mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 5, 2019 21:39:39 GMT
Shall we run a poll regarding how much we think FS will be able to collect on the PG?
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on Oct 5, 2019 22:10:06 GMT
Well, we have the reply to your query 'Yes, it is for the full amount and yes we have assets and liability statement.' We believe them and trust them don't we ?
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Oct 6, 2019 2:14:53 GMT
yes but , no but! FS can't even spell commitment - I guess this is a word they really don't understand. I think a poll will only go one way - viz no way...
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Dec 15, 2019 17:14:38 GMT
ERROR IN TREATMENT OF THE AUGUST RECOVERY IN FS TAX RETURN STATEMENTS
For those of you who are invested in this loan, you should be aware that FS seem to have made a mistake in the way they have recorded the August partial recovery in the Tax Return statement for the current tax year (2019-20).
To see the problem, you need to call up the detail of this year's (provisional) Tax Return statement : first manually select the date range for the current tax year (06/04/2019 -05/04/20), then click on the 'Filter Results' button, and finally click on the +' signs on the 'Capital losses from defaulted loans' line and the 'Capital recovered from defaulted loans' line to reveal the detailed entries.
If you now search for the entries for loan 1165075552A (which is the 'spin-off' loan, representing the recovery made in August) you will find there are two identical entries - one under Capital losses, the other under Capital recovered. The overall effect is that the Tax Return statement shows NO net recovery from this loan in the current tax year, which is of course incorrect.
Furthermore, if you now examine the original default entry for the base loan 1165075552, which can be found under 'Capital losses from defaulted loans' for tax year 17/18, you will see that the amount in that entry has been reduced to reflect the recent recovery. This has had the overall effect of retrospectively reducing the amount of net capital losses (i.e : losses - recoveries) in that tax year - something that should NEVER happen retrospectively as the result of a recovery in a subsequent year. You can check this for yourself if you have (as I do) a printed record of the original statement for 17/18.
What Funding Secure should have done is to post the Capital loss entry for 1165075552A not to the current tax year 19/20, but instead to tax year 17/18 : together with the reduction in the original default entry amount (also in 17/18), this would have left the overall figures for 17/18 unchanged, whilst recording a net recovery in the current year. This is the correct technique, and the one previously applied for example in the case of the Whitehaven loan which was originally defaulted in 17/18 with a tiny partial recovery the following tax year.
Obviously, this error is only of concern to those wishing to use the FS Tax Return statement as a basis for claming losses to offset against income this tax year.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on Apr 1, 2020 14:03:26 GMT
UPDATE:
Solicitors have been instructed to review the documentation and provide advice as to whether the shortfall can be pursued under the personal guarantee. We will provide a further update once this has been received.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Apr 1, 2020 16:01:09 GMT
Sometimes I wonder of FS were able to spell "art" let alone "commitment" - well they are right about this bring difficult. What we don't want is a hefty legal bill that goes nowhere except into trouser pockets of legal parasites...and even more of the pot being reduced.
|
|
Nomad
Member of DD Central
Posts: 727
Likes: 494
|
Post by Nomad on Apr 1, 2020 17:47:04 GMT
Sometimes I wonder of FS were able to spell "art" let alone "commitment" - well they are right about this bring difficult. What we don't want is a hefty legal bill that goes nowhere except into trouser pockets of legal parasites...and even more of the pot being reduced. But maybe they can spell "if" and "being"
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on Apr 2, 2020 9:31:29 GMT
Accorind to FS- My italics- fundingsecure Representative of FundingSecure Posts: 1,356MalLikes: 591 May 4, 2016 at 9:41pm mikes1531 likes thisQuotelikePost OptionsPost by fundingsecure on May 4, 2016 at 9:41pm MikeS
Yes, it is for the full amount and yes we have assets and liability statement.
Generally speaking we will take a PG where possible, although the main security has to be sufficient on its own merits. (As it is in this case)
Although PG's are notoriously difficult to claim against we like to have it as a comfort security - if for no other reason than it indicates a level of committment from the borrower. Hope this is helpful.
FundingSecure
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on May 19, 2020 11:19:26 GMT
Loan Reference: 1165075552
An update has just been added to a loan that you have an investment in.
UPDATE:
The solicitors have reviewed the documentation and confirmed that the shortfall can be pursued under the personal guarantee. The solicitors have therefore sent a formal demand for payment. We will provide a further update once this has expired.
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Aug 4, 2021 10:10:34 GMT
03/08/2021
As per previous updates, the position remains that the borrower is untraceable and, as such, the loan will now be closed with no funds being returned to investors.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Aug 4, 2021 15:23:27 GMT
I don't buy this - with all the goverment data let alone social media how the hell can this woman disappear intto thin air? Surely FS had her bank details, NI number etc As mrC etc pointed out there is a possible connection with G Smith who was the planning applicant - looks to be as if FS have been had here as this one stinks to me
|
|