ncp
Posts: 19 
Likes: 20
|
Post by ncp on Jun 16, 2018 23:50:13 GMT
With the bonus payment now made and after doing the calculations I received over £400 / 38% more than I was entitled to. I emailed Lendy "I am no longer able to initiate a complaint as I have no longer suffered a financial loss, in fact I have suffered a significant financial gain; which proves my point that your client accounting systems are not fit for purpose."
Made a good excess profit on PBL108 as well, which I again told them about.
I think Cowes Week is probably more important than recognising their financial loses, and hence sorting out their client systems.
|
|
rs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 254
|
Post by rs on Jun 17, 2018 7:36:48 GMT
With the bonus payment now made and after doing the calculations I received over £400 / 38% more than I was entitled to. I emailed Lendy "I am no longer able to initiate a complaint as I have no longer suffered a financial loss, in fact I have suffered a significant financial gain; which proves my point that your client accounting systems are not fit for purpose."
Made a good excess profit on PBL108 as well, which I again told them about.
I think Cowes Week is probably more important than recognising their financial loses, and hence sorting out their client systems.
if you have been given more interest than should have I suspect other investors would have received less!
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Jun 18, 2018 8:09:20 GMT
if you have been given more interest than should have I suspect other investors would have received less! As mentioned before, excess interest had already been paid some time ago; I never had a complaint having already been overpaid, so the addition of the bonus to the earlier overpayment is a welcome surprise. They have not clawed back the excess interest already paid, and I cannot imagine they have any grounds to pass on these additional amounts to the original borrowers. Therefore I can only assume they were either unaware of that error (somewhat worrying), or chose to ignore it in order to maintain goodwill (less worrying, but surprising they did not explicitly highlight it), with the additional funds having come from Lendy's margin (or from company funds if the margin on this specific loan was insufficient). The accrued bonus was clearly displayed on the loan parts associated with the partial repayments, so I suspect they would have had great difficulty in defending against any formal complaint. The only real concerns are: - waiving the additional charge that becomes our "bonus" may have been part of the negotiating tactics that made them have some success in achieving partial repayments of overdue loans, so further partial payments may become marginally more difficult to achieve. - lack of adequate control over the various calculations may leave Lendy with less profit than they thought they had (and potentially even turn that profit into a loss) risking the viability of the platform as a whole. The next message I would ideally like to see is something like: "We are aware that some interest payments were made in excess of the amount due on this loan. We have corrected the error which will apply to new loans going forwards, but as a gesture of goodwill we will not be attempting to recover the overpayments." I'd also be content with a similar message indicating that negative interest transactions will be appearing on my statement as they reverse the overpayments. I will not be content if they simply go back and modify the old transactions, and especially if there is no accompanying message so that I have to play detective to find out why my account balance dropped.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Nov 6, 2020 13:32:27 GMT
Just to provide an update on this historic Lendy loan:
The borrowing company made two applications at the High Court this morning.
The first application was for the court to place the company into administration and the second application was an order on behalf of the proposed joint administrators.
Issues of jurisdiction were raised by the judge which required detailed submissions from both parties and ultimately lead to both applications being withdrawn.
In effect I understand the borrowing company wish to buy back the building and then immediately go into administration. This would have the effect of converting some of the creditors who had registered UN1's at the property into a monetary value. I understand these UN1's had yet to be converted into a registered leasehold interest which would survive the administration.
The effect of the release of the UN1's would allow any subsequent purchaser of the building the ability to sell off some off the remaining unregistered leasehold flats in order to recoup the developments costs.
The court was told that by not entering into administration a developer would have to pay all further costs without making a return by selling the 144 units which are currently subject to UN1's. The further costs would be £2.47m to pay off the current first charge holder and then £8m to complete the site.
|
|
