PBL131 - M**** Quay, Hull - REPAID

And still not drawndown... smells a bit wiffy to me savingstream 

I'm afraid it's gone beyond just poor communication.  savingstream seem to have progressed to rewriting history.

And that's a very unprofessional practice, IMHO. 

If you give out information that subsequently turns out not to be right, issue a correction.  But don't change the previous message to make it look like it never happened.  People do notice, and your reputation and business are at stake.

Agree: unprofessional.

SS have taken on new staff.

Could it be that a 'newbie' has been given the job of making the updates and could do with a little more training?

I'm pleased that there is nothing devious. Clearly I should retract my remark .... except that now both those earlier updates have again been replaced (supposedly still a month ago) with a completely new text "We are going to restructure this loan. The seller of the site is being difficult....."
 
but now PBL064 You have deleted the text on the update "1 month ago", "Had an offer to refinance in full from the borrower, also received offers to purchase from our agents. We are talking with the borrower and working to a deadline" and replaced it with "The borrower is repaying the loan in full (advised by his solicitors). Currently in legals with other lender."

If this is a new update why have you deleted the earlier one (time stamped 2016-10-21 13:59:29) and replaced the text? Why have you not just placed a brand new update? What is the actual date you uploaded this "update"? Was it in the last 48 hours?

An update cannot get deleted and rephrased in the same page slot by accident. The new texts have deliberately been placed in the page spot for the earlier dates. A new system would just generate a new update.

I note that both the instances of update deletion have occurred on loans to borrowers with widely known reputations.

savingstream:  I was willing to accept your excuse at the time you made it.  More recent events, however, have changed my view.

Since the previous incident was reported, this seems to have happened again -- more than once.  And it's not a case of changes to updates that hadn't been noticed before being newly discovered -- there seems little doubt that these new incidents occurred after you explained how this could have happened accidentally in the past.

Do you, or do you not, accept that loan updates should stand as a permanent record of loan history and therefore should not be changeable?

I understood, on a previous occasion when an update was posted showing a date a few days before it actually appeared, how an update could be written one day but not immediately added to the website.  I can't say I agreed with that policy, as I would have thought that the date shown on an update would have been assigned by the system at the time the update appeared, but I wasn't too bothered by a couple days' discrepancy.  However, updates have appeared in the past few days that are dated over a month ago, and your previous explanation cannot explain that.

Do you really think that behaviour such as this will be acceptable to the FCA?

Can you please arrange for the deleted updates to be reinstated, and for the updates that have appeared recently to show appropriate dates?

As I said before, people do notice, and your reputation and business are at stake.  Please see that these problems are sorted before SS lose much more credibility with their investors.

mikes1531

Re your last post ...

HEAR! HEAR!!

There seems to be an undue level of paranoia regarding the update changes.  SS themselves stated :

"With regards to update changes, we are building a new system and it looks like that one got deleted. There are probably more out there that we haven't noticed. Please point them out if there are any inconsistencies."

Surely we should give SS the benefit of the doubt here.  It's still far from idea - it seems that SS are making a hash of putting the changes into their new system, and this has made makes their current updates unreliable in some cases. However it's a step too far to allege some kind of  cloak&dagger conspiracy theory that some seem to be suggesting.