|
Post by dodgeydave on Nov 10, 2016 8:43:11 GMT
Why can i not find this loan application on the sitemap. It seems to have disappeared. Could you please explain danraj rebsrep
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Nov 10, 2016 17:04:24 GMT
Let's all hope that this will be a busy thread...
|
|
mnm
Posts: 65
Likes: 16
|
Post by mnm on Nov 11, 2016 9:05:20 GMT
Well done @magenta14. It is good to see good things said when good things are being done.
|
|
|
Post by baggiesman on Nov 12, 2016 21:03:19 GMT
This recovery could, and should, have been 100%. Long before the IVA was instigated, ReBS held an undertaking from the director's solicitors that the proceeds of his house sale would repay the ReBS loan. When the sale fell through, ReBS shouldhave threatened court action unless the director allowed us to take a formal charge on the property. This wasn't done. ReBS sat on their hands and we then joined a long queue of creditors. The IVA supervisor was useless and allowed,the IVA to go past its 12 months, in breach of the agreement. This allowed another substantial claim to be admitted which, effectively, reduced payments to lenders by more than a third. At no point until they were prodded did ReBS engage properly with the supervisor whose fees, along with lawyers' costs, have risen by around £60K. The IVA supervisor should have been lent on to ensure that the property was sold as early as possible but ReBS did not deal direct, instead dealing through an utterly incompetent agent. Lenders could have dealt direct with the company director but, in my case, I was encouraged by thepromise of a recovery figure of 100p in the £ with no caveat that this might be less. Had this been explained properly at the outset, I would have taken care of my own recovery. This would have involved a CCJ threat backed up with High Court bailiffs to distrain property. The director's luxury house was full of goodies that could have been sold. ReBS do not appear to realise that speed is of the essence once a loan defaults, nor that their staff are allowed to get off their bottoms and actually go and see defaulting borrowers. ML has made claims regarding the underwriting of this loan that I do not believe. He was not with ReBS when the loan was granted. It is also the case that loans with another platform already in force were not disclosed by ReBS, despite the fact that their alleged 'underwriting' should have revealed these as the platform claims to check company bank account statements and carry out 'credit checks'. I appreciate that some lenders are so relieved to get anything back given the platform's record on recoveries, but this was not a case where any losses need have occurred.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 12, 2016 22:12:43 GMT
This recovery could, and should, have been 100%. Long before the IVA was instigated, ReBS held an undertaking from the director's solicitors that the proceeds of his house sale would repay the ReBS loan. When the sale fell through, ReBS shouldhave threatened court action unless the director allowed us to take a formal charge on the property. This wasn't done. ReBS sat on their hands and we then joined a long queue of creditors. The IVA supervisor was useless and allowed,the IVA to go past its 12 months, in breach of the agreement. This allowed another substantial claim to be admitted which, effectively, reduced payments to lenders by more than a third. At no point until they were prodded did ReBS engage properly with the supervisor whose fees, along with lawyers' costs, have risen by around £60K. The IVA supervisor should have been lent on to ensure that the property was sold as early as possible but ReBS did not deal direct, instead dealing through an utterly incompetent agent. Lenders could have dealt direct with the company director but, in my case, I was encouraged by thepromise of a recovery figure of 100p in the £ with no caveat that this might be less. Had this been explained properly at the outset, I would have taken care of my own recovery. This would have involved a CCJ threat backed up with High Court bailiffs to distrain property. The director's luxury house was full of goodies that could have been sold. ReBS do not appear to realise that speed is of the essence once a loan defaults, nor that their staff are allowed to get off their bottoms and actually go and see defaulting borrowers. ML has made claims regarding the underwriting of this loan that I do not believe. He was not with ReBS when the loan was granted. It is also the case that loans with another platform already in force were not disclosed by ReBS, despite the fact that their alleged 'underwriting' should have revealed these as the platform claims to check company bank account statements and carry out 'credit checks'. I appreciate that some lenders are so relieved to get anything back given the platform's record on recoveries, but this was not a case where any losses need have occurred. Is there anything that can be done to hold ReBS responsible for lack of timely action or otherwise?
