|
|
Post by chielamangus on Jan 14, 2014 19:15:37 GMT
Yes, I can get the rating and some highly abbreviated and rounded financial information (so rounded as to be meaningless) from the loanbook. What I would like (both for this and other loans actually) is the original info. It's an aspect of FC secrecy I don't like.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jan 14, 2014 20:20:52 GMT
Some of the original loan details attached (hopefully!). If the moderators feel this is inappropriate, please feel free to remove [Mod hat on] Sorry ... I've removed the attachment. When you joined FC you agreed to their T&C's specifically 16.2 ".....Funding Circle supplied content must not be copied or reproduced, modified, redistributed, used or otherwise dealt with for any other reason without our express written consent".
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 14, 2014 22:12:22 GMT
philtb, kindly redact the whole thing with asterisks, making each phrase look as rude as possible. Experienced forum members can read that format fluently.
|
|
|
|
Post by phlitb on Jan 14, 2014 22:32:47 GMT
Hi c**t***c*n****nt The document contained no information which could be linked directly with the company involved, except perhaps for the loan id of *6*6 and a director's name which appeared in the Q&A which in hindsight I should have redacted to D **nt*n. Meanwhile in your initial post you appear to have copied and pasted the phrase "We are continuing to chase the borrower" verbatim from the FC website in clear breach of clause 16.2 of their T&Cs. I trust you also feel suitably abashed  |
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jan 14, 2014 23:18:49 GMT
You can download the whole loan book as a CSV file, and open, sort etc using a spreadsheet program like Excel. To get the original data in full, you do need to have kept the link, or Cloned the Webpage at auction time, which probably violates copyright.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 15, 2014 1:04:08 GMT
Wow, that is excellent. You've summed up my character, and people's general opinion of me in the most erudite way. As you correctly point out, I have indeed contravened clause 16.2. Reading on from that (excellent) clause, I see that I now should knee myself in the groin, repeatedly. (Doing it now, in front of my solicitor and 2 witnesses). A very pertinent point is that we shall need a legally watertight way of mentioning the phrase "We are c**t*****g to c**** the b*****er", as it is seen with such er.. delightful frequency. Clearly, the words 'nothing' would convey the same meaning. The phrase means 'we have not put any comment against this loan for a long time, and you are rightfully feeling pissed off, so to fob you off a bit longer we will just put in the standard phrase, WACTCTB'. I have a WACTCTB from 9th December! Loan 1373. Been chasing for one month and six days since wactctb was declared and no further comment. That borrower must surely be a hot Olympic prospect!
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 15, 2014 16:32:19 GMT
A very pertinent point is that we shall need a legally watertight way of mentioning the phrase "We are c**t*****g to c**** the b*****er", as it is seen with such er.. delightful frequency. I remember, just, when I was a young porker that we devised a very effective method of telling jokes by numbers, such that each joke was given a number and someone would say 'joke no. 7' and everyone would fall about laughing without the trouble or embarassment of the joke being actually told. I rememer that no. 7 was an extremely rude joke about a man on a camel which could be told in this way without causing offence (pause while composure regained). So perhaps the above could be 'FC standard comment no.1' and we would understand, or at least some of us would. Full of good ideas, me.
|
|
|
|
Post by chielamangus on Jan 15, 2014 21:13:55 GMT
phltb - thanks for the try, anyway. One would think we were b........ commercial spies rather than investors that support the b....... platform with our money.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jan 15, 2014 21:30:32 GMT
Blender
when I was a young porker that we devised a very effective method of telling jokes by numbers, such that each joke was given a number and someone would say 'joke no. 7' and everyone would fall about laughing without the trouble or embarassment of the joke being actually told. I rememer that no. 7 was an extremely rude joke about a man on a camel which could be told in this way without causing offence (pause while composure regained).
Not quite how I remember it. Was that a development of (or from) this:
26
Hahahahahah
16
Mwahahah good one!
8
Smirk!!
43
Ohohohohoho what a funny play on words!!!
69!!!
Hahahahahohohohohoho screech clutch sides roll on ground tears hahahahah ooooh!! That hurt!
Come on, it wasn't that funny
Maybe, but I hadn't heard that one before 
(OK...I'll get me coat....)
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 15, 2014 22:14:16 GMT
But note that FC are being more open and have given a link on the other forum to the liquidator's report for that firm of solicitors who went bust after two repayments. Not having any of it, phew, I have never been able to see the details on FC, but now the general public may have access to the full gory details of the failure, and they provide a salutary lesson. Maybe making it public is some kind of revenge.
Apparently there is no case of fraud. Those who complain that the money might not have been used for the purpose stated should be aware that, to my knowledge, there is generally no contractual requirement for borrowers to use the money in the way they propose to in the pitch. They just have to make the repayments.
Old Grumpy, joke number 7 is far funnier than no 69 so it is a good job that you do not know it. It is similar to that Monty Python joke which was to be a secret weapon used in WWI. Delivered on paper, the enemy would read it and die laughing.
|
|
|
|
Post by gingergent on Jan 16, 2014 21:55:53 GMT
Those who complain that the money might not have been used for the purpose stated should be aware that, to my knowledge, there is generally no contractual requirement for borrowers to use the money in the way they propose to in the pitch. They just have to make the repayments. I think clause 1.5 of the FC borrower conditions covers this: but doing them for breach of contract isn't going to get you far at that point.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 16, 2014 22:59:43 GMT
I am not sure that 5.1 is supposed to cover the information that is provided to the lenders from the borrower as well as the information provided to FC (us) for its assessment. Even if the pitch were covered, circumstances of business change and it would not be sensible to insist that the money is used solely for the purpose stated and exactly in the way stated. These are stated intentions, not conditions of a contract. Nor is there any supervision of what is done with the money (apart from defined assets which are to be security) and I have never known FC to be at all troubled with what has happened to the money, just the repayments and recoveries. That firm of solicitors for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 17, 2014 11:32:49 GMT
Having started this thread about Com***** W*****g C**** 3696, let me close it by thanking Funding Circle for taking this non-starter onto their own books and having reimbursed the investors. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 17, 2014 12:02:17 GMT
so they have treated it as they S*** H***** then ? Presumably they are doing so either under classification of fraud, or just goodwill.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jan 17, 2014 22:56:07 GMT
They were not very forthcoming as to the reason, but the gesture was nonetheless welcome. I won't even ask for the missing interest. Well, not unless they make a recovery.
|
|
