dawn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 308 
Likes: 275
|
Post by dawn on Nov 26, 2015 16:45:23 GMT
Was thinking the same but didn't want to speak too soon. Hope you haven't put the kybosh on it! Hasn't been a clean sheet since the 'improved' system where you don't get individual emails. The emails used to be sent at 6pm, presumably so you couldn't ring them up and shout down the phone and by the morning had calmed down a bit. Interesting (but meaningless) fact. My recoveries make up almost exactly 10% of my net earnings. Ah those unwelcome eMails....My recovery rate is 20%. and will get a boost if we ever get 7079, an A+ who has allegedly sold a property and promised to clear what will be another 10% for me. Fingers are crossed. Do you still get emails telling you something has defaulted? - I haven't had any emails for several months (despite still having the defaults - 3 more today  November is my worst month so far )
|
|
min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 615 
Likes: 182
|
Post by min on Nov 26, 2015 16:50:31 GMT
Ah those unwelcome eMails....My recovery rate is 20%. and will get a boost if we ever get 7079, an A+ who has allegedly sold a property and promised to clear what will be another 10% for me. Fingers are crossed. Do you still get emails telling you something has defaulted? - I haven't had any emails for several months (despite still having the defaults - 3 more today November is my worst month so far ) No emails is the 'improved communication' from Fanciful Cavaliers. Sorry to hear about your defaults. Flipping Carefree haven't published them in the help pages yet.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 26, 2015 16:52:07 GMT
I cant see any defaults today. Can they still come after 4pm? When was the last clean sheet? ... Interesting (but meaningless) fact. My recoveries make up almost exactly 10% of my net earnings. Presumably the interest is in the coincidence of numbers and not the percentage. Mine is 2.5% and could never be 10% because the total losses - before recoveries - are only 5.7% of net earnings - about 4.9% of gross. Recoveries are 44%. This of course is because I swore to give up defaults a long time ago and so far have stuck to it, with the help of Losers Anonymous. "My name is Blender and I am an FC loser." So Thursdays have no fear for me, though I suffer in empathy with any loss for my fellow forumites. (If you think I am being a bit of a gloater here, you're probably right.)
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Nov 26, 2015 21:13:18 GMT
Probably took them a little while to type them all out, but today's are up:
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare on Nov 27, 2015 14:10:36 GMT
2529 — defaulted, exposure £4.90.
Oh dear it looks like the wife won't be getting a Christmas present this year,
|
|
acky
Posts: 481
Likes: 262
|
Post by acky on Nov 27, 2015 18:08:45 GMT
2529 — defaulted, exposure £4.90. Oh dear it looks like the wife won't be getting a Christmas present this year, ... unless she gets one from someone else, of course! 
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,143
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 1, 2015 9:57:05 GMT
The latest in the saga of our old friends at 6521 and 2295...
Back story :-
In late March, they decided that continued solvency wasn't for them, and called in the administrators. At the start of May, the loans were defaulted. And that's where the fun began. After many cryptic comments about "negotiating with advisers" and how "positions were disputed", we got this comment...
...followed by radio silence. Until...
<scratches head> Is it me? Is "2-4 weeks" a euphemism for "whenever we can be bothered" now? Anybody else thinking holding their breath for the next update might not be the best plan?
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Dec 1, 2015 10:27:46 GMT
The latest in the saga of our old friends at 6521 and 2295... Back story :- In late March, they decided that continued solvency wasn't for them, and called in the administrators. At the start of May, the loans were defaulted. And that's where the fun began. After many cryptic comments about "negotiating with advisers" and how "positions were disputed", we got this comment... ...followed by radio silence. Until... <scratches head> Is it me? Is "2-4 weeks" a euphemism for "whenever we can be bothered" now? Anybody else thinking holding their breath for the next update might not be the best plan? In this case I think it is you. I read that statement as saying that FC have done their bit, and they're now waiting for the legal system to do its bit. (But one might ask why it took FC's lawyers 7 weeks to file the court documents. I would naively have expected 2 or 3 weeks.)
