|
|
Post by brightspark on Jun 14, 2019 18:35:01 GMT
In the update which landed in my inbox today the Administrators have been kind enough to acknowledge that recent loan repayments received prior to the appointment of Administrators are held in the client account.. They are being reviewed and the analysis will be shared with investors in the forthcoming report to creditors due within 8 weeks of Administration. Talk about getting blood out of a stone. Still no confirmation that this money actually less deductions belongs to investors and when it will actually be repaid remains one of life's little mysteries. They really do know how to wind one up! Administrators have a legal duty to perform under strict conditions and allowed 8 weeks in law to do so. They have barely had 3 so far. Yes and no doubt the FCA had a legal duty to........................ Look where that has landed us.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jun 14, 2019 21:25:43 GMT
Yes-s, but they charge far, far too much to do this nitpicking. Nice work if you can get it. One of the reasons for the large cost being the need to dot every i, and then check it three times, because they know all the creditors, employees, ex directors, guarantors, press, and NWNF lawyers are just itching to climb all over them. I.e. we dun it to ourselves ... Personally I wouldn't do it for twice what they charge ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 21:35:54 GMT
Administrators have a legal duty to perform under strict conditions and allowed 8 weeks in law to do so. They have barely had 3 so far. Yes and no doubt the FCA had a legal duty to........................ Look where that has landed us. Would you rather there was no regulation, no client account, no provision fund, no restriction on moving assets out of the business, no account reconciliation, no oversight, and absolutely no comeback or return of capital whatsoever? The legal duty is under the insolvency act by the way, not under the FCA but under UK law.
|
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Jun 15, 2019 13:29:56 GMT
I don't disagree with anything you've said. Please all just remember..... HQ was all paid up weeks ago (as far as I know) There is little consideration to be done. The lendy system will record our loan amounts and interest rates. Lendy's costs of servicing the loan will have been paid up front by the borrower so not much to work out there. We are not members of a peer2platform(2peer) mechanism, we are members of peer2peer. The platform/Lendy's involvement should be practically nil, pre or post going bust. As far as I'm concerned, Lendy are simply paper-pushers to service my collection/payments from the borrower. Unlike other loans which I appreciate are still in recovery phases, our patience for HQ payments must not be generous. From the administrators, we should soon be in possession of either our capital or a letter confirming its theft, along with associated crime number. Not sure you've been following all the updates. It was not 'all' paid back. The loan 'went wrong', went 'real messy' in fact, the kind of messy caused by tripping over the dog while carrying a plate of beans on toast, having the dog then eat some of it, and after picking it up then slipping on a present the cat left. Extra fees will no doubt be claimed for cleaning that up and picking up the pieces. I doubt you are willing or able to get a court case won in a small number of weeks, so we may as well give RSM a chance to get things sorted. Other than that, I agree with your sentiments. What I find concerning is that we have not even been told the sale price as I can't see what damage that would do at this stage, unless it is feared to stimulate legal proceedings against those involved, and excuses legal defenses are still being prepared. Cheers and sorry... I didn't mean the loan was ALL paid (made good) up to investors. What I meant was that Lendy had received ALL it was going to receive from the proceeds of the sale (without taking legal action), whatever as you say that was. Unless Lendy wasn't/isn't going to accept the initial (and assumed by me to be reasonably large) payment, it has no business in withholding distribution of funds to Lenders accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Jun 15, 2019 13:36:09 GMT
who else could lay claim to any repayment.i thought the contracts are between lenders and borrowers and the borrowers have paid us the lenders some of it back.what %age we will have to wait and see.we havent been told yet what it was sold for or if any further recovery plans. The administrators can take their fees, Lendy can take their fees, secured creditors can claim, and those who were on Lendy's old non-P2P terms may well also be in front of unsecured investors. In fact, it may transpire in due course that many of the updates Lendy made to their terms are considered unfair and unenforceable, which would put virtually all investors behind secured creditors, behind administrator fees, and behind lendy fees. Open question..... wouldn't being FCA approved ensure that the FCA had signed-off all of Lendy's terms to be fair, legal and enforceable?
|
|
|
|
Post by rooster on Jun 15, 2019 13:40:26 GMT
Yes and no doubt the FCA had a legal duty to........................ Look where that has landed us. Would you rather there was no regulation, no client account, no provision fund, no restriction on moving assets out of the business, no account reconciliation, no oversight, and absolutely no comeback or return of capital whatsoever? The legal duty is under the insolvency act by the way, not under the FCA but under UK law. I'd consider investing without any of that protection, but not for 12%, maybe stick a zero after the 2 
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jun 15, 2019 20:40:12 GMT
The administrators can take their fees, Lendy can take their fees, secured creditors can claim, and those who were on Lendy's old non-P2P terms may well also be in front of unsecured investors. In fact, it may transpire in due course that many of the updates Lendy made to their terms are considered unfair and unenforceable, which would put virtually all investors behind secured creditors, behind administrator fees, and behind lendy fees. Open question..... wouldn't being FCA approved ensure that the FCA had signed-off all of Lendy's terms to be fair, legal and enforceable?As part of the FCA authorisation process, ALL contracts have to be inspected by the FCA as part of the process. So who at the FCA deemed those contracts acceptable and subsequently rubber stamped them?
