilizing our funds, while minimizing their own risks and imposing significantly higher risks on investors beyond what they initially agreed to. Legal action is not something to be taken lightly, and personally I think it could still be premature at this stage - though I wholeheartedly support anyone who wishes to pursue this course of action. For most individuals, it is worthwhile to engage with the FCA and Ombudsman in order to present the matter to the regulators, allowing them to assess whether AC has conducted its operations transparently, fairly, and ethically, and to determine whether they are in compliance (in my opinion, they have not met those criteria). It is important that AC receives a clear message that retail investors are no longer willing to tolerate being exploited.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jun 29, 2023 13:01:27 GMT
I for one do trust what has been posted, it may not be the case but it is a reasonable assumption to make on why AC front loaded the fees, they did this for a reason and IMO the reason is for the benefit of AC, either a large number of loans will default or they are preparing to put this into administration or perhaps both but only after they have sucked out as much cash for themselves as they can. Who does not need money, if you have excess give it to charity not to P2P companies like AC. Just my opinion AC will do what they want taking as much cash from investors as they can until they are stopped and the legal action or at least the threat is the only hope of stopping them, it may not work but what else can you do when AC are acting like this. It would seem reasonably obvious why AC are doing this without resorting to conspiracy theories ... perfectly 'legitimate' business reasons It is an inevitably fact that the income from a loanbook being runoff will diminish over time at a disproportionate rate to the costs of the work involved due to amortisation, redemptions and yes, loans becoming distressed. Costs of operating the platform are largely fixed, managing amortising loans costs the same while fee income decreases (x% of a smaller amount is less) and managing distressed loans have costs that have to be covered from a diminishing pool of performing loans. Then there are the upfront costs of shutting down lending ... there are inevitably functions not required by the institutional side eg platform development, and duplication of functions between retail & institutional which become redundant, & the costs associated with winding those down. There is also an element of charging the full lender base for their historic use of the platform rather than just those left at the end. It is therefore not surprising that AC have front loaded the fees to ensure they have sufficient reserves to manage the full course of the runoff ... anyone with any knowledge of the collapse of platforms can see why this is necessary. However, the big question is whether & to what extent the runoff should be funded by lenders ... hence the 'legitimate'
First off, FCA winddown plans are supposed to ensure there are sufficient resources to allow an orderly winddown, either through retained funds or ongoing fee income, and be robust enough for this to happen. I have yet to see any explanation from AC as to why their runoff isnt funded inline with their winddown plan.
Second, this isnt a business ceasing to operating but merely pivoting. Again there has been no clear explanation as to why the pivot isnt being funded from the continuation business ... the institutional business has developed on the basis of income from the retail side, goodwill, tech, staff etc and should therefore should compensate the retail side accordingly. Not seen any evidence of that. Exactly this. How can we force the FCA to man-up (woman-up, person-up, whatever-up) and do their job of protecting investors? Going down the complaints route only benefits those that bother to complain. The FCA should be protecting us all from such sharp practice.
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 538
Likes: 385
|
Post by toffeeboy on Jun 29, 2023 14:27:08 GMT
Who do your solicitors think is going to pay out the money? Perhaps AC could cover the expenses with the funds they are profiting from throughout the remaining year, which happen to be my own funds. It makes me wonder. Let's face the reality, once winter arrives, there will likely be another modification to the terms that raises the fee or extends it until summer, accompanied by a tempting offer like "it reduces the 5-year average to 0.7% - how amazing!" This leads to frustration among retail investors, who come here to express their grievances, only to be met with individuals who insist that everything is fine and that AC has our best interests at heart, and so on. This situation is not solely a flawed business model - AC seems to be intentionally and maliciously crafting a scheme to ultimately benefit themselves by utilizing our funds, while minimizing their own risks and imposing significantly higher risks on investors beyond what they initially agreed to. Legal action is not something to be taken lightly, and personally I think it could still be premature at this stage - though I wholeheartedly support anyone who wishes to pursue this course of action. For most individuals, it is worthwhile to engage with the FCA and Ombudsman in order to present the matter to the regulators, allowing them to assess whether AC has conducted its operations transparently, fairly, and ethically, and to determine whether they are in compliance (in my opinion, they have not met those criteria). It is important that AC receives a clear message that retail investors are no longer willing to tolerate being exploited. Are they making a profit from the fees? It is possible but again I haven't seen any proof so it is an assumption that is being used to make peoples point. I've never said that AC have our best interest at heart, I've said I think that they are the best ones to wind the loan book down rather than administrators, have administrators had any success winding down any P2P companies yet. I still have money in a couple that I have all but given up on because the administrators take their money first. The FCA and the ombudsman are the regulators and should be the route as you say to investigate AC and ensure everything is done above board. The FCA have failed miserably but I believe that using an ambulance chaser already is the wrong way to go and even if they win then lenders will lose. Give the ombudsman time to investigate
|
|
|
|
Post by bob2010 on Jun 30, 2023 7:46:09 GMT
I'm still on the fence about taking legal action. I did contact Mendelsons but I don't feel comfortable about giving them 36%+ on what they recover. I was told the maximum would be the investment only and they won't claim back any legal costs from Assetz hence why it's such a % large cut. Is it really worth it?
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Jun 30, 2023 8:24:51 GMT
I'm still on the fence about taking legal action. I did contact Mendelsons but I don't feel comfortable about giving them 30%+ on what they recover. I was told the maximum would be the investment only and they won't claim back any legal costs from Assetz hence why it's such a % large cut. Is it really worth it? The FOS very rarely makes awards of costs for legal representation. I assume this is the primary route the solicitors are taking initially. Usually both sides pay their own costs incurred in relation to a FOS complaint so there really isn't an option. The investor action group i signed up to in a mini bond case negotiated a much lower fee (plus vat) with a different solicitors following a small initial investment to get an experienced financial services barrister to write his legal opinion. This helped dramatically. The no win no fee was capped, nothing extra for expenses like phone calls others have mentioned in posts. The case was won. It took many years. I can't fault the solicitors involved in this case. They were also successful in another mini bond case mentioned in the article. www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/investing/article-5917139/SEB-mini-bond-investors-victory-three-years-7-5m-collapse.htmlEvery case is different, i don't know exactly the points of law the solicitors will argue in the AC case. The mini bond case was very different. I would urge those going down this route to form a group and immediately stop discussing too much detail in public about it. Approach a few more solicitors and, see if they are interested.
|
|
