___ |
Rule 15Ga-1 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.15Ga-1) for the reporting period ______________ to ______________.
|
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): ______________
Commission File Number of securitizer: ______________
Central Index Key Number of securitizer: ______________
|
_X_ |
Rule 15Ga-2 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.15Ga-2)
|
Item 2.01. |
Findings and Conclusions of a Third Party Due Diligence Report Obtained By the Issuer
|
NEWDAY PARTNERSHIP TRANSFEROR PLC
|
||
(Securitizer and Depositor)
|
||
By:
|
/s/ Paul Sheriff
|
|
Name: Paul Sheriff
|
||
Title: Chief Financial Officer
|
||
|
Deloitte LLP
Hill House
1 Little New Street
London
EC4A 3TR
Phone: +44 (0)20 7936 3000
Fax: +44 (0)20 7583 0112
www.deloitte.co.uk
|
1. |
Scope of our work and factual findings
|
2. |
Pool agreed upon procedures – credit card portfolio
|
2.1. |
Borrower Name
|
2.1.1. |
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the primary cardholder’s full name shown in the Sample Pool substantially agreed to the primary
cardholder’s full name on the Credit Agreement, or if not available or different, on the Experian screenshot. Substantially agreed is defined as being able to identify the name where minor spelling errors or reversals of
initials had occurred. We found that the primary cardholder’s full name substantially agreed to the Credit Agreement, or if not available or different, on the Experian screenshot, with no exception.
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
2.1.2. |
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the primary cardholder’s full name shown in the Sample Pool substantially agreed to the primary
cardholder’s full name on the System. Substantially agreed is defined as being able to identify the name where minor spelling errors or reversals of initials had occurred. We found that the primary cardholder’s full name
substantially agreed to the System, with no exception.
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
2.2. |
Postcode
|
2.2.1. |
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the primary cardholder’s postcode shown in the Sample Pool agreed to the postcode on the System. We
found that the primary cardholder’s postcode agreed to the System, with no exception.
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
2.2.2. |
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the primary cardholder’s postcode shown in the Sample Pool agreed to the postcode on the Credit
Agreement. If the postcode on the Credit Agreement was not available or different, we agreed it to the Experian screenshot or address change details within the System. We found that the primary cardholder’s postcode agreed as
above, with no exception.
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
2.3. |
Aged over 18
|
2.3.1. |
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the primary cardholder’s current age was greater than 18 years old on the account opened date by
calculating the variance between the date of birth shown on the Credit Agreement or Experian screenshot and the account opened date. We
|
found that the primary cardholder was aged over 18 years of age on the account opened date, with no exception.
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
|
2.3.2. |
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the primary cardholder’s current age was greater than 18 years old on the account opened date, by
calculating the variance between the date of birth shown on the System and the account opened date. We found that the primary cardholder was aged over 18 years of age on the account opened date, with no exception.
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
2.4. |
Account Number
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the account number shown in the Sample Pool agreed to the account number on the System. We found that
the account number agreed to the System, with no exception.
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
2.5. |
Account Opened Date
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the account opened date shown in the Sample Pool agreed to the account opened date on the System. We
found that the account opened date agreed to the System, with no exception.
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
2.6. |
Purchase Interest Rate
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the primary cardholder’s card purchase interest rate shown in the Sample Pool agreed to the purchase
interest rate on the System, to within 0.055%. We found that the primary cardholder’s card purchase interest rate agreed to the System, to within 0.055%, except for three cases.
|
DT Ref
|
Description of exception
|
|
DT235
|
Sample Pool: 24.00%; System: 24.90%
|
|
DT314
|
Sample Pool: 24.00%; System: 24.90%
|
|
DT401
|
Sample Pool: 24.00%; System: 24.90%
|
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 3% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
2.7. |
Credit Limit
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the primary cardholder’s credit limit shown in the Sample Pool agreed to the latest credit limit on
the System, rounded to within £1. We found that the primary cardholder’s credit limit agreed to the System, rounded to within £1, with no exception.
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
2.8. |
Balance
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the card balance as at the cut-off date shown in the Sample Pool agreed to the current balance shown on the
System. We found that the card balance as at the cut-off date agreed to the System, with no exception.
|
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
2.9. |
Arrears
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the number of cycles in arrears as at the cut-off date shown in the Sample Pool agreed to the number of
cycles in arrears on the System. We found that the number of cycles in arrears as at cut-off date agreed to the System, with no exception.
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
2.10. |
Brand
For each loan in the Sample Pool, we compared whether the brand shown in the Sample Pool, (Amazon, Debenhams or Arcadia) agreed to the brand on the System. We
found that the brand agreed to the System, with no exception.
As a result of the procedures performed there is a 99% confidence that not more than 1% of the First Pool Run contained errors.
|
3. |
Scope of our Asset Agreed Upon Procedures Report
|
4. |
Use of this Asset Agreed Upon Procedures Report
|
P#(LB"!)4@ 3H .!4 5-$ $9P 2=5"@C$$J:
MX )KD %:$ $R\ 1"(*)DD 0HL 5G\ )UL 4TT)$&8A 4TQMD V!(,7=ZP7=.
M9&4O,P 9T @]D!4%@$'@02+^- $MH )B< 1N@ )/\ 1KX $P\ 6(D )6H $D
M\ 1=< 5*@ 0TL ,N8 A@(* HP %TX !M4 : 0 )V R\8X 61,)72\P9=@ ?6
M42(.8 $@< ,8 &E"83;YY DT4 -E0#\*T '<*B(T@!Z_T $2L $FX0")S '
M5? &A^)37!$7!/ 9$F %7$ &9( "8Z '(] %(<; ) 5+ $9[ '+[ '$B "
M(4 ##D0A$AC=,J!>$WQC,AJO$>#G( ?N,MX(('B! %(2 %2[ $ZP<"
M(" !$@ "1]"J/1 &%_ 3<8%A. #.% $,Q8!7> #)L<"+/ %6J $%U !&6 #
M3- $'+ %$D #H", (M !P[( 420!(*H$:S &8> %:E!1?Z$)$.H \((9;W%J
M1U '2M%&=D,VY^@"/+ $4J $[ T'#<@O1$79),'8 #+G"Q"#M:S90O2@(N
MF4).YO$E@@DC<@$56C$C-").5_]Q Y :EC 3O V]0!R !DXP!4 0C6K@
M!YC ADP!#9@ QI@!7 072G@CCI0M7&0 @]0+!U !$8 !2?P R8 W,0!FY@
M F@@!QT 8Q<@5V@P!880 @B@&YP 3] "$B@9P0P L&7 Q$0 UA ."]#3K:!
M&9<$,SA"&LUWBG