Member Info for seamus12

The problem is
How do you make sure the women who went in for a basic op but came out with brain damage and shortened life expectancy due to negligence is suitably compensated, but that doesn't end up with ambulance chasers and even accident creators to get comp
I'm afraid scum of the earth companies come in all forms, including lenders and CMC's . Remember the 2008 crisis was caused by lenders lending to customers that couldn't afford their mortgage and yet they lost their homes and very little fines or compensation were made to the actual borrowers
I think I'm basically saying there will always be arse holes in every industry and I'm sure Amigo aren't totally innocent and that's why some leach like CMC's can make hey while the poop settles

IKN
I have to disagree with you TO A DEGREE
My farther in-law died of asbestosis and the first lawyer basically said they couldn't help. I was then in a meeting discussing selling advertising to a PPI lawyer and the conversation came up. They managed to get us 90k they also got at least that but thought they deserved it. Also with PPI it was a hidden product half the time so totally deserved what they got.
However there is no doubt there are companies that have no ethics and are just out to screw companies for a quick buck
Blind I'm not lumping you into any category as I have no clue about your company

Blind I've not been on for a few hours so unsure how far back this thread goes as I've had a beer and can't be bothered reading back
I think the point was that if you can show to a court that 30/50% of the claim was being taken from CMC's you have a case to say to the FCA/Court that if Amigo could cut out CMS's they could expand their offer without effecting the average pay out to an individual

Argentarius
Linkedin direct message buddy

STIRRER

Lets hope the HMS DEALIZABETH can help stir her to clearer waters

Dave
Don't forget approx 40% of any figure is not a cash payout but a redress

Jimmy
I do agree with you that some loans would of being given to those that shouldn't of been approved but think we also have to think of those that genuinely need help in the form of a loan without many hundred % interest and CMC's along with chancers are potentially hurting them if Amigo goes.
Lets face it, people lose their homes every day because their circumstances change yet we accept that. I've not heard of anyone being made homeless through an Amigo loan

Hey Davidhos
I wouldn't put my mortgage on it but i thought it was 3k plus FOS
Looking back at RNS I think 60% was cash and the rest redresse

But we know Share scheme is for 3 or even 4 year (can't remember) so based on that wouldn't you say GJ is planning a longer term windfall ?
Whatever the deal looks like today surely the prize is in 3 years + when they could cash in with a debt free profitable amigo2
Also, even if 100% of all profit was been paid out the markets would still see those profits which would come
Also thinking it through, i'm thinking this was on his mind when he did the assets Vreg

Don't get me wrong I'd be the first line to cheer if this goes through and don't think he would of mentioned it unless he has a plan.
What I can't see is how this number would satisfy anyone
Look at the 3 months running up to Sept- complaints cost £47m of which £28m was cash. I think average claim was 3k so that's 15,600 claims so £1,800 cash per claim, but that could be a little as £900 to the actual cliamment so if deal was agreed these numbers could settle double the amount
So thinking it through 35m + 5% for 3 years(15m?)+ redress @ £50m/£900 = 55,555 complaints dealt with
Sorry for doing my fag packet workings on here but i've just made myself feel better about holding lol
Jimmy- I'd like you opinion on this if you'd be so find :) If you increase % each year and maybe get to another 150m that would/could be 175,000.
Or am I totally missing the point of the deal ?

At the end of the day, they can know all the top brass at FCA but it is a judge in a court that needs to sign off

Hi All
What I don't understand is the fact the deal has an offer of 35m plus 5% of profit for 5 years. What was a good year for Amigo ? 70m profit ? or lets say 100m gross = £5m x 3 years = £15m plus the £35m comes to £50m
I assume this would be on top of loan redress and right offs or I personally don't think it would touch the sides
Can someone shed some light for me please ?
Personally I wouldn't care if the deal went through with 100% profits for 3 years which would give a nice offering to those that have been missold (I know I know, why did they take the loan and all that but that ship has sailed)
If they said we would expect to make 70m per year for 3 years so that's 210m + what's left of the 150m would come to 300m ish. If that is what it takes to get a fresh start I'd take that deal

Hey MrI
Holding as always lol You are right and if this does get passed we'll be good

Hey MrIgoat
How you doing ?
Vinson, as much as I'd LOVE to think 90% of claims are sorted I think you are referring to the RNS that stated that 90% of claims under the Vreg had been sorted. If 90% of all claims had been sorted this arrangement wouldn't get passed or be needed

Hey Mouse
I have to agree with Jimmy on this one
All assets are taken over by administrators so they can realize the value to then be distributed to debtors. You are right re customers who are waiting for a service/product and have paid as those guys normally go to the back of the line.
However who would purchase a loan book with all this uncertainty attached to it ? In normal times the loan book would be sold and monies used to pay down debt. Any loan book can be sold at anytime and passed from business to business. That was the main cause of the crash in 2008 so I assume regulation has improved. Even if Amigo could sell their book their debtors would get first bite so there would little or nothing left for claimants which should give them a great case to get this through

Trade. I googled it
In the absence of written guarantees, they face significant difficulties in doing so: the principle of limited liability means that a company's shareholders or parent company will not ordinarily be liable for the debts of their companies or subsidiaries.
But if you look at G3E it was a subsidiaries that courts ruled was liable for debt

Imagine if they can pull this off and box off the **** storm

from the bbc today
"The Amigo announcement is very short on details. Until we know a lot more, it's not possible to say if customers should vote to approve this scheme."

last four roles she's classed as Interim
Like GCN says she's been there since March and maybe she feels she's had her nose pushed out by GJ new team
https://www.linkedin.com/in/siobhan-lee-96b9a36/?originalSubdomain=uk