Loan 4907

David Hume was a philosopher, not a political economist, Chielamangus, which only serves to reinforce your point by placing the development of modern British philosophy also in Scotland.

Back to the present day Welsh world of borrowing and loan 4907, FC have responded in another place and have suggested that the directors' conduct may come into question if etc etc. True but they conflate the appearance of the CCJ and downgrade a few days after taking the loan with the current apparent intention to appoint an administrator. If this develops into repayment difficulties, then the question must be 'how was the loan made when a CCJ was waiting in the wings, outside of the knowledge of the lenders?' The fact that a couple of payments have been made does not remove that fact and its implications. (Yes I have a few hundred in it and would not have if I had known about the CCJ in process, surely, at the time - that's the point, FC).

I notice that FC have only posted this update on their forum and not on the loan comments section of the main site where presumably most lenders would expect to get this information, especially since the new-look forum is hardly user-friendly.

Comment now posted - went into Administration last Friday. Trying to find out whether assets have been sold. Some interesting wording 'hope repayments will continue', 'quasi-security'.

Our old friend from the old indie forum, Hor1997, has posted a severe critique of FC's handling of this loan, allowing it to continue despite finding a CCJ soon after the drawdown. In this case he is completely right, IMO, but I think FC will be thinking hard of ways to remove the post. This loan may well turn out to be one of those cases for which FC accept liability if things go wrong (which unfortunately is likely). So if anyone posts over there a supportive but fireproof quote and reply then that would help retain Hor1997's post, before it gets wiped without trace.
Some messages to FC customer support on this one would also make them aware that borrowers do not think they should have let this loan continue as they have.

There are two 4907 threads "over there" - one is in the "News, Updates and general info" board; the other is in " All about lending".

I wonder if 5034 Three containers of booze/bankrupt after 0 payments will spark off some angry threads over there? Oh, it's OK. We've been asked to be patient.

Ah - the 'I've been really sick, please talk to my solicitor. Solicitor: He's bankrupt' one. Yes, interested in how that one pans out.

"The administration greatly surprised us, ... ." That's a problem. Given that the CCJ came out of the blue a few days after drawdown FC should have been all over this borrower, not just remove the risk band to tie us in and then hope nothing went wrong.

"Further to the above, it may be helpful to look at the options that were available to us:
1. If the borrower was intent on fraud, we would not get the money back if we had defaulted the loan and demanded repayment. ...
2. If the company was solvent and we defaulted the loan when we first had notice of the CCJ, it would be very unlikely that the company would have the funds sitting in a bank account to repay us in full. ... We are not in the business of lending money only to demand it back almost immediately irrespective of representations of the borrower that all is under control.  ... .
Therefore, it appears that our only option was the one we undertook, which is as follows:
3. We believed the company was solvent (based on information it had provided to us previously), and we had been informed by the borrower that the CCJ would be contested or resolved, and whilst loan repayments remained on time (which they still are) we carried on supporting the business.

We know the administration is frustrating, and it is for us too, but it is simply too early to cast judgment on the borrower and the guarantor until we have the full facts to hand. Of course, once we have the full information then we can see whether there was any fraudulent trading, wrongful trading or other misfeasance, and will let you know."

What is scary here is the helplessness of having only one option - to do nothing and hope for the best. Despite the CCJ appearing a few days after drawdown FC have not established (or told us) when the borrower knew of the CCJ application and whether they were told and decided not to tell the lenders. And their decisions seem to be based on believing what the borrower told them - you would think the CCJ might have been a bit of a warning? Might there not have been an option, consequent upon the CCJ and allowing the agreement to continue, to take some reall security in case someting else came out of the woodwork? But of course if you have no options then there is no point in making demands.

My guess, failing FC denial, is that FC may have known about the CCJ application but considered it a small amount and believed the borrower (via the agent) in all things. For me this would have been material to the decision to bid, and I feel conned by someone and just left holding it. Should I let FCRL represent me when the crunch comes? Any advice? Anyone running a sweepstake on which payment will be the last?