As far as I'm concerned, they're contractually obliged to pay it. They can't fiddle the rules to suit.
I've a fair bit in this so will raise a complaint with the FOS if it's not paid.
As far as I am aware it is not contractual? Can you point to where in the terms of lending it states that bonus accrual WILL be paid no matter what?
I may be wrong, but I cannot find any reference to it.
I honestly don't care whether it's written into the Ts&Cs or not. If Lendy are going to show it on their website and in my account info as having accrued, ISTM to be totally unreasonable for them to decide later that they're not going to pay it. If there are circumstances where they know they're not going to pay it, they shouldn't show it as accruing on the website.
Can you imagine the furore that would develop if a mainstream bank were to decide not to pay the interest they previously had said would be accruing on a saver's account? They'd be crucified! And rightly so. I don't believe Lendy should be held to a lesser standard.
If the FCA are aware that Lendy are doing this, perhaps they told Lendy that the approval of their full authorisation won't happen until they end that practice. And perhaps that's why the BA was paid on PBL133 and DFL010. Not that I have enough faith in the FCA to believe that scenario is very likely.
Is there any reason they couldn't have a direct debit? You agree to prefund and 24 hours after the loan goes live they take your prefund from your direct debit linked account.
Technically I guess not although maybe there are some FCA rules that prohibit it.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK DDs don't work that quickly. The company requesting the money has to submit their request a few days before the funds are to be taken from your account. Lendy wouldn't know how much to ask for until the allocations are set at the time of the go-live, so they wouldn't get the funds until after the old 48-hour limit. And they'd still have the problem of some DDs failing for lack of funds in investors' accounts or because investors cancelled their DDs without telling Lendy.
I just wish somewhere down the line there was a court case that tested their supposed watertight T's&C's which exonerate platforms from any liability.
I suspect that what will trip platforms up in the end will be their failure to disclose material facts about borrowers and/or the security when promoting loans to invest in. Or possibly their failure to monitor loans so as to prevent losses being greater than they would have been with closer control.
The only question I have is when that will come -- before or after a platform's creators have 'taken the money and run' by passing the platform on to someone else.
I would have thought that FS would be the least likely to fail. Lets Consider the way it gets paid. A loan is paid along with interest at term so it is in their interest to get (good) loans that pay back.
Do we know that FS take no fees at all at the time a loan is made.
It's obviously a lot better when the interests of the platform owners coincide with the interests of the lenders.
I think this is the biggest problem in the P2P world. The only incentive platforms seem to have is to keep losses low enough that they don't lose their investor support. So if they can defer their losses long enough to get the platform to the point that the founders can exit -- Bob's your uncle!
But for platforms that don't need to prove that they are still alive (and FS certainly doesn't), the loan quality ought to improve over time as the people running the platform get more experienced.
The problem is that platforms make their money by arranging loans. The more loans they can supply to investors, the better their bottom line. It's only when they get to the point that the losses on their loans become so significant that they have trouble funding new offerings that they'll start being more selective and doing more DD and monitoring of their borrowers and loans.
ISTM that Lendy have reached that point, as their flow of new loans has dropped to a trickle and their main concern these days seems to be finding funding to keep the existing developments they've been funding from stalling.
ISTM that FS don't seem to have reached that point yet, though some renewals do seem to have taken an awful long time to fund. Part of the reason for FS's continued support from investors is, IMHO, because they've managed to avoid having some of their non-performing loans turn into losses by putting off the day of reckoning. When that day finally arrives -- if they're unsuccessful at postponing it forever -- their investor support could take a beating.
If the administrator of the wind-down plan is as effective at dealing with the loan book as FS seem to be at dealing with it, the wind-down plan for the portfolio of 6-month loans could go on for years.
43% filled! It appears I underestimated peoples appetite for risk.
I think if anything was underestimated, it was the power of the thought of a 14% return to blind punters to the risks. It's 52% funded now. The renewal of the loan on the collection of NI properties was a bit smaller than this loan (£725k vs. £938k) and took about four weeks to become fully funded. Will this loan take longer than that? Or will the 14% work its magic?
To add another personal insight...
In the early days of North Sea development -- late 1970's -- I was working for an oil company. They were concerned about the cost of transporting workers offshore, so they thought about using a good-sized ship with a helideck to do the job. I was on one of the sea trials of the operation. When we got out to the destination platform, it was quite a challenge getting the helicopter to and from the ship to shuttle the workers. (I was offered a visit to the platform, but they weren't sure they'd be able to get me back to the ship, so I declined.) And, IIRC, the sea wasn't particularly rough that day.
I don't know if there were any more trials, but they certainly gave up on the idea of transfers by sea.
I must admit that I did enjoy the idea that this endurance boat could be used for this purpose -- it was worth it for the entertainment value!
I have sent another chaser to them today to see if i glean any further details from L.
da2279: Thanks for continuing your pursuit of this, which hopefully will keep Lendy from conveniently forgetting about it.
Inasmuch as over a month has passed since they mentioned they were working on the new tab, perhaps this would be an appropriate time to ask them what their target timing for that is, and whether they expect to be able to meet that target.
A second (?) charge against the title was registered in December 17 by a newly incorporated company which has a loose connection to the COL Student flats in Bradford. Links to CH are on DD Central.
Should we be encouraged by this? If someone is willing to lend against this security and have their charge rank behind the Lendy loan, ISTM that they have a bit of confidence that their charge might be worth having.
I suppose an alternate scenario might be that the lender was making a loan against something else entirely and the borrower offered a second charge on our property as a sweetener. The lender might not ascribe much -- or any -- value to the lower-ranking charge but ISTM that they'd be crazy not to take it if offered.