FC uncaring about property late loans but jailing criticism

Hor: you really are talking out of your hat whilst claiming to be some expert in bridging finance.

For a start, as has been pointed out, a property development bridging loan would typically be paid with interest at the end of term. Delays are very common in property development, and so many loans breach their initial term. However, interest will continue to accrue, and any sensible lender will know that to call in the debt through a default would serve nobody's needs, since recovery will be harder.  So any lender seeking to maximise the overall return rate will strike a balance and see whether to wait out rather than immediately go for a default.

You claimed on the other place that you somehow know the best practice in an industry you have no knowledge of (if I understand you from your previous posts you are an IT developer... Apparently one of the worlds best HTML coders who could fix FC's code in 5 minutes...).

Finlly, an expert in finance such as you should already know that you cannot raise a complaint to the FCA. The FCA is the regulatory body responsible for the policy of the finance industry. Complaints would be made to the Financial Ombudsman Service. But they would no doubt advise that you need to raise the formal complaint to FC in the first instance, and even after that would say that FC havent done anything wrong.

As I said earlier, this FC decision appers to be unique in the industry in terms of lenght and size of what is 'allowed' to the borrower.
In doing so, FC has clearly breached the contract and the investment they are arbitrarilly bringing forward now (after 210+ days of unpaid interest) is not even closely related to the original I (and all lenders) signed for.

I never claimed to be a bridging loan expert. Just a simple investor who wishes to maximise the returns with honest products which comply with what promised at the investment point (as per FCA rules). I was offered a 65% LTV A-rated loan. If this loan is no-where near those parameters now, I should be: a) adviced by FC its LTV has shooted up to 77-80%, b)allowed not to partecipate if I wish so. A company not doing the above (FC) and not defaulting the loan is clearly acting against the best interest of lenders.

I have already taken all the necessary steps to raise the formal complaint and will go trought the correct steps to escalate the complaint to the correct authorities (and be sure this is not the first time for me....). I certainly will not assist silently to the destruction of my money and gift to an untrusted 'borrower'.

Play nice people.  Note that calling somebody a "troll" is in and of itself often trolling.  Similarly, implying hidden platform related bias without any substantiation is nothing more than an allegation, and equally unhelpful.  Any escalation of this unnecessary sniping will lead to, at the least, post deletion and likely thread locking.

This would be a shame, it's an important discussion.  You can have that discussion here.  Just follow the forum rules.

I suggest you read through the update history again. 1442701959 is still an Active loan (so appears nowhere in the FS default statistics) and it seems clear that it is the Borrower that is still driving the sale process, even though the Receiver that was consulted presumably remains on stand-by if the sale falls through.

As you didn't like that one, how about 1029913142 (not one I'm in, happily), now past 300 days and counting.

But it is a term loan. This is p2p and the contract between the lender and the borrower is for a term loan and their system is designed for amortising term loans. The problem comes from FC trying to use a term loan to extend a line of credit, because their systems cannot cope. Most of FC's lenders do not need any knowledge and do not care. It's the ones with the knowledge (or some knowledge) who expect the loan to be managed as a term loan, who are unhappy when FC tries to manage it as if it were a different animal.

I agree but there is further. I am not only worried about FC changing the funding tipology without having told me or having asked me.
I am greatly worried about the ADDITIONAL RISK introduced in doing so.

I lent on the exlusive basis of a 8-month loan with a 65% LTV.
I would NOT have lent for 16 months with a 80% LTV.
Given we have NOT been given any further security or cash from this borrower, our situation is getting worse every day.
Assuming FC call in a receiver after 12 months they lost another 6-7% of the value than calling it in september, even assuming a constant housing price (and that is going down as well... so further worsening the situation.). FC is arbitrarilly and without lenders' consent offering more and more (of our) money in exchange for NOTHING and this is totally foolish (it does not take a loans world expert to understand this is unacceptable).

In doing so, FC is changing in a hidden way the basic conditions of this loan (increasing substantially and beyond reason the LTV) and this action constitute financial misconduct to me.