GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322 
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jan 11, 2017 18:00:54 GMT
The problem is that the position quoted above isn't the only thing involved. Investors in PBL020 have lent their money to SS/Lendy, and it has been relent to the Garden Centre. Some will argue that because of that arrangement the obligation to repay investors belongs to SS irrespective of what they did with the money and what the Ts&Cs said. If the loss by investors is large enough -- and ISTM that it's likely to be -- then some will be willing to take SS/Lendy to court over this. If that happens, IMHO that will pose more of a threat to the platform -- via a loss of investor confidence -- than the actual loss on the loan might. I am aware of comments on the PBL20 thread and elsewhere that some disagree with the legal position put forward by SS. But I was responding to the point that SS had "slipped back into silent mode" and they really should be communicating on the comments made about PBL20. SS could not have made the legal position any clearer if they had tried and assuming that legal position has not changed (and we have no reason to think it has) then there isn't really anything further to be said at this stage. No useful purpose would be served by SS talking now about an as yet unspecified threat of legal action.
I wouldn't worry about the prospect of legal action and possible impact on investor confidence:
- People threaten legal action all the time - a lot is just talk. - the SS platform is extremely popular despite all sorts of negative comments by some on this board - The argument against SS looks weak - the fact that the money flows from lender to SS/Lendy to borrower does not negate where the credit risk lies as specified by the T&Cs - I would expect the provision fund to be used especially if there were the loss of investor confidence you imagine
On that final point the provision fund is discretionary - both on amounts paid out and paid in. So the use of the provision fund will not affect the viability of the platform.
I must take issue with your comment that SS could not have made the legal position clearer if they had tried. In my opinion the complete opposite is the case. They cannot,by posting an update that contradicts the loan's terms and conditions, contract out of the terms and conditions of a particular loan that investors agreed to when they decided to invest their money in that loan. The brief update you refer to has no legal weight in my opinion. In my opinion the update you refer to is what has muddied the waters in the first place rather than made things crystal clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Jan 11, 2017 22:50:55 GMT
Georget
Do you mean my reference to this in the Update tab?
"In the event that there is a shortfall then Lendy will pay you a proportion of the recovery proportionate to the amount invested by you in the loan (clause 5.3.1).".
If so why do you say SS "contradicts the loan's terms and conditions" when in fact they are actually referring to and merely rephrasing what are in the T&Cs (in clause 5.3.1)?
Far from contradicting the T&Cs as you suggest, the update is an explanation of how the T&Cs you agreed to apply to this loan. That is precisely why I said that SS gave a clear statement of the legal position - because it was based on the T&Cs.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jan 12, 2017 1:19:58 GMT
You could well be right and I could be wrong.
I haven't been able to find the terms and conditions with 5.3.1 in them so I assume the terms and conditions on the website now are the new ones.
my view which could be wrong was that they were trying to mix the Old terms with the new terms but that may be wrong.
are the terms and conditions, which include clause 5.3.1 that you refer to, still available to view somewhere?
clearly if they have restated the terms and conditions that were in place and govern. this particular loan then it would seem what you say is correct.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Jan 12, 2017 6:48:12 GMT
You could well be right and I could be wrong. I haven't been able to find the terms and conditions with 5.3.1 in them so I assume the terms and conditions on the website now are the new ones. my view which could be wrong was that they were trying to mix the Old terms with the new terms but that may be wrong. are the terms and conditions, which include clause 5.3.1 that you refer to, still available to view somewhere? clearly if they have restated the terms and conditions that were in place and govern. this particular loan then it would seem what you say is correct. No lender can be bound to terms and conditions that SS has never made available to them. SS claims in the new T&Cs that lenders purchasing loan parts on the secondary market will always be shown a copy of the Loan Contract when they first invest (which would allow them to verify exactly which set of terms apply to the loan in which they are investing). However, this does not happen in practice. One document that is available on the SS site (and is linked in ilmoro's FAQ thread) is an explanation of the new structure and comparison with the old. See savingstream.co.uk/documents/newstructure.pdf. The key point being: "OLD STRUCTURE
Lendy Ltd was responsible for covering all repayments and shortfalls as it was both the borrower and the lender.
