jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Aug 1, 2024 9:35:05 GMT
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] Yep, as I was careful to point out, I am not questioning the logic, simply whether the reasoning put forward by AC is admissible. I have never seen it before, in fact I have seen the opposite where it wasn't admissible. There are lots of FOS cases where FOS rulings have pushed companies into administration, I have been involved in one outside p2p. Am also not suggesting it would produce the best out come. I honestly don't know. It is what it is now with multiple people being supported by legal firms in the case of AC (not me)and multiple complaints submitted
|
|
DeafEater
Member of DD Central
Extremely Moderate
Posts: 228 
Likes: 304
|
Post by DeafEater on Aug 1, 2024 11:16:42 GMT
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. Apologies then to frank121 if I'd got your hopes up. I'd remembered that AC had felt obliged to pay up in the turbine debacle, but clearly hadn't registered that the reason was because they'd calculated the wind wasn't blowing in their direction WRT the multiple ongoing FOS complaints rather than their outcome. In those days, waiting for the judgement would have meant reputational damage in addition to cost, but I guess nowadays, futher reputational damage seems a little implausible.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Aug 1, 2024 12:42:38 GMT
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. Apologies then to frank121 if I'd got your hopes up. I'd remembered that AC had felt obliged to pay up in the turbine debacle, but clearly hadn't registered that the reason was because they'd calculated the wind wasn't blowing in their direction WRT the multiple ongoing FOS complaints rather than their outcome. In those days, waiting for the judgement would have meant reputational damage in addition to cost, but I guess nowadays, futher reputational damage seems a little implausible. Also worth remembering that the AC compensation for the wind turbine mess came primarily by taking out deemed excess from the Access Account Provision Funds. Somewhat ironic if the PF nows turns out to be insufficient by a similar amount. The PF figure quoted on the website is accurate as of 31st January... about as useful as a chocolate teapot for anyone lender looking to assess the strength now...
|
|
loadsahope
Member of DD Central
Posts: 84
Likes: 45
|
Post by loadsahope on Oct 28, 2024 9:58:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by giammy on Nov 17, 2024 18:28:15 GMT
I got a 8-page final decision from the Ombudsman.
Assetz’s introduction of the Lender Fee was fair and reasonable, considering the circumstances and the need to protect lenders’ interests.
|
|
scooter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 407
Likes: 379
|
Post by scooter on Nov 18, 2024 12:30:00 GMT
I got a 8-page final decision from the Ombudsman. Assetz’s introduction of the Lender Fee was fair and reasonable, considering the circumstances and the need to protect lenders’ interests. Well done for trying. I would have thought that the most important thing for the FOS was to get the decision right in terms of the contract we signed and the FCA guidelines. The idea that the FO can rule a certain way because a company might put themselves into administration is wrong. The FOS cannot force a company to pay, so in the circumstances AC probably wouldn't, but at least the decision which is published would be correct. If AC didn't pay up because it would have to go into administration that might be fair and reasonable. I know the result would be the same for investors, but at least there could be consistency in published decisions. This fair and reasonable test is subject to such wide interpretation it makes a mockery of the whole process. Don't companies have insurance for such events when they get it wrong anyway?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,344
Likes: 11,565
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 18, 2024 12:56:16 GMT
I got a 8-page final decision from the Ombudsman. Assetz’s introduction of the Lender Fee was fair and reasonable, considering the circumstances and the need to protect lenders’ interests. Well done for trying. I would have thought that the most important thing for the FOS was to get the decision right in terms of the contract we signed and the FCA guidelines. The idea that the FO can rule a certain way because a company might put themselves into administration is wrong. The FOS cannot force a company to pay, so in the circumstances AC probably wouldn't, but at least the decision which is published would be correct. If AC didn't pay up because it would have to go into administration that might be fair and reasonable. I know the result would be the same for investors, but at least there could be consistency in published decisions. This fair and reasonable test is subject to such wide interpretation it makes a mockery of the whole process. Don't companies have insurance for such events when they get it wrong anyway? FOS decisions are legally binding ... the business does have to pay & decisions are enforceable in Court. Regulator may also intervene. Clearly a significant adverse ruling would result in winding up/administration as happened with TC. FOS assessment that current process is likely to result in best outcome for majority of lenders even with fee isn't unreasonable but it is entirely predicated on AC modelling which has not been scrutinised. The significant degree of can kicking has already significantly modified the model with much greater fee income (& I doubt a corresponding increase in expenses whatever AC pretends)
|
|
scooter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 407
Likes: 379
|
Post by scooter on Nov 18, 2024 14:48:37 GMT
Well done for trying. I would have thought that the most important thing for the FOS was to get the decision right in terms of the contract we signed and the FCA guidelines. The idea that the FO can rule a certain way because a company might put themselves into administration seems wrong. The FOS cannot force a company to pay, so in the circumstances AC probably wouldn't, but at least the decision which is published would be correct. If AC didn't pay up because it would have to go into administration that might be fair and reasonable. I know the result would be the same for investors, but at least there could be consistency in published decisions. This fair and reasonable test is subject to such wide interpretation it makes a mockery of the whole process. Don't companies have insurance for such events when they get it wrong anyway? FOS decisions are legally binding ... the business does have to pay & decisions are enforceable in Court. Regulator may also intervene. Clearly a significant adverse ruling would result in winding up/administration as happened with TC. FOS assessment that current process is likely to result in best outcome for majority of lenders even with fee isn't unreasonable but it is entirely predicated on AC modelling which has not been scrutinised. The significant degree of can kicking has already significantly modified the model with much greater fee income (& I doubt a corresponding increase in expenses whatever AC pretends) I stand corrected on that. Thankyou. However, an individual would never (I would never) go to court over it and if they were that strapped for cash that they go into Administration, it wouldn't be worth taking them to court. What it really means is that the FOS will never make a decision in favor of an investor if it is likely to be the same for many investors incase it destroys the business. So what is the point? Investors have zero protection The point made about the Provision fund being used to pay out in a loan that wasn't covered by it. Good news for some I suppose but leaves my loan book exposed with no recourse.
|
|
