Especially if your responses are limited like it is in an unsecured note.Īs many here have stated, once the loan is turned over to collections the borrower has nothing more to lose, might as well stop paying. So you should be willing to do whatever it takes to keep him paying you until it is paid in full. The borrower is still your customer, if you will, until he has paid off this note. You do not want to alienate your borrower, nor encourage him not to continue making acceptable efforts to pay down his obligation. Difficult for other lenders to rely on though, but not wrong. Nothing unusual, nor wrong, heck my business does the same. Typically if the borrower continues to communicate and make efforts (has a conscience) to pay his debt the administrator/lender will report that debt as “as agreed”, which is the same as saying “current”. But they are not required to, nor are they required by a document to report it a certain way. While this is not dictated by the LRA nor loan docs it is a fairly standard business practice to do so, and is a stick that Prosper can bring to bear. Side note: The problem in the past was Prosper was not making that timely call, now they are and we are still complaining.Ģ) Report the borrower to a CRA. Yes they have had a standard business practice of turning most of them over fairly soon after the 30 days (especially if there has been no borrower communications), but these documents do not dictate that. This is the reason I think Prosper put a 3-4 month clause in for this catch up agreement). They only have to turn it over sometime after 30 days (not at 31 days, nor 32 days, or anything until some might argue 120 days. Those for our argument are ġ) Wait 30 days then decide within what timeframe to turn this Note over to collections. Prosper as our administrator has a couple of reactions (remedies, as stated in the Loan & LRA Docs) that they can (or even read that “must”, I do not care) eventually take. Now if the borrower takes a different action “does not pay as the note states”. Again simple action/reaction, although a negative reaction (to take no action is still an action). The borrower makes payments as agreed and we do not take remedies as allowed to us. We lenders promise to loan to the borrower X dollars and they then promise to pay back said amounts over time with interest on a certain schedule. These Prosper agreements are no different. A tit for tat if you will, given this action there will be this reaction. The Borrowers Loan Agreement and the LRA, for that matter almost any contract you care to mention, are a give and take document. Since there is still misunderstanding I will blame it on my poor attempts so far, so I will try to find another avenue of approach. I will try to explain my position a little differently. The threats went on for a long time for it just to poof. org huffing and puffing with no real intent. Maybe the thought is that Prosper is likely to lose the class action case and so there'll be nothing left to award other plaintiffs in other cases.ĮTA: I was kind of disappointed to see WFT either abandon or lose sight of his 'Prosper did not give permission to make partial payments' line of reasoning and shift instead to the idea that the LRA gives Prosper the 'rights to do just about anything.' It's beginning to feel like a Whomp-the-Mole game.Ĭould be - I often suspected it was just a lot of. Quote -But the class action wound up putting the kibosh on that. Quote from: NewHorizon on November 14, 2009, 06:42:46 am. Collections – Hardship Arrangement are Benefiting Lenders

Prosper loans and hardship arrangements