|
Post by outapocket on Sept 9, 2020 22:10:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Sept 10, 2020 8:34:45 GMT
Effectively the FCA is attempting to set a compensation bar at £10K in somewhat of the same way that the FSCS insured loss limit is set at £85K. In fairness to the FCA they have been banging on for a long time about the unwise risks that small investors can run when taking responsibility for their own investment decisions. Investors cannot have it both ways. Realistically the FCA has an impossible task trying to police the regulations of the entire financial community. Perhaps this is their way of signalling to parliament that a £10K limit is their preferred way forward.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,592
Likes: 5,779
|
Post by duck on Sept 10, 2020 10:57:39 GMT
In fairness to the FCA they have been banging on for a long time about the unwise risks that small investors can run when taking responsibility for their own investment decisions. Investors cannot have it both ways. Accepting that investors should take into account their appetite for risk this is not relevant to this consultation. This consultation aims to limit ex gratia payments to investors that are caused by the FCAs own actions. The bar is already set high and still the FCA wish to push it higher. This was not the 'will of Parliament' when they initially set up the scheme some twenty years ago where the principle of 'put back in the position' was established. The consultation is (naturally) carefully worded to be a 'clarification' which it is not, this is a fundamental change that they are trying to put in place. The fact that the consultation is being conducted over a shorter period than it is normal to, over a holiday period and when Parliament wasn't sitting says it all really ......... and if you are still not convinced to quote Anthony Townsend (the just stepping down Complaints Commissioner) who said the proposed changes
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Sept 10, 2020 15:08:56 GMT
In nitty gritty terms I am sure you are perfectly correct but from a wider perspective is it realistic to adopt the view that the FCA by its own actions or inactions is to be held responsible for failings in policing all financial regulation? £10K is a low bar and will do virtually nothing in terms of individual financial restitution but how much is enough? £85K is quite a small sum too and that is all you are guaranteed to should a major bank fail. Having been a victim of the shenanigans of Lendy, Funding Secure and Collateral I see the problem. I remain unconvinced that the FCA is the bogeyman. My ire tends to be directed at the perpetrators who I would like to see facing the real risk of being stripped of their assets and imprisoned. They are the ones who seem to escape scot free.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 993
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by james100 on Sept 10, 2020 15:26:46 GMT
The point is compensation for its *own* regulatory failings, no? ... the failure of the FCA to fulfill its explicit remit. Either they do their job or the remit changes. Currently they take a role, do not deliver and do not take accountability for not delivering. Worse, they currently pretend to take accountability for not delivering. The link per original post notes "the total amount paid out by the FCA over the last 18 months to successful complainants total just £13,475."
I am fine for the FCA to clear its mess up then dissolve entirely. Tell people financial services is run like the wild west and they have no recourse in the event of fraud - fine. But when the FCA - and yes, I'm thinking of Collateral in particular - provides fraudulent data and actively recommends this, their very own data source, be considered part of a due-diligence process in verifying companies as trustworthy then they need to be held accountable in full and with no limit IMHO.
Edit: and if they don't want to cough up the cash themselves then perhaps they could extract it more enthusiastically from the parties who's fraudulent claims they facilitated via the their register of BS, or...heaven forbid...actually do the job they claim to do and regulate.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,592
Likes: 5,779
|
Post by duck on Sept 10, 2020 15:27:06 GMT
In nitty gritty terms I am sure you are perfectly correct but from a wider perspective is it realistic to adopt the view that the FCA by its own actions or inactions is to be held responsible for failings in policing all financial regulation? No regulator can be 100% perfect, there will always be some failings ........... but I and the industry expect a level of competence. Whilst there are questions to be asked wrt Ly and FS the case with Col is clear. If basic checks had been carried out (for example a simple Company Number check at CH) no investor would have seen the site and no money would have been lost. If we cannot expect even that level of competence what can we expect from the FCA whose budget this year is £548.5m. Anyway back to the consultation, and the way the scheme was set up. Immunity from being sued for damages was intended to enable the regulator to regulate robustly. It was not intended to leave consumers harmed by the regulator without proper remedy. This is the reason the complaints scheme was made law, with an independent investigator empowered to recommend compensation payments. Would you be happy with a scheme where the regulator can cause harm and then walk away?
