Peer-to-peer lending sites: MSE guide discussion

masonic

Roland_Flagg wrote: »

I'm not sure how much I can say about this as there is legal action being taken. But for anyone who is in the same boat I could do with a bit of advice regarding the Lendy London Loan.
Lendy has passed our details onto HCR solicitors to act in the interests of the lenders. But they want a £200 a month retainer.
I only have a tiny amount in one of the loans, and just seems like a lose-lose situation.
Any advice?

I've not really been following developments, but my understanding is that anyone who has ever held any loan part in the loan in question could potentially be drawn into the court case and there seems to be a general view that lenders could be held jointly and severally liable, although I can't ascertain whether that would actually be the case. If so the amount you have invested is irrelevant, it would not limit your liability; your liability would be limited by your assets and you could lose more than you invested. However, that scenario seems rather unlikely.

I also understand that Lendy only passed on details of those who contacted it for advice, presumably as a courtesy given that they cannot offer you any advice themselves.

The question of whether £200 per month is worth paying to a firm to whom you've been introduced by a third party, rather than seeking your own representation or doing nothing at all, is not a question anyone else can easily help you answer.

I would simply observe that litigious types who know what they are doing (and the fact this matter hasn't been thrown out of court already suggests just that) tend to follow the money. So, do you think you would look like a juicy target in terms of your personal assets and accumulated wealth?

gallygirl

Roland_Flagg wrote: »

I'm not sure how much I can say about this as there is legal action being taken. But for anyone who is in the same boat I could do with a bit of advice regarding the Lendy London Loan.
Lendy has passed our details onto HCR solicitors to act in the interests of the lenders. But they want a £200 a month retainer.
I only have a tiny amount in one of the loans, and just seems like a lose-lose situation.
Any advice?

I'm affected by this as well, £50 only, but don't know what to do.

AdrianC

The chances of the borrower winning any kind of damages against you are infinitessimal. The whole suit is a delaying and scaremongering tactic, no more. And it's working...

They have been given a deadline of the start of April to actually lodge a claim against the borrowers or their claim will simply be dismissed. Yes, they could theoretically later start a new one, but they'd have to have very good grounds as to why they failed to follow that earlier court requirement, else it'll get lobbed straight out, too.

Joe_Bloggs

AdrianC Wrote:-

They have been given a deadline of the start of April to actually lodge a claim against the borrowers or their claim will simply be dismissed. Yes, they could theoretically later start a new one, but they'd have to have very good grounds as to why they failed to follow that earlier court requirement, else it'll get lobbed straight out, too.

Who has a deadline ? Are the borrowers or lenders lodging a claim of XX? against the lenders or borrowers? What was the earlier court requirement ?


Hushing this nonsense up will not help sort it out in my view.
J_B.

masonic

Joe_Bloggs wrote: »

Who has a deadline ? Are the borrowers or lenders lodging a claim of XX? against the lenders or borrowers? What was the earlier court requirement ?

In short a borrower has threatened legal action against lenders in this loan holding them liable for the consequences of not advancing more funds when they were needed. However, the borrower appears to have no contractual right to these funds.

The court was willing to entertain this claim, and gave an order to Lendy to provide the names and contact details of every lender involved in the loan, with which Lendy duly complied. That was subject to an action being brought within the timeframe above.

AdrianC

Joe_Bloggs wrote: »

Hushing this nonsense up will not help sort it out in my view.

If you're in the loans in question, there's a lot of information been sent out from the platform.


Basically, it's a borrower who doesn't want to repay, and is throwing all sorts of legal threats about. They have zero merit, and if ever they get heard by a court, they'll be thrown straight out. They have been told by a court that they can bring the claim against the lenders directly, but haven't actually done so yet. They now have a deadline to do that.

Roland_Flagg

Thanks for the reply.
Just one final questions, about the view of HCR.
If it comes to needing a legal defense are they the best option despite their costs, or am I better off finding my own?
And if the case is won, would all legal fees be covered?

masonic

Roland_Flagg wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.
Just one final questions, about the view of HCR.
If it comes to needing a legal defense are they the best option despite their costs, or am I better off finding my own?
And if the case is won, would all legal fees be covered?

