sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 19, 2017 12:59:06 GMT
Hi all, I do not agree that anyone has been misled, and would politely ask that people refrain from the more inflammatory language on the forum. I do however feel that we could have been clearer, and will keep an eye on rollovers in future. I am sorry if the loan has inconvenienced anyone. I was misled. "This loan will be repaid and relaunched into PBL167." is definitely not the same as "This loan will be repaid in due course, some time after PBL167 has been launched". It has been well-established by past practice on this platform on previous occasions where an existing loan is repaid by a new loan, that the two events of a new loan going live and the original loan being repaid occur on the same day. The comments on this thread from around the time of the launch of PBL167 seem evidence enough that many of us were expecting this established procedure to be followed. If Lendy wish to make a change to this well-established procedure, it seems to me that the onus is on them to communicate the change IN ADVANCE. When PBL122 didn't immediately get repaid, I initially put it down to some kind of technical issue that Lendy decided would be easier to sort out during normal working hours, and fully expected PBL122 to have been repaid yesterday when you were all in the office and able to catch up with fixing whatever issue had prevented PBL122 being repaid from the funds already held on account for PBL167. However, now I'm aware of this unannounced and unexpected change in policy, as a gesture of goodwill, I'll check through my loan parts tonight to find something to sell in order to resolve the unanticipated negative balance, or if there's nothing I'm prepared to sell, maybe even gather together some funds from an external bank account. If something else resolves it for me in the meantime (e.g. another loan being repaid, or Lendy pressing the button to repay PBL122 from the funds already held on account for PBL167), all the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by arctic on Apr 19, 2017 14:15:20 GMT
Presumably the 'constructive dialogue' bit rubs both ways..... On this occasion I can see little constructive dialogue coming from Lendy.
Those of us who do not have £2750 knocking about to clear negative balances are entitled to express our displeasure at this latest debacle. I also assume that forum members are entitled to say what they like providing forum rules are not broken. I can see nothing in this thread that breaks forum rules. Feel free to correct me.
If platform reps feel they cannot respond to some posts without taking legal advice they can simply ignore those posts; preferable to forum members being gagged.
I'm generally happy with Lendy. I just hope they start to learn from their mistakes fast.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 19, 2017 15:10:41 GMT
Rather than getting yourselves wound up on here, why not simply sell your PBL122 holding to pay for your PBL167 allocation? There's next to no selling queue and I imagine there will be plenty of lenders happy to use it as a short-term cash park.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 19, 2017 18:49:50 GMT
Rather than getting yourselves wound up on here, why not simply sell your PBL122 holding to pay for your PBL167 allocation? There's next to no selling queue and I imagine there will be plenty of lenders happy to use it as a short-term cash park. Because I can't be certain that PBL167 will actually draw down. If I sell my holding in PBL122 now, on the assumption that PBL167 will draw down, and ultimately it doesn't, I'll be left holding nothing. As there'll be dozens of other lenders in a similar position, it will probably be hard to re-establish my previous holding in PBL122 in the circumstances. As it happens, I'll hold both, and sell some excess exposure in other loans I was using as a short-term cash park. Whichever of PBL122 and PBL167 ceases to exist first, I'll still be left holding the other one. However, it's still an unnecessary annoyance - I was previously lending £X to the borrower, and I'm happy to continue to lend £X to the same borrower, and in any reasonably sane system (including every mechanism SS have previously used during my time as an investor) there is absolutely no need for the borrower to have £2X of my funds reserved in order to acheive this.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Apr 19, 2017 18:57:24 GMT
Not to forget going to have the same issue tommorow when they do the same again.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Apr 20, 2017 3:14:52 GMT
I emailed them Tuesday at 6pm and got a response at midnight... was much luckier than I have been, having received a reply from LfSS in six hours. I emailed them 15 hours before he did, and so far -- now 48 hour later -- I've had no reply other than the automated one acknowledging receipt of my message.  I've put some of my PBL122 holding up for sale, but the selling queue is getting longer so I don't know when someone might actually buy it. I also note that I haven't received what used to be the usual automated 'Please clear your negative balance' email, and the lack of that was partly what led me to believe that clearing my negative balance wasn't going to be necessary. Has LfSS stopped sending those since INPL was dropped for SM purchases?
|
|
vmail
Open image in a new tab.
Posts: 457
Likes: 217
|
Post by vmail on Apr 20, 2017 7:47:05 GMT
The last daily resolve negative balance was on 14th March. You now only get one reminder when you purchase/allocate a new loan part.
