mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 349
Likes: 384
|
Post by mah on Aug 16, 2020 12:06:08 GMT
Wonder when the first legal case will be brought against MT themselves.... A Complain to the Financial Ombudsman is certainly possible, given a lack of a joint Forum like in the cases of FS, Len.. and Col. Wondering how viable it is to take the case(s) to a small claims court. Would that be to a Local Small Claims Court or would it be at the place where MT is registered.
|
|
radar
Member of DD Central
Posts: 108
Likes: 63
|
Post by radar on Aug 16, 2020 17:21:38 GMT
<<<<<A Complain to the Financial Ombudsman is certainly possible, given a lack of a joint Forum like in the cases of FS, Len.. and Col. Wondering how viable it is to take the case(s) to a small claims court. Would that be to a Local Small Claims Court or would it be at the place where MT is registered.>>>>
There is a risk that such action would mean a "close down" instead of an orderly" wind down"
|
|
up
Posts: 59
Likes: 62
|
Post by up on Aug 19, 2020 19:32:16 GMT
Interesting announcement on NEX site distancing the fund raise from our defaulted loan.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Aug 19, 2020 20:04:17 GMT
Interesting announcement on NEX site distancing the fund raise from our defaulted loan. Cheeky cxxts.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Aug 19, 2020 20:31:12 GMT
Interesting announcement on NEX site distancing the fund raise from our defaulted loan. Cheeky cxxts. Not usually a fan of profanity; but on this occasion - absolutely!
|
|
johni
Member of DD Central
Posts: 368
Likes: 329
|
Post by johni on Aug 20, 2020 8:55:06 GMT
For me I would prefer if Moneything did not sell to the existing borrower under any circumstances. I would be happy to take a larger loss and sell to someone else. Better still develop the site out and pull the rug from under the borrower.
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,855
Likes: 1,856
|
Post by archie on Aug 20, 2020 9:49:03 GMT
For me I would prefer if Moneything did not sell to the existing borrower under any circumstances. I would be happy to take a larger loss and sell to someone else. Better still develop the site out and pull the rug from under the borrower. I wonder if there might be some synergy with ABL loan 1000137?
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 855
|
Post by averageguy on Aug 20, 2020 11:42:41 GMT
Interesting announcement on NEX site distancing the fund raise from our defaulted loan. All ties in with the name change..not wanting to tarnish the brand lol
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 855
|
Post by averageguy on Aug 20, 2020 11:48:02 GMT
For me I would prefer if Moneything did not sell to the existing borrower under any circumstances. I would be happy to take a larger loss and sell to someone else. Better still develop the site out and pull the rug from under the borrower. Yes I noticed that they state they are negotiating to acquire the site
|
|
up
Posts: 59
Likes: 62
|
Post by up on Aug 20, 2020 13:32:49 GMT
Interesting announcement on NEX site distancing the fund raise from our defaulted loan. All ties in with the name change..not wanting to tarnish the brand lol Unsure if lol. On a narrow point re CH: how can the PLC, as an asset of our borrower company in administration, so easily be transferred out (notification dated subsequent to administration but "effective" May). Perhaps we are to be thankful we dont have to pay PLC director fees during the admin - lol.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 349
Likes: 384
|
Post by mah on Aug 30, 2020 12:36:21 GMT
<<<<<A Complain to the Financial Ombudsman is certainly possible, given a lack of a joint Forum like in the cases of FS, Len.. and Col. Wondering how viable it is to take the case(s) to a small claims court. Would that be to a Local Small Claims Court or would it be at the place where MT is registered.>>>>
There is a risk that such action would mean a "close down" instead of an orderly" wind down"
Not sure if that would be a bad thing though. At least the Admins won't charge more than them (if properly negotiated as a %, like C&G) and wouldn't change the Ts & Cs half way. At least, we can expect some Professionalism.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,231
Likes: 11,422
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 30, 2020 12:59:06 GMT
<<<<<A Complain to the Financial Ombudsman is certainly possible, given a lack of a joint Forum like in the cases of FS, Len.. and Col. Wondering how viable it is to take the case(s) to a small claims court. Would that be to a Local Small Claims Court or would it be at the place where MT is registered.>>>>
There is a risk that such action would mean a "close down" instead of an orderly" wind down"
Not sure if that would be a bad thing though. At least the Admins won't charge more than them (if properly negotiated as a %, like C&G) and wouldn't change the Ts & Cs half way. At least, we can expect some Professionalism. That seems like a dangerous assumption. In both the current P2P winddowns the administrators have initially suggested that only moderate fees will be paid but then charged both those fees and platform fees. They have also 'reinterpreted' t&cs if not amending them. Administrators job is to work for the company not the investors and if the company, ie its creditors, are due fees then they are obliged to levy them. Professionalism is a subjective term - not convinced that many investors in the companies being wound up would necessarily share a positive view of the term, lack of comms, not really acting in investors best interests in loan recoveries, maximising fee earning opportunities, weak grasp of P2P. MT are supposedly not making a profit managing the winddown, administrators certainly will be.
