DeafEater
Member of DD Central
Extremely Moderate
Posts: 228 
Likes: 304
|
Post by DeafEater on Jul 31, 2024 14:32:43 GMT
Well it's a long read, but worth it. When am I getting mine? This was to do with the introduction of the previous fees during the pandemic. Yes I know but 'Mr C' has apparently now been reimbursed for those fees because the FOS found that the clauses of the AC contract under which they were introduced, were unfair.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob2010 on Jul 31, 2024 16:00:32 GMT
This was to do with the introduction of the previous fees during the pandemic. Yes I know but 'Mr C' has apparently now been reimbursed for those fees because the FOS found that the clauses of the AC contract under which they were introduced, were unfair. The FOS response for the current fees is that even though it may not be legal, it is still justified, as the alternative is entering administration which would be worse for investors.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Jul 31, 2024 16:40:38 GMT
Yes I know but 'Mr C' has apparently now been reimbursed for those fees because the FOS found that the clauses of the AC contract under which they were introduced, were unfair. The FOS response for the current fees is that even though it may not be legal, it is still justified, as the alternative is entering administration which would be worse for investors. It is an interesting reasoning. Wonga for example went into administration following a flood of valid complaints to the FOS, even though the FOS and FCA knew this would push Wonga into administration. At the time it was said the possibility of administration wasn't a valid reason to basically set aside the individual complaints. Also there is meant to be no collective complaints with the FOS, every complaint is meant to be assessed individually on merit. It feels to me the AC arguments and FOS ruling is on shaky ground regarding recent complaints, although I am no expert in these matters, putting aside the risks of upheld complaints. It all feels a bit dodgy to me as a lay person.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Jul 31, 2024 18:13:18 GMT
The FOS response for the current fees is that even though it may not be legal, it is still justified, as the alternative is entering administration which would be worse for investors. It is an interesting reasoning. Wonga for example went into administration following a flood of valid complaints to the FOS, even though the FOS and FCA knew this would push Wonga into administration. At the time it was said the possibility of administration wasn't a valid reason to basically set aside the individual complaints. Also there is meant to be no collective complaints with the FOS, every complaint is meant to be assessed individually on merit. It feels to me the AC arguments and FOS ruling is on shaky ground regarding recent complaints, although I am no expert in these matters, putting aside the risks of upheld complaints. It all feels a bit dodgy to me as a lay person. Yes, it occurred to me also that since the cost of settling the individual complaints in hand (against the overwhelming number of customers affected) although significant would leave enough revenue still raised that the argument used to allow it was legalistic rather than practical in nature (i.e. 'mutatis mutandis' we would save more money than if the firm becomes insolvent. Paying a successful complaint, while it may not cause the aforementioned nevertheless does not alter its significance) . Of course the inapplicability of the Term used was itself judged legalistically so AC could have presented essentially non-probative evidence (that was not required to pan out successfully - that their figures are not required to demonstrate accuracy - just evidnce a formal flow of reasoing etc) and the FOS process (it seems) is designed to accept that at LTV* *sick joke
|
|
DeafEater
Member of DD Central
Extremely Moderate
Posts: 228
Likes: 304
|
Post by DeafEater on Jul 31, 2024 18:51:48 GMT
Yes I know but 'Mr C' has apparently now been reimbursed for those fees because the FOS found that the clauses of the AC contract under which they were introduced, were unfair. The FOS response for the current fees is that even though it may not be legal, it is still justified, as the alternative is entering administration which would be worse for investors. I'm not sure you're reading the same document that I am bob2010. The provisional response from the FOS was to let AC get away with it, but I'm pretty sure the final decision document does tell AC to pay up. There is also a paragraph on page 11 that makes it clear that the basis on which the FOS has come to his decision is applicable to '...Mr C or others like him...' [my bold], so I think my original slightly rhetorical question about when I'm getting my refund is still valid. Am I missing the appendix that finishes with 'Just kidding suckers'?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 31, 2024 19:28:06 GMT
The FOS response for the current fees is that even though it may not be legal, it is still justified, as the alternative is entering administration which would be worse for investors. I'm not sure you're reading the same document that I am bob2010. The provisional response from the FOS was to let AC get away with it, but I'm pretty sure the final decision document does tell AC to pay up. There is also a paragraph on page 11 that makes it clear that the basis on which the FOS has come to his decision is applicable to '...Mr C or others like him...' [my bold], so I think my original slightly rhetorical question about when I'm getting my refund is still valid. Am I missing the appendix that finishes with 'Just kidding suckers'? Different circumstances ... the Mr C relates to a platform that is financially viable ... the more recent complaints relate to a platform that AC have argued, & currently the FOS have accepted, isn't. So while the fees maybe unfair on the same criteria (legality hasn't actually been determined as that requires a Court) there are additional circumstances which the FOS have to take into account. Therefore the harm from the fee is outweighed by the harm should it not collected/repaid. We shall see how that argument pans out.
