Crappy Scrappy

Perhaps Mr E's name is not in the frame and he has got someone else to front-up the latest scam.

/Mod hat off

You can; apparently you did. It might even stand up in court. 8>.

Some moderator may jump on you for it, but I'm not going to be the first one to throw a stone. I emailed FC about this dodgy loan (and feeble excuses) about 6 weeks after the first 'cheque was in the post' lie was turned up, and now 3 or 4 years later we finally have the resolution I predicted way back then (except if FC had been a bit faster the money might still have been located).

I emailed FC yesterday to express my views on the outcome of this case. If you want to see the reply, I will PM it to you.

I was so seriously annoyed by the whole affair that I ended up talking on screen to Channel 4's Despatched programme. Believe me this is something I would not normally do despite having being on screen often in another incarnation. That's how furious I was.

The day after the transmission went out I was contacted by one of the principle's of FC. During the conversation he denied lack of DD on their part but agreed that they could have done a better job and suggested they were "improving their efforts in that area". He also pointed out that they had now employed their own staff to do recoveries which he insisted would bring about an improvement in debt recovery. When I suggest that FC should reimburse all investors in Crappy Scrappy I hit a brick wall. Although not mentioned precisely I was left with the impression that they were worried about creating a precedent if they coffed-up.


By the time the programme went out I had dumped all my FC investments but am still left with quite a number of defaulted loans with odd bits of money turning up from time to time. I never really thought I would ever recover my cash from what ever source.

bonfemme I guess you were as God damned angary as Oldgrumps me and a bunch of other investors. However the thing that really annoyed me was the Cavalier attitude of FC on the whole matter. To openly deny that they had fallen short on the DD was the final straw as far as I was concerned. However the person FC actually doing the DD only had to Google Mr E's name to get a stream of dodgy information about the man. There was a heavy hint early on that in fact FC had picked this loan up via a third party which brings into question whether or not any DD was done by FC.

What is the loan number please? It's nowhere on this thread and is the preferred identifier. I thought that FC had compensated lenders but I presume not?

They are throwing the book at the neighbouring south wales house builder, 4907, where the loan lasted 6 days before pre-existing CCJs were discovered and the risk band was removed. After a pathetically soft start, loud complaints from lenders and forty notes they now have a charge on the guarantor's personal assets. Finely Chopped will never let go. 

Thanks bonfemme.

One repayment and no recoveries. So FC have decided that the loan application was not fraudulent and they have no liability to lenders. It might seem that they wish to establish a position in which any borrower who makes at least one repayment is not fraudulent. Clearly that would not be correct, but if they establish this one as a precedent for a non-fraudulent application they are unlikely to be faced with a more testing case.

I am surprised the lenders are accepting this and not at least getting together petition-wise and publically to politely request that this case be reviewed. I suppose with p2p each lender has only a small stake and in this case has long since written it off. I am not a lender here, but am in 4907.