PBLs 077 - 080

Clause 15 is nothing to worry about. It simply means that we cannot sue the valuer individually in the event of a material error - this privilege lies with Lendy!

It's also pointless, because no contract exists between us and the valuer, therefore it doesn't need to be said.

In future, if people don't understand something, it might be more helpful to ask, rather than stressing over nothing!

I cannot understand how we can rely on a document to make our investment when the document itself says that we cannot rely on it.

"The Valuation Report (may be disclosed to other professional advisors assisting in respect of the purpose for which the valuation is prepared but) may not be disclosed to or relied upon by individual investors providing funding to Lendy Ltd or its associated companies." [15.1]

". . .  Any [parties other than the Client] rely upon the report at their own risk." [Appendix 2, point 12]

I do understand that it will be difficult to say the least for the valuers to deal with individual claims but I cannot see why we should be excluded as a group even if represented by Lendy (SS)? That "not be disclosed to" goes a step too far while the "not . . relied upon" pulls the rag from beneath our feet. What shall we rely upon if not this document? It is the only thing that SS presents to us.

In the meantime savingstream remains silent.

It =states= that we cannot even have seen it .. nothing about 'can't sue them'. Now the 'can't publish' has been broken by Lendy, so we are not going to get sued about it (but Lendy might, which would not be good). but a report which states it can't be used for the purpose for which one would like to believe it was commissioned is not very useful.

I have done just that earlier on today.  Although I'm not sure that the Q&A feature of the website works yet; but I have had responses from them via e-mail before today using the Q&A method.

So I think they got my query, and I would like to think they are working on a response as I type.....

I am drawn to comment on the contents of the last couple of pages of this thread (ablender you need to calm down or you will do yourself a mischief).

If Lendy / SS / AN Other commission a valuation then there is no obligation on them to make it public (even if lenders might be interested to see it). If you don't like that then vote with your feet.

Regarding suggestions that we could sue the valuer, don't waste your breath. If the assets are not worth what the valuer has stated then lenders will suffer a pure economic loss. You have no contract with the valuer, so this loss cannot be recovered. This is an extract I found on a solicitors web site:

"The general rule in respect of pure economic loss is that there is no duty of care to prevent such loss. Where a claimant suffers damage which is classed as pure economic loss, that loss is generally not recoverable" 

I assume that whoever commissioned the valuation does have a contract with the valuer, so they could sue. Only problem is their economic loss would be small, as it is the lenders (not the platform) carrying the risk.

Ok, in regard to publication, unless these terms were agreed in writing by Lendy (prior to valuation) they mean diddly squat, consequently they are entirely within their rights to ignore them. Indeed, it's abundantly clear that the valuer understands the nature of Lendy's business, and if they had concerns as to privacy, they should have referred Lendy to another company, or simply refused the work.

In the matter of copyright, when you pay for a report, it generally becomes your property, to do with as you see fit. The one thing that Lendy could change, however, is the availability of documents to people who have not signed up (and have not agreed to terms and conditions). In other words, paperwork could be made available only to users when they're logged in. This would probably avoid any grey areas in the law.

More widely, it's standard practice among companies to try to limit other people's rights. In UK law, such clauses are entirely invalid, indeed, if you bother to read paperwork supplied with electrical goods, you'll invariably see various terms and conditions, and right below will appear the phrase - "This does not affect your statutory rights." They want you to take from this is that all of the above is legal, but what this phrase actually means is "all of the above is invalid!".

That said, we're not operating under consumer law, but I thought it worth mentioning just to elaborate on the legal mindset.