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on Jun 15, 2019 20:44:40 GMT
Yes-s, but they charge far, far too much to do this nitpicking. Nice work if you can get it. They are highly qualified legal professionals with an understanding of law far beyond many lawyers. 9 out of 10 who study at great expense and apply to be insolvency practitioners fail to achieve the required standard. It's no use howling at the moon when the people who are charged with rectifying the mistakes of lendy are doing so with a fine tooth comb. Unfortunately, they are not "rectifying the mistakes of Lendy", they are just winding up the remains, and charging us for the burial. If the administrators eventually apply to the Courts for a Court sanctioned clawback, that is another story, and can be classed as "rectifying" the mistakes of Lendy.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Jun 16, 2019 11:03:41 GMT
Yes and no doubt the FCA had a legal duty to........................ Look where that has landed us. Would you rather there was no regulation, no client account, no provision fund, no restriction on moving assets out of the business, no account reconciliation, no oversight, and absolutely no comeback or return of capital whatsoever? The legal duty is under the insolvency act by the way, not under the FCA but under UK law. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that it has been obvious for a long time that Lendy was up to its neck in insurmountable problems so what we now have is a slamming of the stable door by the authorities long after the horse has bolted along with much investors cash. Personally for over a year salt was rubbed in the wound as I was unable to extricate myself as Lendy made it impossible to liquidate i.e. sell my holding. Lendy is not an isolated financial mess. there have been Collateral, London Capital and Finance, Woodford/Hargreaves Lansdowne, RBS Global, to name a recent few all pointing to a lack of ethical standards and probity permeating the City. The political response will be to summon the City grandees to appoint yet another committee to again look at the situation. Talk about poachers turned gamekeepers. I don't pretend to know the answers but as a small investor I either take the miserable circa 1% on offer from the banks, use an IFA who wants a large slice or risk it all in the likes of Lendy. It is a no win situation in which gullible pensioners with largish pension pots can be ruined. So yes I do want meaningful Regulation that protects the man in the street from the worst excesses of financial misconduct and I would consider £140M of non-performing loans to be in that category. HQ is part of that mess. It was a straightforward project with a good product and somewhere along the line the financing went badly awry. I suppose it will all come out in the wash eventually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 12:50:59 GMT
Would you rather there was no regulation, no client account, no provision fund, no restriction on moving assets out of the business, no account reconciliation, no oversight, and absolutely no comeback or return of capital whatsoever? The legal duty is under the insolvency act by the way, not under the FCA but under UK law. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that it has been obvious for a long time that Lendy was up to its neck in insurmountable problems so what we now have is a slamming of the stable door by the authorities long after the horse has bolted along with much investors cash. Personally for over a year salt was rubbed in the wound as I was unable to extricate myself as Lendy made it impossible to liquidate i.e. sell my holding. Lendy is not an isolated financial mess. there have been Collateral, London Capital and Finance, Woodford/Hargreaves Lansdowne, RBS Global, to name a recent few all pointing to a lack of ethical standards and probity permeating the City. The political response will be to summon the City grandees to appoint yet another committee to again look at the situation. Talk about poachers turned gamekeepers. I don't pretend to know the answers but as a small investor I either take the miserable circa 1% on offer from the banks, use an IFA who wants a large slice or risk it all in the likes of Lendy. It is a no win situation in which gullible pensioners with largish pension pots can be ruined. So yes I do want meaningful Regulation that protects the man in the street from the worst excesses of financial misconduct and I would consider £140M of non-performing loans to be in that category. HQ is part of that mess. It was a straightforward project with a good product and somewhere along the line the financing went badly awry. I suppose it will all come out in the wash eventually. You should be thankful that it was likely due to the actions of many investors on this forum that have placed the company into administration. If you are aggrieved with the actions of the FCA then perhaps you should organise similar response to the FCA. Did you write to them during the period of time you specified that "salt was being rubbed into the wound" outlining exactly where you see the failings? Venting on here as an outlet may or may not make you feel better, but if everyone else also does the same how can you expect any changes to be made in the way they conduct their regulatory activities? Why not spend your rainy Sunday afternoon collating all information and communications with LY and write a structured timeline of events as you have seen them unfold and then send copies to the FCA and your MP via recorded delivery?
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Jun 16, 2019 16:27:05 GMT
My concerns were more about the old boys networks that permeate the City and which work against the interests of small investors. I would end my part of the debate here as the HQ forum is not the appropriate place
|
|
|
|
Post by Please turn me over on Jun 22, 2019 17:40:16 GMT
Today:  (From SSC with kind permission of the photographer.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2019 18:34:06 GMT
Which flats are ours to repay the shortfall I wonder. The penthouse should get a decent return..
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059 
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Jul 10, 2019 8:09:13 GMT
Our ovine friend at the purple place has posted the final figures from the administration and it doesn't make for pretty reading. |
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,052
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Jul 10, 2019 8:59:12 GMT
it doesn't make for pretty reading. I've got plenty of defaulted loans with a worse return rate!
Have I read the report correctly. £140k in administrators costs for selling the building (didn't need to go to court to reposses or anything). That would make BDO look cheap(ish)
|
|