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 530
Likes: 380
|
Post by toffeeboy on Aug 31, 2020 11:21:45 GMT
For me I would prefer if Moneything did not sell to the existing borrower under any circumstances. I would be happy to take a larger loss and sell to someone else. Better still develop the site out and pull the rug from under the borrower. Surely if the borrower was to buy at a price that resulted in any loss to us (or anybody) then it is fraud and misrepresentation or at least some form of wrongdoing. Am I missing something?
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 349
Likes: 384
|
Post by mah on Sept 5, 2020 11:42:55 GMT
Not sure if that would be a bad thing though. At least the Admins won't charge more than them (if properly negotiated as a %, like C&G) and wouldn't change the Ts & Cs half way. At least, we can expect some Professionalism. That seems like a dangerous assumption. In both the current P2P winddowns the administrators have initially suggested that only moderate fees will be paid but then charged both those fees and platform fees. They have also 'reinterpreted' t&cs if not amending them. Administrators job is to work for the company not the investors and if the company, ie its creditors, are due fees then they are obliged to levy them. Professionalism is a subjective term - not convinced that many investors in the companies being wound up would necessarily share a positive view of the term, lack of comms, not really acting in investors best interests in loan recoveries, maximising fee earning opportunities, weak grasp of P2P. MT are supposedly not making a profit managing the winddown, administrators certainly will be. Agreed that the Admins are trying to maximise their Profits by any means, but so are MT. MT too are charging the platform Fees + Admin Fees.
Admins have to go by some Rules and CC have some say or Monitoring and they can be taken to Court (eg., C&G's 5% Fee). At least they can't produce something out of thin air. But MT has changed the Goal Posts half way through and are applying those rules (new Fees) even to those who haven't signed up to those new Ts & Cs. Moreover, they have applied those Charges for the entire period for which the Loan was in Trouble, much before MT declared being in Administration. So, when it suited them, they didn't declare them as Defaults, as it'd have hurt their credibility. But now that they are in Admin, they are charging Retrospectively and that too those investors who have NOT signed up to their revised Ts & Cs. And their is no Recourse, you can't complain and there is NO CC to fight the cases as a group and MT simply don't listen. So, the only alternative is to take them to FOS and/or Small Claims Court. If it went to a 3rd Party Admin, there has to be a CC and people could collectively fight (like Coll, Ly, FS) - at least there would be a fighting chance. And the Charges won't be any more than MT are already charging. MT charges have no limits and can be charged for any period of time (from when MT thinks the trouble started and until they recover - as they can delay recoveries to suit their pocket). Whereas C&G Charges at least have a Cap (% of Loan Value / Recovered Value). In my opinion, the additional MT Charges (for administering) are NOT at all less than that of, say C&G, and the results are almost Zero. I haven't seen any recoveries except one since they went into Admin (my exposures are similar on both MT & FS), however, the Meter is Down and eating away on whatever little would eventually be recovered. I don't see any incentive for MT to accelerate the Recoveries ; instead, it is detrimental to their Profits. On my only Recovered Loan, the MT Fees were 51-57% of the Total Recovery Fees and around 20% of the Recovered Amount. So, in my opinion, although MT are trying to project this as a Money Saving exercise for the Lenders, the Lenders would be paying more in the long run. I might turn out to be wrong (would love to see it that way), but with the Admin option, at least there will be a Cap on the Charges. Moreover, how do we know that there are NO Conflict of Interests in MT Distress Sales ?
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 349
Likes: 384
|
Post by mah on Sept 5, 2020 17:28:01 GMT
Also, note the following from their post dated 04/06/19 (MT Stability and Commitment to Lenders) :
Living Will We are required to have a plan in place in the event that we go into administration which is known as a ‘living will’. In that unlikely event, we have elected to manage our own wind-down by retaining a skeleton staff and managing the loan book to completion. Our interest ‘spread’ and the provisions we have made already with our service providers allow us to cover the costs during wind-down and electing to do that ourselves means the costs will be lower than using a third party provider. The way that we manage client money means that client funds, whether invested in a loan or un-invested in our client money account, would be separate from our own funds and could not be used to satisfy our business creditors.
|
|