gl51
Posts: 10 
Likes: 3
|
Post by gl51 on Nov 23, 2016 19:42:59 GMT
Why hasn't FC been confronted publicly, in a big way about this issue? I think FC are able to navigate through this one because (a) their mantra is that if their account balances then all is ok. And they have got everyone believing it. (b) if they ignore it, most will go away (c) for those that don't go away, you would need access to the database to prove anything, which no-one but FC has (d) an ex-gracia payment will buy of good percentage of those remaining (e) it's so complicated the ombudsman must think there are easier cases to pursue I really think the best thing that I can hope to achieve with this thread is to convince a few people that just because the "account balances" it doesn't mean that everything is ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by longjohn on Nov 23, 2016 20:41:48 GMT
I've not had any problem with lost parts for a couple of years now, however on selling a part I still get an occasional mismatch on the interest plus delta calculation. For example 10 plus 8 = 17 ??  Over time this adds up (or doesn't). J |
|
min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 615
Likes: 182
|
Post by min on Nov 24, 2016 0:37:25 GMT
Why hasn't FC been confronted publicly, in a big way about this issue? I think FC are able to navigate through this one because (a) their mantra is that if their account balances then all is ok. And they have got everyone believing it. (b) if they ignore it, most will go away (c) for those that don't go away, you would need access to the database to prove anything, which no-one but FC has (d) an ex-gracia payment will buy of good percentage of those remaining (e) it's so complicated the ombudsman must think there are easier cases to pursue I really think the best thing that I can hope to achieve with this thread is to convince a few people that just because the "account balances" it doesn't mean that everything is ok. Some time ago i noticed that my account was £20 down from where I thought it should be. I asked Financial Chameleons to investigate.After a few days they informed me that they accepted I was right but couldn't find the anomaly so had credited me with the missing 'score'. Problem was the way they had done it made my account look like it was £40 out. I was already heading for the exit and this experience just made me quicken my steps. (Currently left with £90 in 8 loans that I can't sell.) btw if you created the thread you should be able to edit the title (I think)
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Nov 24, 2016 10:38:37 GMT
Henley 16902 note saying it was repaid at 11:48 yesterday - money in account 23 hours later due to 'technical error'. My earnings reconcile again to my FC Total.
To be honest the discrepancy immediate flagged up the issue to me yesterday, and I can keep an eye on it.
FC has a bizarre set of shadow accounting that as people remind us is a legacy of auction days. The transaction statement carries no time stamp and is NOT all transactions. Failed bids, withdrawn loans and defaults are simply removed retrospectively from the history. The financial summary is clearly something done last and should always be treated as subordinate to "Net Earnings plus Total net amount you invested". That is why it is good to keep "net amount you invest" in the round thousands. To know what you have invested in FC this is the formula not what they tell you in the box in the corner.
Ineptitude or Incompetence? Certainly failure to invest in the IT is a major factor.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 24, 2016 11:18:45 GMT
Henley 16902 note saying it was repaid at 11:48 yesterday - money in account 23 hours later due to 'technical error'. My earnings reconcile again to my FC Total. To be honest the discrepancy immediate flagged up the issue to me yesterday, and I can keep an eye on it. FC has a bizarre set of shadow accounting that as people remind us is a legacy of auction days. The transaction statement carries no time stamp and is NOT all transactions. Failed bids, withdrawn loans and defaults are simply removed retrospectively from the history. The financial summary is clearly something done last and should always be treated as subordinate to "Net Earnings plus Total net amount you invested". That is why it is good to keep "net amount you invest" in the round thousands. To know what you have invested in FC this is the formula not what they tell you in the box in the corner. Ineptitude or Incompetence? Certainly failure to invest in the IT is a major factor. Quite right. The transaction statement is just what they choose to show us, not the full client account records. I have always used the 'rule of round thousands' so as to see the FC errors, and currently our two accounts are both one loan part sale up in the FC total. Rather than fix the flaws in the basic engine, FC choose to reconcile accounts and make corrections when they feel they need to. Probably this is wise because they would screw up the redesign of the basic engine - too much cost