|
|
|
|
Post by frank121 on Jul 31, 2024 20:57:25 GMT
I'm not sure you're reading the same document that I am bob2010 . The provisional response from the FOS was to let AC get away with it, but I'm pretty sure the final decision document does tell AC to pay up. There is also a paragraph on page 11 that makes it clear that the basis on which the FOS has come to his decision is applicable to '...Mr C or others like him...' [my bold], so I think my original slightly rhetorical question about when I'm getting my refund is still valid. Am I missing the appendix that finishes with 'Just kidding suckers'? Different circumstances ... the Mr C relates to a platform that is financially viable ... the more recent complaints relate to a platform that AC have argued, & currently the FOS have accepted, isn't. So while the fees maybe unfair on the same criteria (legality hasn't actually been determined as that requires a Court) there are additional circumstances which the FOS have to take into account. Therefore the harm from the fee is outweighed by the harm should it not collected/repaid. We shall see how that argument pans out.
I understand this complaint is regarding the 2020 fees which indeed was upheld. I assume DeafEater expects all investors that paid these fees in 2020 to be refunded. (as I assume Mr C did get the refund as the FOS instructed) However in my understanding there is no mechanism in place to force AC to refund fees to all; it's only madated on a complaint by complaint basis. Am I right?
|
|
DeafEater
Member of DD Central
Extremely Moderate
Posts: 228
Likes: 304
|
Post by DeafEater on Jul 31, 2024 21:19:55 GMT
Different circumstances ... the Mr C relates to a platform that is financially viable ... the more recent complaints relate to a platform that AC have argued, & currently the FOS have accepted, isn't. So while the fees maybe unfair on the same criteria (legality hasn't actually been determined as that requires a Court) there are additional circumstances which the FOS have to take into account. Therefore the harm from the fee is outweighed by the harm should it not collected/repaid. We shall see how that argument pans out.
I understand this complaint is regarding the 2020 fees which indeed was upheld. I assume DeafEater expects all investors that paid these fees in 2020 to be refunded. (as I assume Mr C did get the refund as the FOS instructed) However in my understanding there is no mechanism in place to force AC to refund fees to all; it's only madated on a complaint by complaint basis. Am I right?
Thanks frank121 , the bit of your comment in bold above is exactly what I was expecting. I was expecting it on the basis that investors in the Green Energy Account who had a sizeable stake in the ill-fated I** series of investments that Assetz were found to have mishandled, all got remunerated for the missing interest and capital when the FOS adjudicated AC had screwed up, regardless of whether those investors had made a complaint or not. (For those with long memories, the settlement plan was outlined in an email from Assetz on 28/02/2019).
|
|
|
|
Post by frank121 on Jul 31, 2024 21:33:31 GMT
I understand this complaint is regarding the 2020 fees which indeed was upheld. I assume DeafEater expects all investors that paid these fees in 2020 to be refunded. (as I assume Mr C did get the refund as the FOS instructed) However in my understanding there is no mechanism in place to force AC to refund fees to all; it's only madated on a complaint by complaint basis. Am I right?