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Apr 20, 2017 10:08:38 GMT
I emailed them Tuesday at 6pm and got a response at midnight... was much luckier than I have been, having received a reply from LfSS in six hours. I emailed them 15 hours before he did, and so far -- now 48 hour later -- I've had no reply other than the automated one acknowledging receipt of my message. I've put some of my PBL122 holding up for sale, but the selling queue is getting longer so I don't know when someone might actually buy it. I also note that I haven't received what used to be the usual automated 'Please clear your negative balance' email, and the lack of that was partly what led me to believe that clearing my negative balance wasn't going to be necessary. Has LfSS stopped sending those since INPL was dropped for SM purchases? Think that's poor? I sent an email 15 days ago (different subject), and I still haven't had the courtesy of a response! 
|
|
bababill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 529
Likes: 245
|
Post by bababill on Apr 20, 2017 22:33:02 GMT
Rather than getting yourselves wound up on here, why not simply sell your PBL122 holding to pay for your PBL167 allocation? There's next to no selling queue and I imagine there will be plenty of lenders happy to use it as a short-term cash park. As soon as I read your idea I tried the same. Unfortunately, it does not work. My PBL122 is still in the queue. In the meantime to avoid double exposure I sold £5500 worth of the PBL167.
|
|
ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Apr 21, 2017 8:46:11 GMT
p2p2p was much luckier than I have been, having received a reply from LfSS in six hours. I emailed them 15 hours before he did, and so far -- now 48 hour later -- I've had no reply other than the automated one acknowledging receipt of my message. I've put some of my PBL122 holding up for sale, but the selling queue is getting longer so I don't know when someone might actually buy it. I also note that I haven't received what used to be the usual automated 'Please clear your negative balance' email, and the lack of that was partly what led me to believe that clearing my negative balance wasn't going to be necessary. Has LfSS stopped sending those since INPL was dropped for SM purchases? Think that's poor? I sent an email 15 days ago (different subject), and I still haven't had the courtesy of a response! Hah! I raise your measly 15 days with 2 years and 3 months on at least one enquiry  The one I have in mind was a bit convoluted, and they just gave up dealing with it. I moved on; life is too short to be getting hung up on things that a few years from now will seem irrelevant.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Apr 21, 2017 21:34:00 GMT
Rather than getting yourselves wound up on here, why not simply sell your PBL122 holding to pay for your PBL167 allocation? There's next to no selling queue and I imagine there will be plenty of lenders happy to use it as a short-term cash park. As soon as I read your idea I tried the same. Unfortunately, it does not work. My PBL122 is still in the queue. In the meantime to avoid double exposure I sold £5500 worth of the PBL167. Is it double exposure? The borrowers doesn't have both PBL122 and PBL167 monies. Am I missing something?
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Apr 21, 2017 22:01:33 GMT
As soon as I read your idea I tried the same. Unfortunately, it does not work. My PBL122 is still in the queue. In the meantime to avoid double exposure I sold £5500 worth of the PBL167. Is it double exposure? The borrowers doesn't have both PBL122 and PBL167 monies. Am I missing something? I am not sure why they have just not issued the extra as a second loan or tranche there is no need to collect the same money twice. A lot of people will not have sufficent money just laying around to cover what they had invested orginally to invest in the new loan for the other one to be repaid in a few days.
|
|
|
|
Post by lendinglawyer on Apr 21, 2017 23:13:42 GMT
As soon as I read your idea I tried the same. Unfortunately, it does not work. My PBL122 is still in the queue. In the meantime to avoid double exposure I sold £5500 worth of the PBL167. Is it double exposure? The borrowers doesn't have both PBL122 and PBL167 monies. Am I missing something? No it's not as the new loan is cash backed by money in client account. If it was drawn down and both were outstanding then yes but that isn't going to happen.
|
|
bababill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 529
Likes: 245
|
Post by bababill on Apr 22, 2017 0:26:38 GMT
Apologies it was not technically double exposure to the same borrower if everything goes as we expect it.
We were told very clearly PBL167 funds are being held in a separate client account.
In my mind my double exposure was comprised of:
First -£5500 to PBL 122
Second- £5500 to client account
Total: £11,000
Hence why I tried to sell both PBL 122 and PBL 167 because I wanted to reduce my commitment.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Apr 22, 2017 22:26:39 GMT
I am not sure why they have just not issued the extra as a second loan or tranche there is no need to collect the same money twice. A lot of people will not have sufficent money just laying around to cover what they had invested orginally to invest in the new loan for the other one to be repaid in a few days. ISTM that they couldn't do it as a further tranche because that would be unfair to the investors in the original loan -- presuming both tranches were pari passu, which is how tranches usually work. So they'd need to issue it as a second loan ranked behind the first one. But investors might be reluctant to support a subordinate loan paying the same interest rate as the first loan.
|
|
The one I have in mind was a bit convoluted, and they just gave up dealing with it. I moved on; life is too short to be getting hung up on things that a few years from now will seem irrelevant.