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 1, 2015 10:46:27 GMT
Dare I say that you may be a little ungenerous here? The timescales are less important than the recoveries. FC has other defaults to progress and must live within a staff budget. The courts are being really screwed down on staff budgets and timescales are the first to go. Also the stress of the action falls more heavily on the guarantors than on FC and the diversified lenders, and so the drawing out of the procedure must be quite wearing, costly and encouraging of a wish to settle. It is more important (for recoveries) that FC hangs in there and does the right thing, than pushes for a swift settlement. I may be wrong, and it is easy to be patient when you do not hold the loan, but objectively I am not unhappy to see this being pushed slowly but relentlessly along. If they give up on the 'relentlessly' bit then you are in trouble. Please keep up the reports and we will see.
|
|
|
|
Post by goldservice on Dec 1, 2015 11:46:55 GMT
blender - I like your understanding of the subtle pressures that can be exerted on reluctant payers - were you once a doorstep lender by any chance?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 1, 2015 12:18:37 GMT
blender - I like your understanding of the subtle pressures that can be exerted on reluctant payers - were you once a doorstep lender by any chance? Nope, apart from a mortgage, long ago, I was always guided by the saying 'neither a borrower or a lender be'. Until I was corrupted by FC, that is. Even when running a business, I never had a bad debt - or even a debt either way, not even an overdraft (and yes it all went through the bank account). In this particular case, a guarantor who can pay but wants to wriggle out, FC have to go the whole way or lose credibility.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Dec 1, 2015 12:54:24 GMT
A point I don't understand is why a guarantee from a non-involved director should be invalid.
My guess as to why 17810 is A+ rather than E is that there's a non-involved director with (I suspect) serious assets. (But in this case he's involved enough to be answering questions on the Q&A.)
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 1, 2015 14:35:55 GMT
A point I don't understand is why a guarantee from a non-involved director should be invalid. My guess as to why 17810 is A+ rather than E is that there's a non-involved director with (I suspect) serious assets. (But in this case he's involved enough to be answering questions on the Q&A.) It's invalid because the wife had her fingers crossed when she signed the papers - therefore it doesn't count.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Dec 1, 2015 15:11:38 GMT
A point I don't understand is why a guarantee from a non-involved director should be invalid. My guess as to why 17810 is A+ rather than E is that there's a non-involved director with (I suspect) serious assets. (But in this case he's involved enough to be answering questions on the Q&A.) The issue is that a non-involved director could claim (as looks like the current case) that they did not fully understand the risk they were taking on in providing the guarantee as they are not privy to the business (unlike executive directors, shareholder or any other party involved in the business) and that the information available to them was over asymmetric or there was a mis-representation to them over the state/prospects of the business. I don't think they have any chance of successfully making that argument as all directors have a responsibility to understand, control and manage the companies they are directors for. There is no distinction between executive and non-executive directors under UK law and thus their responsibilities under UK law are the same. If the wife was a non-director then they might have had an argument.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,143
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 1, 2015 17:06:29 GMT
The latest in the saga of our old friends at 6521 and 2295... Back story :- In late March, they decided that continued solvency wasn't for them, and called in the administrators. At the start of May, the loans were defaulted. And that's where the fun began. After many cryptic comments about "negotiating with advisers" and how "positions were disputed", we got this comment... ...followed by radio silence. Until... <scratches head> Is it me? Is "2-4 weeks" a euphemism for "whenever we can be bothered" now? Anybody else thinking holding their breath for the next update might not be the best plan? In this case I think it is you. I read that statement as saying that FC have done their bit, and they're now waiting for the legal system to do its bit. (But one might ask why it took FC's lawyers 7 weeks to file the court documents. I would naively have expected 2 or 3 weeks.) I'm reading... 7 Oct - We're doing the paperwork, and it'll be in court in 2-4 weeks. (then, just shy of 8wks later) 30 Nov - We've finished the paperwork, and it'll be in court in 2-4 weeks. Except three weeks from w/c 30th Nov is w/c 21st Dec, and four weeks is w/c 28th Dec. Somehow, I doubt much happens those weeks...
|
|
November is my worst month so far 