Thanks frank121 , the bit of your comment in bold above is exactly what I was expecting. I was expecting it on the basis that investors in the Green Energy Account who had a sizeable stake in the ill-fated I** series of investments that Assetz were found to have mishandled, all got remunerated for the missing interest and capital when the FOS adjudicated AC had screwed up, regardless of whether those investors had made a complaint or not. (For those with long memories, the settlement plan was outlined in an email from Assetz on 28/02/2019).
Huh thanks DeafEater, I was also invested in those loans and recall the long settlement plan. Till now, I thought AC proposed those repayments at their own will and due to their own errors! Yes...I am so naive! Well, if it was on the back of a FOS instruction then clearly they do have the power to instruct a global change or refund. So I suppose I should revise my question: Does the the latest decision regarding the current post administration lending fees (2023+) override the decision made for the 2020 ones. (They are still unfair, but they are allowed because it prevents administration in the FOS eyes) Perhaps AC are waiting for the FOS final verdict on that. (as I understand it only the case advisor(s) have decided and not the actual ombudsmen yet) Or should we still get a refund of the 2020 fees no matter the outcome of the later complaints regarding the 2023+ fees?
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Aug 1, 2024 7:27:27 GMT
Thanks frank121 , the bit of your comment in bold above is exactly what I was expecting. I was expecting it on the basis that investors in the Green Energy Account who had a sizeable stake in the ill-fated I** series of investments that Assetz were found to have mishandled, all got remunerated for the missing interest and capital when the FOS adjudicated AC had screwed up, regardless of whether those investors had made a complaint or not. (For those with long memories, the settlement plan was outlined in an email from Assetz on 28/02/2019).
Huh thanks DeafEater, I was also invested in those loans and recall the long settlement plan. Till now, I thought AC proposed those repayments at their own will and due to their own errors! Yes...I am so naive! Well, if it was on the back of a FOS instruction then clearly they do have the power to instruct a global change or refund. So I suppose I should revise my question: Does the the latest decision regarding the current post administration lending fees (2023+) override the decision made for the 2020 ones. (They are still unfair, but they are allowed because it prevents administration in the FOS eyes) Perhaps AC are waiting for the FOS final verdict on that. (as I understand it only the case advisor(s) have decided and not the actual ombudsmen yet) Or should we still get a refund of the 2020 fees no matter the outcome of the later complaints regarding the 2023+ fees?
The FOS didn't order AC to pay compensation to everyone in the wind turbine case. In fact the FOS can't do that. AC offered investors a settlement outside the FOS process. This prevented a wave of complaints hitting AC and the FOS. For those that complained via the FOS in the wind turbine mess up, AC settled just before the final Ombudsman ruling, so the rulings were never published on the FOS website. The FOS wind turbine ruling and the AC settlement offer to other lenders wasn't even exactly the same. The link I posted related to fees is the final Ombudsman ruling so AC have to pay up to that lender. The only thing AC could have done is apply for a judicial review of the process the FOS followed, this is extremely rare and costly. It will be interesting to see how the legal firms supporting some lenders use the information in the complaint related to earlier fees. We may never know if AC choose to settle some complaints early without making it public. AC haven't offered to pay up to everyone regarding the earlier fees, so everyone where appropriate would need to put in a separate complaint referencing the earlier successful complaint on the FOS website. This is exactly what happened with Lending Works, people had to submit separate complaints.Of course AC could agree to pay everyone compensation as they did with the wind turbines.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Aug 1, 2024 7:36:24 GMT
Different circumstances ... the Mr C relates to a platform that is financially viable ... the more recent complaints relate to a platform that AC have argued, & currently the FOS have accepted, isn't. So while the fees maybe unfair on the same criteria (legality hasn't actually been determined as that requires a Court) there are additional circumstances which the FOS have to take into account. Therefore the harm from the fee is outweighed by the harm should it not collected/repaid. We shall see how that argument pans out.
