Must be a first...

Be aware that FC's policy on CCJs has changed. Previous T&Cs for borrowers stated that, "(h) your business must not have any outstanding county court judgements of more than £250.00".

However, this has now changed and the FC underwriters will consider borrowers with outstanding CCJs above that level if the overall assessment of the borrowing company deems that it can still repay the loan.

A possible example of this policy in action is loan 6232 (150k) where one or more Credit databases shows a CCJ listing for the borrower of >£6k from as recently as April 2014. The auction took place in late May 2014 and the loan is currently live.

So, the inference would appear to be that ANY new auction appearing could be for a borrower with an outstanding CCJ, or even multiple CCJs.

Thanks for that, I had not noticed the change. The fact that any auction could be for a borrower with CCJs was demonstrated by 4907, which had  3 CCJs in force for well over the £250 when the loan was listed. FC did not know about them - and it was for FC to find them - until about six days after the loan went live. FC just made it RBR and took no action despite the borrower being ineligible for the loan. In discussion in the other place FC made it clear that there could be undetected CCJs on any new loan, which of course meant that lenders could not rely on FC's implied assurance that borrowers who had loans listed had no CCJs over £250. So this change of policy just protects FC from liability for unknown CCJs. If the policy is now to consider the effect of CCJs on the ability of the borrower to repay, then the appearance of a CCJ within the loan term should be treated similarly and some discretion used in the application of RBR, or its duration. If the borrower is still good for the loan with the CCJ, then the loan is good to be traded. 

FC has just downgraded loan 6232 stating that they have just received notification of a CCJ (maybe from here!).

More interestingly, while 'Live', the funds were never sent to the client as all of the loan documentation was not received (so they are now being returned and FC will pay the interest). I thought the loan only went 'Live' when the documentation was received (there have been enough comments about 'acceptance period extended as documents are in the post'). What would have happened on 28th June when the first payment was due? FC make the interest payment? Loan goes late - and then we're told that the reason the borrower hasn't paid is because they never got the money in the first place?

My guess would be that the money was still being held because of this CCJ problem and FC have been trying to sort things out before taking this action. It could be that the exposure on this forum has preciptated the decision, unlikely that they did not already know of the CCJ. I for one am pleased that they have resolved it in this way because I would have been very cross indeed to have another £800 tied up and untradeable on this loan to go with the £500 or so on 4907. I wonder if they had decided that it was OK to have this CCJ (and presumably there must be something different now from what they knew at listing) then would they tell us about it if they were not going to RBR it? I assume that if a CCJ crops up during the normal term the practice will be to RBR it as a credit event, then to evaluate its significance or resolve it, and then if it is judged acceptable to remove the RBR. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with having a CCJ given against a company - it could be a straight and honest dispute over a debt which is resolved by the court. It is failing to pay it, or being unable to pay it, which is the problem.

Thanks wysiati. It would seem that my impression of continuous diligent scrutiny of these applicant borrowers by FC is not soundly based. Perhaps we are seeing again the results of cutting out the middle man but still expecting the middleman's job to be done.
I am confused about dates because I was bidding on 6232 on 28 May, which must be when it closed, or was taken, and the first payment was 28th June. So I wonder why you were discussing this borrower's CCJ status with FC on 19th April (or even 19th May considering it wa listed on 21st May) before the loan was listed? How then can FC say to you (not on the loan notes) that it was 'not aware of the CCJ and would not have offered the loan had it been aware of it' when you had told them about it and directed then to the evidence (presumably). The note on the loan suggests that FC have only recently discovered the CCJ and that the fact that they were still holding the cash eight days before the first repayment is due to some other issue of paperwork completion. That stretches credibility somewhat.
Anyway, it does seem that your intervention may well have saved us from at least another long term RBR and that is much appreciated.