|
|
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 Nov 12, 2016 23:10:01 GMT
This recovery could, and should, have been 100%. Long before the IVA was instigated, ReBS held an undertaking from the director's solicitors that the proceeds of his house sale would repay the ReBS loan. When the sale fell through, ReBS shouldhave threatened court action unless the director allowed us to take a formal charge on the property. This wasn't done. ReBS sat on their hands and we then joined a long queue of creditors. The IVA supervisor was useless and allowed,the IVA to go past its 12 months, in breach of the agreement. This allowed another substantial claim to be admitted which, effectively, reduced payments to lenders by more than a third. At no point until they were prodded did ReBS engage properly with the supervisor whose fees, along with lawyers' costs, have risen by around £60K. The IVA supervisor should have been lent on to ensure that the property was sold as early as possible but ReBS did not deal direct, instead dealing through an utterly incompetent agent. Lenders could have dealt direct with the company director but, in my case, I was encouraged by thepromise of a recovery figure of 100p in the £ with no caveat that this might be less. Had this been explained properly at the outset, I would have taken care of my own recovery. This would have involved a CCJ threat backed up with High Court bailiffs to distrain property. The director's luxury house was full of goodies that could have been sold. ReBS do not appear to realise that speed is of the essence once a loan defaults, nor that their staff are allowed to get off their bottoms and actually go and see defaulting borrowers. ML has made claims regarding the underwriting of this loan that I do not believe. He was not with ReBS when the loan was granted. It is also the case that loans with another platform already in force were not disclosed by ReBS, despite the fact that their alleged 'underwriting' should have revealed these as the platform claims to check company bank account statements and carry out 'credit checks'. I appreciate that some lenders are so relieved to get anything back given the platform's record on recoveries, but this was not a case where any losses need have occurred. This was one of the early loans which passed most lenders by, including me, so to hear the whole story is very disconcerting. A similar car crash is happening right now with H**** I******** S*******, and M****** L****** is to blame.
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Nov 13, 2016 12:40:34 GMT
This recovery could, and should, have been 100%. Long before the IVA was instigated, ReBS held an undertaking from the director's solicitors that the proceeds of his house sale would repay the ReBS loan. When the sale fell through, ReBS shouldhave threatened court action unless the director allowed us to take a formal charge on the property. This wasn't done. ReBS sat on their hands and we then joined a long queue of creditors. The IVA supervisor was useless and allowed,the IVA to go past its 12 months, in breach of the agreement. This allowed another substantial claim to be admitted which, effectively, reduced payments to lenders by more than a third. At no point until they were prodded did ReBS engage properly with the supervisor whose fees, along with lawyers' costs, have risen by around £60K. The IVA supervisor should have been lent on to ensure that the property was sold as early as possible but ReBS did not deal direct, instead dealing through an utterly incompetent agent. Lenders could have dealt direct with the company director but, in my case, I was encouraged by thepromise of a recovery figure of 100p in the £ with no caveat that this might be less. Had this been explained properly at the outset, I would have taken care of my own recovery. This would have involved a CCJ threat backed up with High Court bailiffs to distrain property. The director's luxury house was full of goodies that could have been sold. ReBS do not appear to realise that speed is of the essence once a loan defaults, nor that their staff are allowed to get off their bottoms and actually go and see defaulting borrowers. ML has made claims regarding the underwriting of this loan that I do not believe. He was not with ReBS when the loan was granted. It is also the case that loans with another platform already in force were not disclosed by ReBS, despite the fact that their alleged 'underwriting' should have revealed these as the platform claims to check company bank account statements and carry out 'credit checks'. I appreciate that some lenders are so relieved to get anything back given the platform's record on recoveries, but this was not a case where any losses need have occurred. Due to basic law of contract it is not usually possible to take a charge on a property relating to a debt or obligation that already exists. So unless there was some special circumstance ReBS could not have taken the charge after the sale fell through.
|
|
|
Post by baggiesman on Nov 13, 2016 18:30:51 GMT
With respect to dualinvestor, my point has been missed. I wasn't suggesting that ReBS took a charge. Of course they couldn't do this. However, there was nothing to prevent the director giving us a charge in return for not proceeding with enforcement action at that time. At this time the director was co-operating. The effect of this would have been to ensure ReBS lenders gained priority. As it was, ReBS did nothing until the IVA proposal was put forward months later. To magenta 14 I would say that much of the failure to recover in general on this platform has been down to ReBS inaction and dithering, as well as using agents not just the fact that the loans themselves were of poor quality. Recently ML posted on one loan that there was a deficit in the borrower's financial position but that he was optimistic of full recovery! In the early days of the platform, I had to point out to their legal officer, KG, that changes to a loan offering meant that those who had already lent had to be given the opportunity to withdraw bids. If you look at the economics of this site -scarcely any loans, masses of defaults, poor quality offerings, loans failing to attract sufficient funds, bonuses paid to many lenders, commissions paid to brokers, salaries paid to staff, physical overheads etc. etc.- it is difficult to forsee how the platform will survive as a viable entity. All the high-flown words of the ReBS 'mission statement' overlook the fact that resources need to be put into loan recoveries. However, if they acknowledge this too publicly, it makes people nervous because it implies a lot of failures. We have now reached a point where the failures are way beyond what any reasonable lender will find tolerable. The FCA currently have some 80 applications for authorisation from P2P/P2B companies. The best will succeed.
