Loan 4907

You can access the other forum from the link at the bottom of FC's front page - you don't need to log in to read what's there.  If you look at the Latest Activity section on the right-hand side of the page, you'll see Hor1997's responses to FC's statement which covers this matter quite vigourously and comprehensively.

Attaboy hor1997! On the FC forum. Hor1997 is convinced that FC were not made aware of the CCJ in progress but is asking the necessary questions firmly, very firmly, and they cannot now silence him/her. On reflection he/she is probably taking the more likely option. In spite of my suggestion above that FC might have known but considered it a trifle. I have not taken account of the fact that the consequence of the grant of a CCJ would be the removal of the risk band, and FC would surely rather wait the few days to see the result of the CCJ application and relist, rather than complete the loan and take the risk of having to downgrade it.
So I shall line up behind Hor1997 and assume that FC did not know of the CCJ process before the drawdown, and if they eventually say they did know but did not consider it significant or worth telling the bidders then I think that would be game over. How could one have confidence?
Makes me want to join the FC forum and support hor1997 - but no, this is the forum to support.

As has been proven in "the other place" :- It is not part of the T&C to do this and it never has been.

Neatly sidestepping the fact that the above claim was made as part of FAQs to do with "how we handle the lending process/defaults", which form a material description of FCs activities and what we can expect from them.

To say "it's not part of the T&C" is disingenuous and misleading, even if strictly true.

But of course, very handy when it comes to fudging around the increasing list of people who are taking a loan and just disappearing within 1 payment.

Further info from FC in another place confirms that there were three CCJs in January but that they did not appear in FC's checks for the loan in February. So the bidding took place while the company had three CCJs granted against them. The inference is that the borrower is not asked to declare if any CCJs are in force or in process - it is FC's job to do the checking. If this is the so then there can be no case against the borrower and FC's refund promise (still there on the site but not in T&Cs) does not apply. What it does mean is that currently FC cannot guarantee that recent CCJs are picked up, so as in this case we cannot assume that there are no CCJs in force when we bid, but only that FC does not know of any - and probably has not asked the borrower. And when they find out about pre-existing CCJs they will remove the risk band and lock the lenders in. No wonder FC are coy about the application process. They need a declaration such as Hor1997 has suggested, we need it.
I did not realise that I was to take a risk in pre-existing undiscovered and undeclared CCJs. I just cannot find the warning.

Apparently there all sorts of benign reasons for administration and all could turn out well. I am not sure how this fits with the workers all being laid off and the guarantor being difficult to contact.

Indeed.

If the business profile had more accurately read "...Last ditch attempt to keep company afloat..." then I don't suppose I would have bid either!

I wonder if FC have increased the staff resource vetting new applications in line with increasing loan volume?

If they seriously want to attract corporate investors on whole loans, things will need to look more competent.