and risk. We did take them to task heavily through the forums a couple of years ago, but it had no effect other than for them to admit the problem and the reconciliation process as the fix. It's all water of a duck's back - not our duck here of course. Frankly FC could not be bothered to fix it because only a few lenders notice anything and it's harder and more costly to fix properly than it is worth. Generally the engaged manual bidders/sellers are of no long term interest to FC and they wish such problems will just go away, certainly they will not spend development money on it. For example of attitude, look at the fact that manual bidders cannot bid on the E loans now because of a fault in not providing the interest rate to the bid screen. We can see them and watch them fill, but cannot bid. FC are sorry and hope to fix it. Not inept or incompetent. Just casual and careless, unprofessional and sloppy in IT development. If you don't like it, tough, they can get their loans filled without you - except just perhaps for property.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Nov 24, 2016 11:23:46 GMT
Maybe we should have an FC "Lost Property" thread where those who have "found" the odd £20 they don't own could help reunite it with those that have lost some  Personally I too have always subscribed to the invest in whole £100s or £1000s with FC so you always know what your balance should be, much easier than making sense of their transaction logs. |
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Nov 24, 2016 11:34:31 GMT
Henley 16902 note saying it was repaid at 11:48 yesterday - money in account 23 hours later due to 'technical error'. My earnings reconcile again to my FC Total. To be honest the discrepancy immediate flagged up the issue to me yesterday, and I can keep an eye on it. FC has a bizarre set of shadow accounting that as people remind us is a legacy of auction days. The transaction statement carries no time stamp and is NOT all transactions. Failed bids, withdrawn loans and defaults are simply removed retrospectively from the history. The financial summary is clearly something done last and should always be treated as subordinate to "Net Earnings plus Total net amount you invested". That is why it is good to keep "net amount you invest" in the round thousands. To know what you have invested in FC this is the formula not what they tell you in the box in the corner. Ineptitude or Incompetence? Certainly failure to invest in the IT is a major factor. Quite right. The transaction statement is just what they choose to show us, not the full client account records. I have always used the 'rule of round thousands' so as to see the FC errors, and currently our two accounts are both one loan part sale up in the FC total. Rather than fix the flaws in the basic engine, FC choose to reconcile accounts and make corrections when they feel they need to. Probably this is wise because they would screw up the redesign of the basic engine - too much cost and risk. We did take them to task heavily through the forums a couple of years ago, but it had no effect other than for them to admit the problem and the reconciliation process as the fix. It's all water of a duck's back - not our duck here of course. Frankly FC could not be bothered to fix it because only a few lenders notice anything and it's harder and more costly to fix properly than it is worth. Generally the engaged manual bidders/sellers are of no long term interest to FC and they wish such problems will just go away, certainly they will not spend development money on it. For example of attitude, look at the fact that manual bidders cannot bid on the E loans now because of a fault in not providing the interest rate to the bid screen. We can see them and watch them fill, but cannot bid. FC are sorry and hope to fix it. Not inept or incompetent. Just casual and careless, unprofessional and sloppy in IT development. If you don't like it, tough, they can get their loans filled without you - except just perhaps for property.
I have just taken a complaint through the full FC complaints procedure & ultimately the final answer was - "We know about the issue but choose to ignore it, so what are you going to do about it" - Customer service is an alien concept to FC
Obviously the ombudsman is the next step but I have better things to do with my time, so I now treat FC with the contempt that they deserve.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 24, 2016 13:20:58 GMT
We clearly agree, Butch. No time for the Ombudsman? Perhaps the Wild Bunch should reassemble and take direct action. Where is Sundance? Was there a dangerous chameleon in the gang? They will be Frightened Chitless.
|
|
gl51
Posts: 10
Likes: 3
|
Post by gl51 on Nov 25, 2016 11:58:24 GMT
My latest instance is that I bought a load of parts at auction. The debits are there on my statement. However they do not show under my loan parts report. FC say I must have sold them, but cannot identify them in my sold transaction list. Sale transactions now identified, so FC 1 point in the plus column!
|
|
