ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,906
Likes: 11,128
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 5, 2021 12:44:50 GMT
I see more legal documents have been posted on the MT site.
Interesting that the 21 respondents (those listed in schedule 1) don't include the investor identified in the skeleton argument as investor 2155 (who appears to be the promoter of the challenge).
Possibly because the skeleton argument contains a reoccurring typo. If you read the submissions you can work out that the actual number is 2115
|
|
easynow
Member of DD Central
Popcorn anyone?
Posts: 178
Likes: 147
|
Post by easynow on Nov 5, 2021 12:52:27 GMT
I see more legal documents have been posted on the MT site.
Interesting that the 21 respondents (those listed in schedule 1) don't include the investor identified in the skeleton argument as investor 2155 (who appears to be the promoter of the challenge).
Maybe its is respondent number 2155, who is investor number 4289 on that list. *edit* crossed with ilmoro
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 4,214
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 5, 2021 17:25:12 GMT
I see more legal documents have been posted on the MT site.
Interesting that the 21 respondents (those listed in schedule 1) don't include the investor identified in the skeleton argument as investor 2155 (who appears to be the promoter of the challenge).
Possibly because the skeleton argument contains a reoccurring typo. If you read the submissions you can work out that the actual number is 2115 And here I was thinking that there would be some sort of proof header ensuring that the British legal system didn't contain the most obvious errors
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,906
Likes: 11,128
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 5, 2021 18:51:44 GMT
Possibly because the skeleton argument contains a reoccurring typo. If you read the submissions you can work out that the actual number is 2115 And here I was thinking that there would be some sort of proof header ensuring that the British legal system didn't contain the most obvious errors I assume you won't be applying for the job?
|
|
|
Post by minionbob on Dec 23, 2021 15:00:21 GMT
I have raised a complaint with the FCA with regard to Moneything on the basis of the inadequate plans for platform failure and rundown that the FCA approved as part of their oversight. The remedy for me is for the FCA to stump up to cover the required additional monies required by the administrators. The complaint has been acknowledged but emphasises the fact that there is no effective control or appeal to any FCA failings or inadequacies so I'm not expecting much positive to address the failings, however another complaint that won't be welcomed by the FCA management which is probably all that will be achieved, To update on the above I have received an email from the fca stating that they have now cleared some historic cases and will be looking into my complaint in the new year. Look like 2022 will be a new broom, fca efficiencies transformed, compensation for all and the villains suitably dealt with, though I may have had some or all of that confused with a pantomime.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 331
Likes: 368
|
Post by mah on Dec 29, 2021 16:09:28 GMT
I have raised a complaint with the FCA with regard to Moneything on the basis of the inadequate plans for platform failure and rundown that the FCA approved as part of their oversight. The remedy for me is for the FCA to stump up to cover the required additional monies required by the administrators. The complaint has been acknowledged but emphasises the fact that there is no effective control or appeal to any FCA failings or inadequacies so I'm not expecting much positive to address the failings, however another complaint that won't be welcomed by the FCA management which is probably all that will be achieved, Yep, at least it would add to the pressures on FCA. I'd also urge everyone (who complained against FCA) to ask FCA to attend the Court Proceedings in order to protect Lenders' Interests (probably too much of an ask).
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Jan 11, 2022 17:25:53 GMT
I assume enough time has passed for mtag to have become a slick professional unit ready to bring the big boys to their knees?
Although judging by the posts earlier in this thread I would not be surprised if they had all fallen out with each other by now.
(Yes I am deliberately poking a hornets nest with a stick, for the avoidance of doubt)
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 4,214
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 11, 2022 18:10:58 GMT
I've lost track of this one a bit.
Has a date been set when it is due back in court.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,906
Likes: 11,128
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 11, 2022 18:13:55 GMT
I've lost track of this one a bit.
Has a date been set when it is due back in court.
17 Feb is the court date. Next date is 13 Jan for admins to file their response to Respondents and list of issues
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 747
Likes: 738
|
Post by eeyore on Jan 13, 2022 10:21:00 GMT
I assume enough time has passed for mtag to have become a slick professional unit ready to bring the big boys to their knees? Although judging by the posts earlier in this thread I would not be surprised if they had all fallen out with each other by now. It's difficult to tell since the MTAG forum hasn't had a single new post since Nov 19th... Perhaps it's like a swan floating serenely across the lake whilst paddling furiously beneath the surface?
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 1,346
|
Post by ptr120 on Jan 13, 2022 16:00:31 GMT
I've lost track of this one a bit.
Has a date been set when it is due back in court.
17 Feb is the court date. Next date is 13 Jan for admins to file their response to Respondents and list of issuesWhich are available to view now on the platform.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 4,214
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 13, 2022 18:55:40 GMT
17 Feb is the court date. Next date is 13 Jan for admins to file their response to Respondents and list of issuesWhich are available to view now on the platform. 26 pages of administrator witness statement. I wonder what that's added to the bill?
Has anyone seen the submission by R-2115, made on 9th December?
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Jan 13, 2022 19:09:51 GMT
Which are available to view now on the platform. 26 pages of administrator witness statement. I wonder what that's added to the bill?
Has anyone seen the submission by R-2115, made on 9th December?
I lost the will to live after about 10 minutes of reading.. but seem to recall that is not being made publicly available due to privacy concerns. Our pockets seem to be in the public domain however, sure I felt somebody taking a bit more money from it as I read.
|
|
|
Post by mw on Jan 13, 2022 19:34:24 GMT
26 pages of administrator witness statement. I wonder what that's added to the bill? Has anyone seen the submission by R-2115, made on 9th December?
I should think it has added quite a lot to the bill, I fear to no good purpose. Refer last paragraph of MT e-mail re availability of witness statements at present. I have seen nothing on the MTAG board that hints as to what might have been submitted.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 4,214
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 13, 2022 20:36:00 GMT
26 pages of administrator witness statement. I wonder what that's added to the bill? Has anyone seen the submission by R-2115, made on 9th December?
I should think it has added quite a lot to the bill, I fear to no good purpose. Refer last paragraph of MT e-mail re availability of witness statements at present. I have seen nothing on the MTAG board that hints as to what might have been submitted. Thanks for that.
I was so excited I only got as far as 'click on this link to see what's going on'
|
|