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Nov 13, 2016 19:52:26 GMT
With respect to dualinvestor, my point has been missed. I wasn't suggesting that ReBS took a charge. Of course they couldn't do this. However, there was nothing to prevent the director giving us a charge in return for not proceeding with enforcement. The debtor/guarantor was probably insolvent at the time as he entered a IVA a few months later. It would be a contravention of the Insolvency Act 1986 if he gave a charge at that time, it would have to have been disclosed in the IVA proposal and therefore make it likely that the other creditors would not have approved it and in the resulting bankruptcy the Trustee in Bankruptcy could have the charge voided. So I would suggest there was something to prevent the director giving a charge. Even if he had it was likely to be invalid.
|
|
|
Post by baggiesman on Nov 13, 2016 21:20:10 GMT
He was not insolvent. There were plenty of personal assets, including a property sold for £675,000. It was 8 months before the IVA was set up. ReBS had a lever that they should have used. It was the fact that the IVA supervisor did not progress the property sale within the 12 months that allowed another 'creditor' to surface just a week before completion of the sale. It was this claim, substantially allowed, that caused the recovery diminution. This was a case where the PG was actually worth something and could of bailed lenders out completely if ReBS had not screwed up the recovery. There are circumstances with regard to this 'recovery' that are highly suspicious which are magnified by the fact that ReBS failed to obtain and distribute to lenders a legally required report after 12 months. To date, they have also failed to identify the supervisor(s) or challenge the huge sums charged in fees. This is not about the law in essence, but about the competence of the platform to act in the best interests of its lenders. Perhaps if a member of the ReBS staff had turned up at the director's door with a couple of very big dogs, just for company.........not that I am suggesting the commission of violence or threatening behaviour...but it appears to be the position of the platform that staff stay glued to their office chairs. Debt recovery is a skilled business and requires something more than pressing keys on a computer. Pictures of the director's house and furnishings are still available on the web.
|
|
|
Post by oppsididitagain on Nov 14, 2016 17:44:29 GMT
M****** & S*** Ltd. (Application # 19) Entered default Summer 2014, IVA satisfied 10th November 2016, £0.64/£1.00. Well done and thank you to M****** L****** (Legal & Operations Coordinator). More of the same please...
...as there's a way to go: p2pindependentforum.com/post/148407I admire your enthusiasm and the fact that 64% was recovered... I think you should be asking ReBS : What happened to the other 36% , and the loss of interest When this loan went live on the ReBS website it stated no other existing debts.. When in fact this was a complete lie. Said Company already had a Funding Circle loan ! It also took out another FC loan hence why only 64% recovery As per baggiesman comments : we should have had a minimum 100% return
|
|
|
Post by oppsididitagain on Dec 2, 2016 7:53:00 GMT
Magenta14
Can you please explain how and why you see this as a success ?
Read the why are we safe to lend too/Why considering investing bit when the loan went live
The Directors have a net worth of £35k, owning 2 properties between them, with a c combined estimate value of £390k and approximately £355k equity. Net worth of the directors is equity in assets after liabilities, including mortgages, debts and personal guarantees to other lenders
Read the conversation in the discussion tab 'Errors in loan application ?' how May confirms a breach of their loan terms !
The loan was originally for £35k. 15 Repayments had been made reducing the outstanding capital to below this figure. In fact it was £22,465. So clearly the directors net worth should and would have covered this.
Yet you are jumping with joy that you will receive approx 40% return and lose 60% of your investment plus all the future interest.
The £10k loan settlement was made to ReBS by the directors of said company , this was an 'offer' not ReBS going through the complete recoveries process to get all of our deserved money back.. Personally I think we could have done a lot better, and recovered a lot more of our money.
|
|
|
Post by wilko44 on Dec 6, 2016 10:44:52 GMT
Hi Magenta,
Regarding the value of the recovery, as stated in the recovery email as a proportion of total capital loaned 50.12% has been reclassified as unrecoverable bad debt, and the remaining 49.82% of original capital loaned has been recovered and returned to lenders.
Whilst we have and will always aim to exhaust every available means to recover every penny of lenders' funds from defaulted borrowers, the unfortunate commercial reality is that this is not always possible.
In this circumstance, with the business wound up and liquidated with no dividend to unsecured creditors from the liquidation of the business, lenders were asked to decide between whether to accept a negotiated settlement figure from the loan guarantors or instead to proceed to take a chance on the possible returns from bankruptcy. The expected bankruptcy returns were low to nil as estimated by the debtor's insolvency practitioner and our legal agents' investigation into the guarantors estates, so whilst any non-full recovery is clearly not the 'perfect outcome', given the circumstances it represents a better recovery on capital than other possible scenarios.
The feedback that we receive after each lender poll is very valuable to us and informs how we conduct future lender polls, so we do request any feedback on this or any other decision polls to be emailed to our support team for analysis. Going forward we shall continue to put decisions like this to our lenders, as we believe that each lender who has capital outstanding in the defaulted loan in question has the right to be heard on the decisions taken to recover their capital.
In several situations, a balance must be struck between getting enough information from the debtor to enable lenders to make an informed and rational decision whilst still recognising the need for fast and decisive action.
|
|