PBL 20 How much will we get back?

I have to admit I am probably straying into an area I know nothing about, given my only passing interest in SS, and since I do not know whether this loan was under 'old' SS Ts and C's or new ones, and whether the old Ts and Cs in effect meant you were lending to SS/Lendy rather than the end borrower. If old and if  as a consequence it was a loan to SS/Lendy then you might have a case, since the 'borrower' is the one making the statement while failing to qualify it, but I would suggest it still would have to be read in conjunction with the applicable Ts and Cs.

But if we took this in the context of a 'normal' loan where you are lending to the end borrower, then of course interest continues to accrue: until such time as a recovery is completed or some arrangement / new terms is/are agreed with the borrower. In that context the quoted statement is no more than a statement of normal contractual fact. The borrower has an outstanding liability on which interest continues to be contractually due on an ongoing basis until the capital sum plus outstanding interest (and under normal circumstances interest on the unpaid interest) is repaid. It would be a tad rash to draw any inference of this statement being posted against this (one and only SS defaulted ?? loan) but it being absent from any other.

However this is an entirely different thing from saying that the accrued interest will in any way be recoverable.

Even if it is a loan to SS/Lendy rather than the end borrower, under the same logic, strictly the question is whether under the applicable Ts and Cs SS/Lendy are contractually required to make lenders fully good. But as above, under these circumstances the fact it would be the borrower making the statement might carry some weight.

I - and many others I suspect - have quite a large number against "accrued interest" on the AC dashboard. A significant portion of this is attributable to non-performing loans which are under recovery actions. I do not however expect to receive a particularly meaningful portion of that - regardless of the fact that the delinquent borrowers are contractually liable for it -  given the status of the loans which are contributing to it.

EDIT: Written prior to CDs post above.

cooling_dude :

If this is under old Ts and Cs, and they are as you state, then the situation is much more concrete.

Reference your comment "offer" does not equal "guarantee". Nothing is "guaranteed" because the person making the offer may not be in a position to honour it. However, for the purposes of contractual consideration,s the use of the term "offer" means to all intents and purposes "..contractually obliged..". I make you an "offer" you accept that "offer" i.e. its a statement of the mutual agreed contractual terms.

So IFF those terms applied at the point you purchased the loan then without reading the rest of the terms I would interpret that as meaning SS have a contractual liability to make lenders whole for capital and interest. An interesting question: assuming those terms applied at the time of the initial loan, do they also apply to purchases made on the SM subsequent to their move to new Ts and Cs ? Assuming the SS SM is based on creating a new loan between the purchaser and the borrower replacing the original lender/borrower contract, on which terms is the new loan contracted ?

EDIT: Also subject to race conditions: written prior to the above post being visible :-)

I can't understand why SS don't just draw a line under this and pay investors back out of the PF.l and then reclaim funds to restore the PF.

Only reason I say that is being under the old t's and c's they're going to have to pay out anyway even if it's a loss. As I understand it, SS have made the loanand the borrowers have lent to SS, therefore am I right in thinking SS owe the investors?

That makes perfect sense. In which case, it is Lendy Ltd that owes the capital and accruing interest to lenders, so hopefully for all lenders on the platform they will be able to cover it. I share your doubts that the provision fund could be used in these circumstances. In fact I'd go further than that and say it would not be possible for Lendy to dip into the PF in order to meet its own obligations as a borrower.


As above, I don't think they can do that.

That certainly explains why they are in no hurry to force a sale, and the fact they haven't just paid up out of their own coffers to end their interest liability is concerning. I don't see full FCA authorisation coming to SS any time soon with these sorts of skeletons in the closet.

The PF was set up to protect loans made by SSSH Ltd. It would be improper for Lendy Ltd to take funds from the PF to meet its own debts while it remained solvent.