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 540
Likes: 410
|
Post by metoo on Sept 10, 2020 17:41:02 GMT
is it realistic to adopt the view that the FCA by its own actions or inactions is to be held responsible for failings in policing all financial regulation? That is not what the regulators' complaints scheme is for. It is about (hopefully rare) serious failings by (usually) the FCA in carrying out their required functions. For example, failure to secure the register against outside alteration, and publishing a false register entry, where maintaining the register is a legal requirement upon the FCA, and where the FCA continually advises consumers to rely upon the register. If losses are recovered from the perpetrators, then there will not be a loss to compensate.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Sept 10, 2020 19:12:47 GMT
I don't disagree with any of the points being made. The system i.e. basically the FCA, failed to protect investors from wrong-doers. Large sums have been misappropriated. The FCA may eventually cough up some derisory compensation in relation to the Collateral platform's demise. It could take years more. That still does not answer the question of self-serving platforms that one way or another can and have fleeced even seasoned investors. The entire p to p industry has a problem. Looked at from another perspective - are the main stream lenders unhappy about the behaviours of this fledgling upstart? Is the Administrator industry unhappy? How about the legal profession? The city institutions are loving it. Money sloshing about and up for grabs with years of work ahead. I can't help feeling that the p to p industry need to be more involved in policing itself - a bit of poacher turned gamekeeper.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,592
Likes: 5,779
|
Post by duck on Sept 11, 2020 10:09:18 GMT
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,592
Likes: 5,779
|
Post by duck on Sept 12, 2020 3:54:49 GMT
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Apr 6, 2021 22:27:44 GMT
I just logged into my online banking and was greeted by a new message which I had to acknowledge, as follows -
.."Is someone you don't know offering you an unexpected investment opportunity? Always use the FCA Register to check the firm is authorised to provide investments.."
I thought immediately of Collateral.
|
|
tommytaylor
P2P - The new wild west
Posts: 234
Likes: 375
|
Post by tommytaylor on Apr 7, 2021 6:58:41 GMT
Great News Duck
|
|
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: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Apr 7, 2021 7:49:37 GMT
I just logged into my online banking and was greeted by a new message which I had to acknowledge, as follows -
.."Is someone you don't know offering you an unexpected investment opportunity? Always use the FCA Register to check the firm is authorised to provide investments.."
I thought immediately of Collateral.
GeorgeT Please, please report this banking message to the Advertising Standards Authority. If you name the bank we can all have a go. If it's Santander, consider that they actually provided the banking for Collateral from May 2017. It's easy to register an online complaint at www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html. Say that you feel offended. It is important to state that you invested on the Collateral P2P platform which was listed on the FCA register, and that the FCA REGISTER CANNOT BE TRUSTED. See p2pindependentforum.com/post/348577 for a past incidence. Not sure if it was successful, but I haven't seen that advert since.
|
|
tommytaylor
P2P - The new wild west
Posts: 234
Likes: 375
|
Post by tommytaylor on Apr 7, 2021 8:24:37 GMT
I just logged into my online banking and was greeted by a new message which I had to acknowledge, as follows -
.."Is someone you don't know offering you an unexpected investment opportunity? Always use the FCA Register to check the firm is authorised to provide investments.."
I thought immediately of Collateral.
GeorgeT Please, please report this banking message to the Advertising Standards Authority. If you name the bank we can all have a go. If it's Santander, consider that they actually provided the banking for Collateral from May 2017. It's easy to register an online complaint at www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html. Say that you feel offended. It is important to state that you invested on the Collateral P2P platform which was listed on the FCA register, and that the FCA REGISTER CANNOT BE TRUSTED. See p2pindependentforum.com/post/348577 for a past incidence. Not sure if it was successful, but I haven't seen that advert since. I will most certainly have a go if they are named. Anything at all to have a pop at these b@stards
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Apr 17, 2021 0:12:58 GMT
Sorry for slow response. In the interest of my mental wellbeing I check into the forum less often than I used to.
The warning notice has been on both the RBS and NatWest online and mobile banking platforms this month (I believe they are the same apart from the branding).
Notices like that just stick in the throat a bit. I still find it hard to get my head around the fact the FCA register was wrong.
|
|