Print

[xraider]

Ira, IIRC, the wife's also in bk.  I'd have to check.

The wife's opp is pretty much jurisdictional, saying that the bk court should abstain from interfering in marital property rights.  Nothing at all about the merits of the allegations.  If you want it, I'll send it to you Mon. 

[ira01]

I sent the following e-mail to Bryan Maas of Lender services:

The following loan qualifies for repurchase under Prospers ID-Theft Guarantee.
http://www.prosper.com/lend/listing.aspx?listingID=174869

I'm also attaching the necessary argument for my beleif that this loan falls under Prospers ID-Theft Loan gurantee repurchase program.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your forthcoming response.

Beerbud1

So now that it is almost 6 days later, have you received any response?

[beerbud1]

I sent the following e-mail to Bryan Maas of Lender services:

The following loan qualifies for repurchase under Prospers ID-Theft Guarantee.
http://www.prosper.com/lend/listing.aspx?listingID=174869

I'm also attaching the necessary argument for my beleif that this loan falls under Prospers ID-Theft Loan gurantee repurchase program.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your forthcoming response.

Beerbud1

So now that it is almost 6 days later, have you received any response?

No! I haven't gotten a response from Customer service or Bryan Maas, Manager of Lender Services. Are you Surprised?

[snake]

I sent the following e-mail to Bryan Maas of Lender services:

The following loan qualifies for repurchase under Prospers ID-Theft Guarantee.
http://www.prosper.com/lend/listing.aspx?listingID=174869

I'm also attaching the necessary argument for my beleif that this loan falls under Prospers ID-Theft Loan gurantee repurchase program.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your forthcoming response.

Beerbud1

So now that it is almost 6 days later, have you received any response?

No! I haven't gotten a response from Customer service or Bryan Maas, Manager of Lender Services. Are you Surprised?

1. not surprised
2. they can't give you the usual bullshit this time, since any correspondence they have with you would expose them to legal (and perhaps set a precedent)
3. their best response is not to respond

p.s. suggest using certified mail

[Cushie]

Sending it certified mail is a fantastic idea. 

[beerbud1]

I decided to call Bryan Maas as it has been 6 days. He answered the phone, was cordial, and asked me "How do I know it was ID theft". I told him that I had sent and e-mail with an attachment of the Federal Court Pleading.
He Says "Oh let me check my Junk folder for your e-mail". There it was in the junk mail folder. He asked me where it was proven and I referred him to paragraph 23. He read it and then said it would be referred over to Tom Pigoski, Director of Security.
He said Pigoski would investigate it and if in fact it was determined that it was ID theft, Lenders would be reimbursed.

[ira01]

I decided to call Bryan Maas as it has been 6 days. He answered the phone, was cordial, and asked me "How do I know it was ID theft". I told him that I had sent and e-mail with an attachment of the Federal Court Pleading.
He Says "Oh let me check my Junk folder for your e-mail". There it was in the junk mail folder.

Good to see that Prosper, a 100% online business, can't figure out how to keep important business emails from being eaten by the junk mail filter -- reminds me of the time they couldn't open a .pdf. 

He asked me where it was proven and I referred him to paragraph 23. He read it and then said it would be referred over to Tom Pigoski, Director of Security. He said Pigoski would investigate it and if in fact it was determined that it was ID theft, Lenders would be reimbursed.

You should have asked him why, exactly, a lender had to bring this to Prosper's attention (again) before Prosper "investigated" it.  Prosper is a frigging DEFENDANT in the federal BK proceeding, and has been served with all the documents (and has responded in that court in a manner that should get it and its attorney sanctioned for misleading the court).  Moreover, we know that Doug Fuller read this thread days ago, so it isn't as if this is any surprise to Prosper.  I call complete bullshit on Maas's response to you.

[bamalucky]

This thread should be in the lobby.

[cowdog]

This thread should be in the lobby.

I agree, this is lobby material.

[ira01]

This thread should be in the lobby.

I agree completely.  That suggestion was made early in the thread, but it was never moved.  Maybe someone could PM one of the mods.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Sounds like Prosper is right on top of this. 

[snake]

I decided to call Bryan Maas as it has been 6 days. He answered the phone, was cordial, and asked me "How do I know it was ID theft". I told him that I had sent and e-mail with an attachment of the Federal Court Pleading.
He Says "Oh let me check my Junk folder for your e-mail". There it was in the junk mail folder. He asked me where it was proven and I referred him to paragraph 23. He read it and then said it would be referred over to Tom Pigoski, Director of Security.
He said Pigoski would investigate it and if in fact it was determined that it was ID theft, Lenders would be reimbursed.

send a follow up email to tom pigoski, cc bryan maas, cc andrew & witchel

follow up with certified mail,

p.s. dont forget to remind them that they have to provide their findings to the court as well.

[Cushie]

If Maas' answer on the phone doesn't piss you off, nothing will.  Beyond the pale.  Truly outrageous.

[Xenon481]

I decided to call Bryan Maas as it has been 6 days. He answered the phone, was cordial, and asked me "How do I know it was ID theft". I told him that I had sent and e-mail with an attachment of the Federal Court Pleading.
He Says "Oh let me check my Junk folder for your e-mail". There it was in the junk mail folder.

Good to see that Prosper, a 100% online business, can't figure out how to keep important business emails from being eaten by the junk mail filter -- reminds me of the time they couldn't open a .pdf. 

He asked me where it was proven and I referred him to paragraph 23. He read it and then said it would be referred over to Tom Pigoski, Director of Security. He said Pigoski would investigate it and if in fact it was determined that it was ID theft, Lenders would be reimbursed.

You should have asked him why, exactly, a lender had to bring this to Prosper's attention (again) before Prosper "investigated" it.  Prosper is a frigging DEFENDANT in the federal BK proceeding, and has been served with all the documents (and has responded in that court in a manner that should get it and its attorney sanctioned for misleading the court).  Moreover, we know that Doug Fuller read this thread days ago, so it isn't as if this is any surprise to Prosper.  I call complete bullshit on Maas's response to you.

Maybe the various lawyer letters sent by some lenders went straight to the Junk folder?

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Prosper's Lender Services desk filters emails from lenders into the "junk basket?"

Suddenly everything is starting to make sense.

That's rich - even by Prosper's low standards.