NEW STRUCTURE
As a Lender to the Borrower directly (via the Nominee Company), Lendy Ltd no longer have any direct responsibility for covering any shortfalls"
The above document also states "Most existing loans will be transferred to the new structure after a period of consultation and consideration. We may not transfer those loans ending soon as it may not be worthwhile/commercial to do so." SS appears to allude to PBL020 remaining under the old terms in the loan updates, and the legal charge is not yet registered to the new holding company, but I would not say even this situation is certain if the old T&Cs have not been made available to lenders investing after the new terms came into effect. The only way of viewing the old terms I am aware of is via an internet archiving service (e.g. web.archive.org/web/20150919113942/http://www.savingstream.co.uk/terms) "5.3 If the Asset is not sold at auction, Saving Stream will settle the Borrower's loan, at the reserve price, and legal title to the Asset will pass to Saving Stream, as agent for the Investors, in accordance with the terms of the Loan Agreement and the CCA. Saving Stream will then, at its discretion, seek to find a private buyer for the Asset or arrange a further auction. If Saving Stream sells an Asset privately or at a subsequent auction, the net proceeds of the sale shall be used to settle amounts in the following order:
5.3.1 principal amount of loan which was funded by, and is repayable to the Investors (allocated in proportion to the loan amounts funded);"Which seems to explain what is written in the loan update and does not contradict the statement that Lendy Ltd is responsible for covering all repayments and shortfalls, although this does not appear to be mentioned specifically in those T&Cs - only in the other document they have provided lenders.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 12, 2017 8:18:31 GMT
GeorgeT for reference - links to useful SS info can be found here. There are also further useful links within the FAQ (follow the link in the indicated thread) Both threads are pinned at the top of the SS board. Within the old T&cs, interpretation of this clause may be pertinent '4.5 By funding a loan, you are agreeing to enter into a Loan Agreement with Saving Stream. ' Compare to 7.8 in new T&Cs.
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Jan 18, 2017 8:48:17 GMT
really hoping for weekly updates........... like that was ever going to happen From the 1st post in this thread, from SS "This should see regular, detailed and accurate improvements to our weekly loan updates."
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Jan 18, 2017 12:50:00 GMT
Should being the operative word.
|
|
|
|
Post by rb5286 on Jan 19, 2017 18:33:11 GMT
Newest update on any loan is over 3 weeks old. If you're going to make promises, then keep them...or the investor will lose confidence. There has been a few warning signs with SS lately. Namely, the lack of transparency and openness with the people risking their money with them.
I for one will start removing funds if the situation doesn't improve. Will put in Real estate and increase my Vanguard index tracker allocation :-)
|
|
moist
Member of DD Central
Posts: 241
Likes: 251
|
Post by moist on Jan 20, 2017 9:29:01 GMT
ref 56 , 'sales particulars being prepared' ...it been on the market for months(for less the the loan)!! Can we believe anything!!
|
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Jan 23, 2017 12:50:25 GMT
savingstream. I've asked for this before. One would think that a mature, growing platform such as you are would have figured out how to launch loans properly by now. Other platforms can, why can't you? By properly, I mean at some designated time, on the day they have been promised. Cancelling launches, letting them drift for several days, and launching at any random time from 7am to 7pm, just screams chaos at SS towers and/or contempt for your lenders. Some of us have lives outside of P2P and do not welcome this waste of our time. Here's a helpful hint. Work out what date the loan can realistically be expected to launch, then add... oh.. a couple of days for contingencies, then announce the later date as the launch date? It would also be nice if repayments are expected around the same time, a new launch should occur after these, and not before, where possible.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Jan 23, 2017 12:58:39 GMT
Jan 19, 2017 at 6:33pm magenta14 and esmeralda like this QuotelikePost Options Post by rb5286 on Jan 19, 2017 at 6:33pm
Newest update on any loan is over 3 weeks old. If you're going to make promises, then keep them...or the investor will lose confidence. There has been a few warning signs with SS lately. Namely, the lack of transparency and openness with the people risking their money with them.
I for one will start removing funds if the situation doesn't improve. Will put in Real estate and increase my Vanguard index tracker allocation :-)
Hi. How does this type of fund compare to P2P? Is it as easy to invest and as lucrative with rates of interest? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Jan 25, 2017 15:26:56 GMT
savingstream . It would also be nice if repayments are expected around the same time, a new launch should occur after these, and not before, where possible. No-one listening, as usual... 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 25, 2017 15:51:37 GMT
savingstream . It would also be nice if repayments are expected around the same time, a new launch should occur after these, and not before, where possible. No-one listening, as usual... It does seem that the days of SS communicating on this forum has long gone. Have you tried e-mailing the new rep? Very responsive, helpful and friendly. He has got a lot to get through, but you should consider dropping him an e-mail to see what response you get
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 25, 2017 15:52:16 GMT
Yup. Note to self: send no new funds to SS until after business hours (once confident that nothing is about to be repaid)...
|
|
|
|
Post by 101proof on Jan 26, 2017 12:00:27 GMT
Are we still waiting for the updates that were promised? Wow, my confidence in this platform has taken yet another hit
|
|