Why not cross that bridge when you come to it? It certainly makes no sense to obtain legal counsel in anticipation of possibly being drawn into a legal dispute of an unknown nature.

The court may or may not award costs if you are taken to court and win, but those costs are likely to be limited in nature and probably wouldn't include expenses you incurred before any action was brought against you.

Nardge

Masonic & Nardge / Page 107 / Message 2131 -

"The Kuflink ISA is not flexible and has a £35 transfer out fee, so there is nothing you can do to rectify the situation. Presumably you subscribed to the Ratesetter ISA first during this tax year, so this is your valid IFISA for the 2018/19 tax year. HMRC will receive annual returns from all ISA providers shortly after the end of the tax year. These will highlight you've subscribed to an invalid combination of ISAs. The subscriptions to the second (and subsequent) IFISAs will be deemed invalid and will be removed (along with any interest) by the providers. Any interest will be taxable. HMRC will write to you about the action that is being taken."

Masonic & Nardge / Page 107 / Message 2133 -

Nardge “Due to my misunderstanding of written words, I have inadvertently subscribed into several different IF ISAs in the same tax year.

As I’d rather iron-out my mistake now and avoid future hassle with HMRC, I should fill-out ‘Transfer Out Forms’ for the sums above using the Ratesetter ISA Forms, thereby extracting the same from Lending Crowd, Assetz Capital, and Kuflink ISAs, albeit with a prospective £35 fine from Kuflink. I presume this is the best way to resolve things without HMRC involvement...
I look forward to hearing from you,
With Kind Regards
P.S. Id’ offer you a medal and a bottle of champagne for all your help!”

"For the flexible ISAs (AC and LC), you just need to withdraw all of the money you have paid in during this tax year (such that they will show an available ISA allowance of £20,000) - this should lead to both providers reporting that no subscriptions were made in 2018/19.

It is only the non-flexible Kuflink ISA that would require a formal transfer to RS. But I wouldn't do it if I were you. The financial consequences of HMRC dealing with it will be minimal. Certainly a lot less than £35. If you leave the money in cash in your Kuflink ISA then that will keep things as simple as possible for when the money comes to be removed by Kuflink on the instruction of HMRC."

====================================================================================

Good Day Masonic,

Just a quick one following on from the above, if you had a moment to spare please…

So I successfully removed the sums from both AC (Assetz Capital) and LC (Lending Crowd)

This leaves the £142.58 with Kuflink, which I’d also love to have removed prior to the 5th of April.

With the recent introduction of a secondary market, I could now:
- Remove the £142.58 for a 0.75% Fee from a ‘loan form’ to standalone ‘holding account’ cash form aka ‘Select Invest’
- That sum can be left indolent in the latter until 05/04/19
- As a result, there will be no 2018/2019 IFISA contribution with Kuflink, and HMRC will be kept at bay

Please confirm and refute as necessary if you have a minute

With Great Gratitude

masonic

Nardge wrote: »

So I successfully removed the sums from both AC (Assetz Capital) and LC (Lending Crowd)

This leaves the £142.58 with Kuflink, which I’d also love to have removed prior to the 5th of April.

With the recent introduction of a secondary market, I could now:
- Remove the £142.58 for a 0.75% Fee from a ‘loan form’ to standalone ‘holding account’ cash form aka ‘Select Invest’
- That sum can be left indolent in the latter until 05/04/19
- As a result, there will be no 2018/2019 IFISA contribution with Kuflink, and HMRC will be kept at bay

Unfortunately, the introduction of the secondary market does not change the fact that the Kuflink ISA is not flexible and you have paid into it this tax year.

Your choices remain the same:-
- Transfer the invalid IFISA to a valid ISA (e.g. RS) before the end of the tax year (cost: £35)
- Allow HMRC to instruct Kuflink to invalidate and remove the money (cost: a small amount of tax on interest within the ISA)