ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 1,350
|
Post by ptr120 on Aug 8, 2019 21:14:26 GMT
MoneyThing this really does seem to be turning in to a high-speed car crash. I will spend some time going through the documents but on first glance there does seem to be a few inconsistencies: on 19/6 you stated that: *removed at the request of MT* [so 13/6] to *removed at the request of MT* While the stocking cars were on site, *removed at the request of MT*. Some of the vehicles 8removed at the request of MT* some of the business finance assets *removed at the request of MT* However, we now know from the administrators report that you've had for some time and have only released to us today as it has been filed with CH that: On appointment [ 30 May, so information that was known to you, or should have reasonably have been known to you prior to the update that you provided on 19 June], we attended the Company's business premises in Brightlingsea and discovered that the vast majority of all vehicles had been removed from site. Having obtained access to the premises, it was apparent all paperwork relating to the Company and its business had been removed. The administrators report also differs from your own commentary provided today that states that when you attended on 30th May [you] found it locked with all cars removed. MoneyThing perhaps you can explain to me why you told me on 19/6 that 1) all stocking cars where on site 2) Some vehicles and some business finance assets were not on site. However, On 30/5 as the administrators report states that on that date, all cars had been removed? Additionally, all business assets [paperwork] was missing as of 30/5 but on 19/6 you were still reporting that only some business assets were missing. I'm going to be going throught the paperwork timelines and updates on this with a fine tooth comb on this one
|
|
sb
Posts: 166
Likes: 118
|
Post by sb on Aug 8, 2019 21:34:09 GMT
P2P is full of crooks and just not worth the returns for all the losses and stress to go with it.I shall be sticking to the access accounts and Ratesetter from now on Ratesetter has also lost quite a lot money (25mln) due to some crooks from VTG. This has wiped out their net assets and forced them to raise 15mln of additional capital. It is probably the most safe platform but miles more risky than a bank account.
|
|
|
Post by SophieThing on Aug 8, 2019 21:50:41 GMT
MoneyThing this really does seem to be turning in to a high-speed car crash. I will spend some time going through the documents but on first glance there does seem to be a few inconsistencies: ptr120, Could you please remove the copied updates from our site? In answer: the updates on 19/06 are a copy of the historical updates from the original loan. The original post was added on the 30th May, the day we appointed Administrators and referred to a site visit the previous Thursday (23rd). I will see if we can adjust the update dated 19/06 as it s a bit confusing as it is. So to be clear, the majority of cars were there 23rd when audited and were not there 30th, as per the update. We did not attend on 30th- it was Admins. We received the Admin report today. Kind regards Sophie
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 855
|
Post by averageguy on Aug 8, 2019 22:44:22 GMT
PTR...Why don’t you contact MT direct on such matters...you know the drill on copying updates ...
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,132
Likes: 1,951
|
Post by rocky1 on Aug 9, 2019 5:32:52 GMT
Fantastic now that's what you call a proper update.i could read that over and over its got everything in it.you just could not make that sort of thing up.i bet if a few other platforms were a bit more upfront (FS) mainly we would be amazed at the antics of most of these borrowers.p2p lending really has got it all.
|
|
seb8072
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 99
|
Post by seb8072 on Aug 9, 2019 8:37:59 GMT
How do we know that the documents relating to the Ferrari aren't also based on forged signatures?
|
|
pi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 57
Likes: 28
|
Post by pi on Aug 9, 2019 8:59:35 GMT
MT what were the routine checks that you carried out here? How do we know that other loans with MT are not fraudulent? Do you have any checks in place to make sure other loans are fine specially pawn loans? This is very bad for all P2P business leave aside MT. If there are no checks to stop directors from raising money multiple times on the same asset, p2p is doomed.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Aug 9, 2019 9:06:30 GMT
Collateral managed a full recovery of 4 cars that went missing, surely MT, FS and Moorfields can work together, and get a good result here.
|
|
liso
Member of DD Central
Posts: 390
Likes: 394
|
Post by liso on Aug 9, 2019 9:18:06 GMT
Collateral managed a full recovery of 4 cars that went missing, surely MT, FS and Moorfields can work together, and get a good result here. COL's robust approach included warning the borrower that if the cars were not returned they would pursue criminal charges against them. Platforms generally seem reluctant to do this and I see nothing in MT's update to suggest they are considering this. Unfortunately.
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Aug 9, 2019 9:24:40 GMT
Collateral managed a full recovery of 4 cars that went missing, surely MT, FS and Moorfields can work together, and get a good result here. COL's robust approach included warning the borrower that if the cars were not returned they would pursue criminal charges against them. Platforms generally seem reluctant to do this and I see nothing in MT's update to suggest they are considering this as an option. Unfortunately. Perhaps you should read it again! Particularly the line commencing "To date, our focus".
|
|
liso
Member of DD Central
Posts: 390
Likes: 394
|
Post by liso on Aug 9, 2019 9:30:49 GMT
COL's robust approach included warning the borrower that if the cars were not returned they would pursue criminal charges against them. Platforms generally seem reluctant to do this and I see nothing in MT's update to suggest they are considering this as an option. Unfortunately. Perhaps you should read it again! Particularly the line commencing "To date, our focus". Oops. My bad. Apologies MoneyThing
|
|
|
Post by Duane Dibley on Aug 9, 2019 10:00:17 GMT
I will see if we can adjust the update dated 19/06 as it s a bit confusing as it is. No. Just no. The only record lenders have of the history of loans is via the updates. Sounds like you've been caught with your pants down by not doing basic HPI checks on all the vehicles. Don't compound your errors by changing past updates with the benefit of hindsight. I seem to remember another platform thought it would be a good idea to change historic updates to present them in a better light. It didn't end well.
|
|
amwinv
Member of DD Central
Posts: 198
Likes: 282
|
Post by amwinv on Aug 9, 2019 10:03:43 GMT
I really don't understand why the administrators can't be made to work for a % of the final recovered amount, rather than by total of hours "worked". There's nothing to incentivise them to do anything with any great speed, when they get paid more to do less, for longer. And the hourly rates are staggering.
I can't see much at all coming back from this.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,213
Likes: 11,404
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 9, 2019 10:15:35 GMT
I will see if we can adjust the update dated 19/06 as it s a bit confusing as it is. No. Just no. The only record lenders have of the history of loans is via the updates. Sounds like you've been caught with your pants down by not doing basic HPI checks on all the vehicles. Don't compound your errors by changing past updates with the benefit of hindsight. I seem to remember another platform thought it would be a good idea to change historic updates to present them in a better light. It didn't end well. They arent changing the record/history, they are correcting to match history, so it can be read in the correct context. At the moment the comments in the previous update are related to the date that the update was reposted rather than the original post (which is still viewable with the correct date & context on the site elsewhere) . This is misleading & confusing to anyone reading the update.
|
|
|
Post by highlevel on Aug 9, 2019 10:21:30 GMT
MT what were the routine checks that you carried out here? How do we know that other loans with MT are not fraudulent? Do you have any checks in place to make sure other loans are fine specially pawn loans? This is very bad for all P2P business leave aside MT. If there are no checks to stop directors from raising money multiple times on the same asset, p2p is doomed. This is what I don't get - If MT have a charge over an asset such a car and are carrying out regular checks as per updates, surely these checks included monitoring HPI etc to ensure the borrower isn't rinsing the assets though multiple finance providers? Or is it a case that borrowers are simply allowed to self certify, and any on going monitoring from MT is simply a desktop exercise of reconciling a list of assets provided by the borrower?
|
|