I understand this complaint is regarding the 2020 fees which indeed was upheld. I assume DeafEater expects all investors that paid these fees in 2020 to be refunded. (as I assume Mr C did get the refund as the FOS instructed) However in my understanding there is no mechanism in place to force AC to refund fees to all; it's only madated on a complaint by complaint basis. Am I right?
Yes, that is right there is no process for the FOS to force AC to pay compensation to everyone. In the wind turbine case Stewart Law said publicly on this forum that AC would pay compensation to everyone if AC were found to be at fault.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Aug 1, 2024 7:44:16 GMT
I'm not sure you're reading the same document that I am bob2010. The provisional response from the FOS was to let AC get away with it, but I'm pretty sure the final decision document does tell AC to pay up. There is also a paragraph on page 11 that makes it clear that the basis on which the FOS has come to his decision is applicable to '...Mr C or others like him...' [my bold], so I think my original slightly rhetorical question about when I'm getting my refund is still valid. Am I missing the appendix that finishes with 'Just kidding suckers'? Different circumstances ... the Mr C relates to a platform that is financially viable ... the more recent complaints relate to a platform that AC have argued, & currently the FOS have accepted, isn't. So while the fees maybe unfair on the same criteria (legality hasn't actually been determined as that requires a Court) there are additional circumstances which the FOS have to take into account. Therefore the harm from the fee is outweighed by the harm should it not collected/repaid. We shall see how that argument pans out. Yep I have never seen a complaint turned down because similar subsequent complaints would make a company unviable. That is basically giving licence to companies shafting customers en mass. Each complaint is meant to be considered individually on their own merit. A single complaint isn't going to push AC into administration. I am saying all this obviously ignoring any assessment of the impact of paying compensation.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob2010 on Aug 1, 2024 8:17:38 GMT
Different circumstances ... the Mr C relates to a platform that is financially viable ... the more recent complaints relate to a platform that AC have argued, & currently the FOS have accepted, isn't. So while the fees maybe unfair on the same criteria (legality hasn't actually been determined as that requires a Court) there are additional circumstances which the FOS have to take into account. Therefore the harm from the fee is outweighed by the harm should it not collected/repaid. We shall see how that argument pans out. Yep I have never seen a complaint turned down because similar subsequent complaints would make a company unviable.That is basically giving licence to companies shafting customers en mass. Each complaint is meant to be considered individually on their own merit. A single complaint isn't going to push AC into administration. I am saying all this obviously ignoring any assessment of the impact of paying compensation. But that's not what has happened here.The FOS have considered the case of whether the introduction of the fees was justified, not on whether Assetz could afford to pay compensation.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Aug 1, 2024 8:21:59 GMT
Yep I have never seen a complaint turned down because similar subsequent complaints would make a company unviable.That is basically giving licence to companies shafting customers en mass. Each complaint is meant to be considered individually on their own merit. A single complaint isn't going to push AC into administration. I am saying all this obviously ignoring any assessment of the impact of paying compensation. But that's not what has happened here.The FOS have considered the case of whether the introduction of the fees was justified, not on whether Assetz could afford to pay compensation. We are not talking about the Ombudsman case published on the FOS website. We are talking about the more recent cases related to the recent fees. AC have used the argument in all those more recent cases.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Aug 1, 2024 8:59:17 GMT
But that's not what has happened here.The FOS have considered the case of whether the introduction of the fees was justified, not on whether Assetz could afford to pay compensation. We are not talking about the Ombudsman case published on the FOS website. We are talking about the more recent cases related to the recent fees. AC have used the argument in all those more recent cases. Just to go back to my previous observation: I think (but it appears consistent with the facts) the argument FOS has used is the average investor saves a ton of cash when he firm does not enter administration (and subsiduary to that: for as long as it avoids administration) which in the case of the average investor benefits them - even after paying the fee. [Bear in mind, the fee is 'pro-rata' and the recoveries will be pro-rata also]
|
|
