invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612 
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Dec 3, 2018 15:38:19 GMT
I think SFA would be a more accurate description.
IMO they're drowning under all these loans gone bad. Where are the new loans?
|
|
lofty
Posts: 101
Likes: 104
|
Post by lofty on Dec 3, 2018 16:05:48 GMT
So the borrower hasn't paid any interest since March but Lendy have been servicing the interest since then, breaching article 36H of the FCA regulations. What are we to believe? That wasn't my reading. They've been servicing this by releasing new tranches. In other words us investors have been loaning money to ourselves. (At the risk of saying something libellous the word "ponzi" springs to mind)
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Dec 3, 2018 16:11:36 GMT
So the borrower hasn't paid any interest since March but Lendy have been servicing the interest since then, breaching article 36H of the FCA regulations. What are we to believe? I think my understanding at this point is that interest was held on account but not the total required to meet the full loan extension which Lendy hoped to raise through subsequent tranches which didn't fill as required. They ran out of interest earlier this month and have stopped further payments. The error here in my view is the date of the loan extension. They agreed an extension term with the borrower did the paperwork but didn't raise the required funds. Before drawdown they should have amended the date in line with the funds actually raised.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Dec 3, 2018 16:32:20 GMT
So in March, the total loan was £12,049,456. Assuming the borrower is being charged 18% p/a, 2,168,902 was needed to fund the agreed extension. Since then a further 3,652,616 has been raised, easily covering the extension costs. If Lendy's next argument is that it was advanced to the borrower instead of retained, my next question is- why was more money advanced to a borrower already in default? Quite simply because lenders rank 3rd in Lendy's priorities after themselves and their borrowers.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 3, 2018 16:33:24 GMT
So the borrower hasn't paid any interest since March but Lendy have been servicing the interest since then, breaching article 36H of the FCA regulations. What are we to believe? I think my understanding at this point is that interest was held on account but not the total required to meet the full loan extension which Lendy hoped to raise through subsequent tranches which didn't fill as required. They ran out of interest earlier this month and have stopped further payments. The error here in my view is the date of the loan extension. They agreed an extension term with the borrower did the paperwork but didn't raise the required funds. Before drawdown they should have amended the date in line with the funds actually raised. I agree. Sorry to reference my own stuff, but I posted about this at greater length hereTLDR: In short, yes, this. It's not an isolated case either, just brings it to the fore. In apparent contradiction of their own policies, Lendy are now extending loans without actually having the interest in hand to service them. Which effectively means that now all performing loans should be considered to be being serviced hand-to-mouth month-by-month unless explicitly told otherwise. I'm surprised this specific point hasn't been the cause of more discontent. If I was an investor in this I would most certainly be progressing/escalating a complaint.
|
|
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 Dec 3, 2018 17:26:50 GMT
It still shows IOA even though it shouldn't. In the meantime, however, we are able to inform you that Lendy’s Board are discussing plans to introduce more categories of interest status  That will be: IOA; IA & NFC (No F'ing Chance) I assume Mythical will be one or maybe Apocryphal
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 11, 2019 22:37:36 GMT
Lendy seems to have removed the company name from the loan particulars. I believe it was Ry***** Leisure holdings? Most recent set of accounts, submitted last week show total assets worth £3. Accounts submitted for the previous year show £24m assets. Where have they gone? It seems we have a new company set up last week: B***** E****** North Yorkshire limited which SSSH doesn’t have a charge over (according to CH). Ry***** Leisure is not the borrower, if that was stated on the loan details, then its correct that its been removed*. There is a debenture over Ry***** Leisure (a group company), but the asset is charged to the borrower itself. Details are in the DDC thread for DFL019.
* with external advisors now involved with the loan book recovery it is perhaps encouraging if previous instances of mis-speak are being corrected.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 11, 2019 23:19:16 GMT
Jeepers unfortunately after studying dozens of sets of accounts over the last 18 months it has become blatantly obvious to me that they are rarely 100% reliable. There is also an issue that changes to share ownership are not being filed reliably and timely at CH making it hard to track (in relation to financial year end snap shots of accounts) the extent to which subsidiary undertakings have relevance.
(P******** V*** RLH) is currently showing at CH as being majority owned by an individual not by a parent group company, so its balance sheet should be reflected nowhere else.
One of the points I've been making across a number of threads recently is that none of this really matters until a borrower wishes to seek refinance from a finance provider that has a keener eye for such detail than p2p platforms do. (And I'm sure we all hope that refinance applications are in progress here)
Which is a very long winded (but less long winded than the House of Commons that I'm listening to at present ! ) way of saying that your comment that what you've observed is a removal of the balance sheet strength from another group company is indeed plausible.
|
|
|
|
Post by greeninvestments on Mar 12, 2019 6:21:41 GMT
This is concerning because are we sure Lendy definitely has a charge against the Land/property itself as oppose to just the company because what stops the company moving the asset to another company that we don't have a charge over and that company then refinancing it if Lendy doesn't actually have a charge over the land itself (e.g. does anyone know if Lendy has registered the charge with Land Registry?)
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 12, 2019 11:54:38 GMT
The land is a small fraction of what we have lent against .. allegedly a lot of it is the cabins on the land, but (looking at them) I am not sure even that comes close to the total thrown into the money pit.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Apr 2, 2019 16:25:30 GMT
Updated:
"There was a meeting toward the end of March 2019 with the Borrower, third-party advisors and Lendy to try to agree on a way forward. There are a number of potential options which are currently being considered and a decision of the way forward should be decided shortly."
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 5, 2019 14:56:24 GMT
Administrators were appointed over the borrowing company at the beginning of September, and the Administrators Proposals document is now available at CH. Worth noting in section 1 the company in March started a process of legal action against Lendy, and in section 2 that they launched a significant counter claim against Lendy prior to the appointment of administrators. Probably worth a read through in full.
Marketing of the site commenced recently (link to the markeing material and CH records is on DDC for those with access)
|
|
bulletbill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 223
|
Post by bulletbill on Nov 5, 2019 16:14:56 GMT
Administrators were appointed over the borrowing company at the beginning of September, and the Administrators Proposals document is now available at CH. Worth noting in section 1 the company in March started a process of legal action against Lendy, and in section 2 that they launched a significant counter claim against Lendy prior to the appointment of administrators. Probably worth a read through in full.
Marketing of the site commenced recently (link to the markeing material and CH records is on DDC for those with access)
Thanks MrC. What are the implications of this?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 5, 2019 16:20:21 GMT
Thanks MrC. What are the implications of this? The immediate implication is this is yet another example of a loan that will take RSM (as Lendy's administrator) time (and hence money) to manage and prepare to defend the counterclaim if it is persued by the administrators of the borrowers.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 5, 2019 16:37:39 GMT
Administrators of one company suing the administrators of another?
Yes on one level it makes sense when you go through the detail but boy does this feel like great news for the administrators of both companies and their lawyers.
As an aside, I wonder what would happen if two dead companies happened to be administered by the same company. Initially it was thought there was little or no connection but then one sues the other.
Will definitely be advising my kids to consider a career in company administration if I can persuade them its fun enough....
|
|
