PBL 20 How much will we get back?

I think I can't provide a counter-example  .

I already provided the counter-example most likely to come to mind but I read the decision, aside from the redacted bits, and it seems clear that the ban would have been lifted if it wasn't for the children. No children to affect here and there are far worse things to do than follow the example of the UK's Supreme Court when it comes to recognising that things are already public and a ban no longer serves useful purpose but harms the useful public interest one of having an informed discussion about the issues with loan and platform.

I assume that the platform hasn't objected because that would seem like a clear breach of FCA's guidance, inhibiting discussion by lenders of risk issues by attempting to restrict informed discussion of them via banning publishing the information and related public documents. It's the sort of thing that might merit a formal complaint against the platform. Not that the attempt could have much credibility anyway when the platform itself is already identifying the borrower and that they have defaulted, so it would be arguing against others writing what it has already written.

The policy preceded the presence of the in house lawyer and for the majority of the time the site was solely owned by an individual who bore all liability for anything that the site was found to be liable for. The lawyer is undoubtedly helpful in dealing with initial complaints, explaining that MSE is not the publisher and explaining the way the Defamation Act 2013 protects sites (which are not normally the publishers of the content posted by others) and how to use its protections if a complaint is made. There is also a longstanding right of reply process that has been quite regularly used.

Where the Act applies, this definition is worth knowing:

"(1)A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
(2)For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss."

Though of course that does't necessarily prevent significant legal costs being incurred before an early ruling is given.

I don't know of even one platform that doesn't have both mixed motives and conflicts of interests between the platform and the lenders. And the borrowers, for that matter. At the most basic level these things naturally flow from the desire to make a profit, which generally requires some markup or cut to be taken by the business that is not then available to the customer in lower price or higher investment returns or to the borrower in lower interest rate, fees or some other combination. On the diligence side, diligence has costs so sites also make judgments there, for example some apparently lending to businesses without visiting the borrower, which they know to be a compromise between risk and cost. These things seldom have convenient bright lines between right and wrong so it's inevitable that there will be different but entirely honest and non-malicious differences of opinion.

Jigsaw identification is undoubtedly a possible issue sometimes, though in the specific situation at hand the most trivial of searches will find the platform identifying the borrower and the fact of their default so the identification side of a jigsaw issue is somewhat limited, though I have on a number of occasions now reported posts to moderators where posts did make such identification possible, just because it's the practice of the moderators here to restrict such things.

As a journalist your employers or customers bear rather higher risks than web site operators since what you write normally will end up being published by them, without the web site operator's ability to follow the Defamation Act procedures if a complaint is made. That necessarily requires a substantially greater degree of care on the part of publishers.

For individuals here who wonder what to do I suggest at a minimum open wordings that ask rather than accuse and making it clear that any corrections or clarifications would be appreciated. Not least as a matter of politeness, though not solely for that reason. And if someone does complain, remove first, discuss second.

Does the land registry figures necessarily reflect everything the buyer paid?

For instance, the valuation mentions ~£185k in stock. Would this be included in the land registry figure? Likewise, plant and machinery, fixture and fittings, you name it. If I buy a house, with the furniture and lawn mower, whatever I pay for the furniture and lawn mower typically wouldn't be included in the land registry figure, but I've not the first idea how this works with a business.

Likewise, the asking price is £1.9M plus stock at cost, so maybe £2.1M all in. This is a 15% discount to the original valuation, which doesn't seem incongruous given they presumably want to shift it sharpish.

I don't think the incomplete figures we have remotely justify the accusations being tossed about. There of course remains the question of the 10% holding.

You must not confuse the asking price with the expected realisation and it would be naive to assume that in the case of PBL20 that substantially all the original consideration was not for the freehold properties. Horticultural Weekly reported that the "new owners re-opened the business" They also renamed it so to believe there was much if any goodwill is a little far fetched. The underlying business deals in mainly perishable goods so if it was closed at the time of purchase it is unlikely that there would be much in the way of stock. So that leaves a few shop fittings as the other assets. The lawn mower business is a concession (as reported in Horticultural Weekly ).

Why do you believe that this old style loan is a 36H P2P loan? Being 36H is a requirement for a loan to be eligible for the relief.

I can't believe the amount of specific information they've posted on that site without even needing to be logged in.
Thanks for finding that site.