deltron
Member of DD Central
Posts: 56
Likes: 76
|
Post by deltron on Nov 23, 2023 0:17:13 GMT
This is probably due to the lender fee recently being reduced to 0.9%, and also it's now close to month-end so you've likely paid what you owe (what a horrible phrase to use) for November.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,864 
Likes: 6,891
|
Post by duck on Nov 23, 2023 2:04:13 GMT
This is probably due to the lender fee recently being reduced to 0.9%, and also it's now close to month-end so you've likely paid what you owe (what a horrible phrase to use) for November. I have two accounts that both have outstanding fees (£7 & £42) but both started paying interest a few days ago.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Nov 23, 2023 10:37:39 GMT
I had fees taken yesterday (22nd), nothing has been paid to me in the way of interest yet therefore and I retain balances on both tickets. So maybe AC are working around the accounts one-by-one? Naa! Nothing has happened yet IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Nov 24, 2023 15:45:46 GMT
Making some assumptions that the complainants are successful and AC call in administrators to the retail arm, I don't think it will bother AC at all. Representational damage will be controlled by A C absolute control of the narrative to the only audience that matter to them. IE we wanted to do the right thing, pursue a managed wind down until the end in the best interest of lenders and borrowers but contrary investers forced us into administration. A C directors will get large retainers to assist the administration and refunds/ fines will never be payed as they will be unsecured creditors in the administration. Harder banking investors will just see AC disposing of a uneconomic retail arm at no cost a good business decision.
What are we achieving here , I do not get it, hope I am wrong.
|
|
SteveK
Member of DD Central
Posts: 63
Likes: 33
|
Post by SteveK on Nov 24, 2023 22:48:21 GMT
Making some assumptions that the complainants are successful and AC call in administrators to the retail arm, I don't think it will bother AC at all. Representational damage will be controlled by A C absolute control of the narrative to the only audience that matter to them. IE we wanted to do the right thing, pursue a managed wind down until the end in the best interest of lenders and borrowers but contrary investers forced us into administration. A C directors will get large retainers to assist the administration and refunds/ fines will never be payed as they will be unsecured creditors in the administration. Harder banking investors will just see AC disposing of a uneconomic retail arm at no cost a good business decision. What are we achieving here , I do not get it, hope I am wrong. Yup, it’s a win/win situation for AC. It almost seems as if AC know what they’re doing! Surely AC couldn’t be manipulating the situation so as to force administration could they?!
|
|
|
|
Post by shoreditch707 on Nov 25, 2023 10:32:08 GMT
Whether AC is viable should they have to pay back lenders will depend on the number of people that have complained to FOS and the true state of the business? I complained as a matter of principle as they had a published wind down plan which they just ignored (i.e. false marketing) so they could trap and milk lenders with additional fees. Bit like a fly caught in a spider's web. AC directors are only interested in themselves and always have been and have no integrity. They were incompetent but want lenders to pay for their mistakes (as always).
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Nov 25, 2023 14:56:48 GMT
I too do not take kindly to the actions of AC. However if the actions now of you and other like-minded people drive the company into Administration the only certain winners will be the Administrators. Investors, some of whom may have invested what to them might be large sums of money could lose substantial amounts as onerous Administration charges take their toll and borrowers see opportunities to avoid their liabilities. Principles are a fine thing but do not put food on the table. A more rational approach would be to wait until near the end of wind-down and then raise complaints for refunds of unagreed deductions - i.e a more considered approach and more likely to hit AC in their pockets where it hurts most.
|
|
|
|
Post by shoreditch707 on Nov 26, 2023 3:06:25 GMT
It's unrealistic to expect people to sit back and wait for a few years before complaining. What AC has done, not once but twice, is indisputably wrong and unethical and waiting only gives more time for the Directors to concoct something else to steal monies from lenders. AC is not to be trusted.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Nov 26, 2023 10:46:47 GMT
It's unrealistic to expect people to sit back and wait for a few years before complaining. What AC has done, not once but twice, is indisputably wrong and unethical and waiting only gives more time for the Directors to concoct something else to steal monies from lenders. AC is not to be trusted.
I have exactly the same cynical thoughts about Ablrate and I'm wondering how many investors have already decided enough is enough. I'm not sure I have enough invested but I haven't ruled out a FOS complaint yet. Personal legal action is out of the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotty on Nov 26, 2023 14:08:57 GMT
Assetz Capital are fully aware that placing the retail arm in administration simply to avoid rectifying complaints that have been upheld by the FOS will result in significant reputational damage to the whole company.
|
|
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 Nov 26, 2023 18:35:03 GMT
Assetz Capital are fully aware that placing the retail arm in administration simply to avoid rectifying complaints that have been upheld by the FOS will result in significant reputational damage to the whole company.
And? Zero chance of AC going into administration to 'avoid' rectifying upheld complaints. They will go into admin because they financially can't meet their obligations to rectify the complaints ... same result. Haven't noticed major reputational damage to Thincats after putting BLN into administration when they could meet their FOS obligations.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotty on Nov 26, 2023 19:39:32 GMT
'And? Zero chance of AC going into administration to 'avoid' rectifying upheld complaints. They will go into admin because they financially can't meet their obligations to rectify the complaints ... same result.'
They can meet these obligations if they choose too. Even with the shares at a 56% discount on Seedrs, this still gives an indicative value of £37m for AC. Unless the real position is drastically different from this indicative value, funds do exist in the institutional arm. Why are lenders and not AC being asked to foot the bill for the closure of the retail arm when the decision to close it was made by AC, it's not surprising lenders complained.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Nov 27, 2023 8:12:21 GMT
If AC does somehow run out of cash b/c of the cost of settling the complaints later, it will be on them. So I feel a tone of insincerity about posters here reminding others of 'the facts of life' re. P2P and company fiscal responsibility. As 'a point of principle' exactly the same time-wasting accusation may be levelled at this firm since they always had the option to settle complaints individually (knowing the numbers, from the extent of their mailbag, as well as their issuing boilerplate letters of rejection containing no substantive information - despite the 'waiting for data' nonsense) All that accomplished was to rack up the FOS fees.
Even if they settle and don't go out of business (and that would a 'win-win' would it not?) they have tarnished whatever reputation they began with and it will haunt them.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Nov 27, 2023 9:23:58 GMT
I respect different views on the way forward and way I see it we all have very little if any control over the way AC play this out. Personally intend to withdrawal weekly from now on instead of monthly as not sure if money in the cash account is ring fenced away from grasping administrators or can be used to cover their fees. As for the last 2 votes it's b every time, don't trust the transfer of assets into property holding company, why and any loan that can be brought to a conclusion before a potential administration the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by scepticalinvestor on Nov 28, 2023 17:05:50 GMT
The platform, AC (specifically a few individuals that run the show, all experienced unethical charlatans imho) hold all the info, all the cards and have unified control of their actions, to a degree.
OTOH, the lenders (us) are a disparate set of individuals with differing amounts at stake, differing views on the range of potential outcomes and very little ability (due to the nature of P2P) to organise or plan their responses/approach/actions.
While I have a complaint in (and one in my partner's name) and will pursue it all the way, I fully respect the differing opinions among lenders re whether or not to complain and the risk associated with doing so, it's entirely understandable that there would be a range of views on this issue.
The imbalance displayed above is imho a feature of P2P and precisely why it has appeared to attract a disproportionate number of chancers who hit the jackpot and will milk it for all its worth until the very end....
|
|
