oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jun 28, 2016 10:13:47 GMT
Thank you Mr C-D!! I didn't have much on this but now I have none.  I wonder if SS were cognisant of the redundant borrower ID and its history.  |
|
spyrogyra
Member of DD Central
Posts: 386
Likes: 148
|
Post by spyrogyra on Jun 28, 2016 11:50:53 GMT
... and this is the kind of situations where SS should come up with a comment.
|
|
lobster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 636
Likes: 467
|
Post by lobster on Jun 28, 2016 12:10:30 GMT
I too am unloading this one now - tiny queue so should be snapped up soon.
Thanks C-D
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jun 28, 2016 12:12:08 GMT
... and this is the kind of situations where SS should come up with a comment. They would probably need very hard evidence and still could risk litigation should they make such a comment here With a strong SM, there is plenty of other choice
|
|
spyrogyra
Member of DD Central
Posts: 386
Likes: 148
|
Post by spyrogyra on Jun 28, 2016 12:15:08 GMT
Do you really think that this particular borrower would resort to legal action? By the way, the comments could be made in relation with the security, with no individual characteristics.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jun 28, 2016 12:37:53 GMT
Do you really think that this particular borrower would resort to legal action? By the way, the comments could be made in relation with the security, with no individual characteristics. Why not, he hasn't got anything to lose and perhaps a lot to gain, particularly in this 'where there is blame, there is a claim' culture. He could easily claim that SS's comments effected his ability to obtain credit elsewhere, which if that is a requirement for his profession/business, could claim damages resulting from loss of earnings of his business It would be a legal minefield for them to comment I wouldn't be surprised if the Mods weren't considering censoring the comments on this thread for the forums own liability...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2016 13:04:36 GMT
Do you really think that this particular borrower would resort to legal action? By the way, the comments could be made in relation with the security, with no individual characteristics. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mods weren't considering censoring the comments on this thread for the forums own liability... They may as well just close down the whole forum if you weren't allowed to post any factually based negative comments, due to of the fear of upsetting someone and getting sued.
|
|
spyrogyra
Member of DD Central
Posts: 386
Likes: 148
|
Post by spyrogyra on Jun 28, 2016 13:11:37 GMT
Shouldn't the borrower also prove that these comments are not the truth? And if someone is telling the truth, should he be liable for any loses occurring from telling the truth? Or the truth is the last thing that matters? Vice-versa, if SS is aware of certain relevant facts about the loan (and the borrower?), should the borrowers be kept in the dark?
|
|
skippyonspeed
Some people think I'm a little bit crazy, but I know my mind's not hazy
Posts: 787
Likes: 424
|
Post by skippyonspeed on Jun 28, 2016 13:17:29 GMT
I too bailed earlier today......just in case!! Plenty of choice on SM to risk my "hard earned" on!!
Ta CD
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Jun 28, 2016 13:23:16 GMT
Presumably the SM purchases are by people that have seen the 19% LTV and thought that it was a safe bet.
To me this seems at best misleading and I think that SS should change their policy and calculate and display LTV using the commonly accepted method used on most other platforms.
|
|
|
|
Post by retired2005 on Jun 28, 2016 13:33:56 GMT
And in the words of Duncan Bannatyne et al.....'I'm out ....!!'
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jun 28, 2016 13:35:59 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if the Mods weren't considering censoring the comments on this thread for the forums own liability... They may as well just close down the whole forum if you weren't allowed to post any factually based negative comments, due to of the fear of upsetting someone and getting sued. Bear in mind this information was gleamed from an internet search, where everything you read on the internet is of course fact 
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisuk on Jun 28, 2016 13:41:59 GMT
I must say, if 'cooling dude's' information is correct with regard to this borrower (and I have no reason to doubt it) I am rather surprised SS agreed to the deal. Maybe SS would like to explain their side of the story.
|
|
lofty
Posts: 101
Likes: 104
|
Post by lofty on Jun 28, 2016 14:16:05 GMT
I must say, if 'cooling dude's' information is correct with regard to this borrower (and I have no reason to doubt it) I am rather surprised SS agreed to the deal. Maybe SS would like to explain their side of the story. At the risk of being contrary to others here, but the quality of the borrower surely isn't the most important factor when deciding whether a loan should be offered or not. At the end of the day our security is the property itself, thats the thing that's got to be right. Sure if they go bankrupt, fly off to another country, etc. then it will make things more inconvenitent and prolonged before we get our money. What would be interesting is to know how much interest SS are charging them - we get a flat rate of interest, but we know SS don't - they could be making a mint of this loan. All that said, I'm a hypocrite. I've got rid of my parts in this loan. Better safe than sorry. 
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jun 28, 2016 14:39:47 GMT
Presumably the SM purchases are by people that have seen the 19% LTV and thought that it was a safe bet. To me this seems at best misleading and I think that SS should change their policy and calculate and display LTV using the commonly accepted method used on most other platforms. I agree that displaying the effective LTV (in this case 60%) would be more appropriate. But the title of the loan does clearly include the words 'SECOND CHARGE' so lenders should be checking out the details to investigate further.
|
|
I wonder if SS were cognisant of the redundant borrower ID and its history. 
