duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 29, 2024 12:59:15 GMT
Whilst not directly connected to Col this case should have bearing on my FOI case with the FCA where they have refused my legitmate request to be supplied with senior FCA management emails regarding Col. In this case Paul Carlier (who has been campaigning about the Blackmore Bond scandal for nearly as long as I have been involved with Col) had his FOI's declared 'vexatious'. He appealled to the Information Commissioner who produced a report 100% backing the FCA. Paul took the case to first tribunal (Judge led) and won. What has come out is that the ICO didn't even read his documentation before finding against him. The Judges also found that the FCA were wrong in labelling his FOI's vexatious and that the volume of requests/amount of work imposed on the FCA was not a reason to apply 'vexatious' since there is a public interest in knowing exactly what went on. These are the two same reasons the FCA used against me. Between PAUL CARLIER Appellant and INFORMATION COMMISSIONER FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/GRC/2024/257.html
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 23, 2024 17:41:43 GMT
The issue with a physical meeting is time & location... potentially harder for people to attend and needs organising of proxies to get the vote the right way & comms system to do it. ...... For that reason I said 'no' when I submitted 3 sets of forms earlier today (me, wife, Ltd Co) The other reason I said 'no' was cost. Travel to say London is expensive and time consuming especially if you need to take a day off work / spend a night in a hotel if the distance is too far for a 'day out'.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 21, 2024 16:40:25 GMT
Ohh M*ck does look angry here.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 20, 2024 14:49:10 GMT
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 18, 2024 10:44:16 GMT
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 16, 2024 17:50:43 GMT
Certainly govt policy ... driving a significant fintech industry with light touch regulation. I don't get the FCA struggling with defining P2P as that is defined by legislation ... the issue as we know with Coll is it complied with the legislation in form but not in substance ie it walked like a duck, quacked like a duck but legally couldn't be a duck. 😉 The biggest problem was the FCA was Elmer Fudd ... duck hunting in rabbit season Yes the legislation is clear but either the FCA didn't understand it, wanted to classify Col as something other than P2P or simply reacted to the Curries teams reactions is debatable. Behind the scenes this was going on in private between the FCA and Col (Dec 2016) (Richard is Richard Tall partner at DWF legal) Note at one time 'P2P' was taken off the site and then it came back again. This was raised by the FCA in other communications. This type of discussion went on from before investors saw the site until Nov 2017
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 16, 2024 11:57:25 GMT
ilmoro indeed you are correct in what you say but in 2016 as the FCA say " This is a young and innovative market" which the FCA hadn't really got their heads around by the time Col was forced into administration. Documents prove that the FCA still couldn't define what was P2P. The 'protracted argument' between the Curries and the FCA of course centred on if Col was actually P2P (it was). The FCA only took that position just before Col collapsed after they had belatedly taken legal opinion .... but of course that was far too late. After Col (and others) the FCA finally declared P2P to be 'high risk' and imposed certain mainly inefective controls. So the questions remains, why was P2P initially deemed to be lower risk than other similar types of investment? Did G'ment backing not have any influence? For example from 2015 Economic Secretary: We want to see peer-to-peer lending continue to grow and evolve
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 16, 2024 11:10:17 GMT
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 13, 2024 13:50:07 GMT
...... The administration of the companies themselves follows a well trodden path, that I am sure that Quantuma have done many times before. ....
Perhaps hints of how this will go can be gained from the administration of 'The House Crowd' (P2P) which the FCA show as being dealt with by Quantuma. I note Quantuma have a web page following the FCA's 'reminder' about the importance of wind down plans ........... but we all know from past experience that these have proved worthless.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 7, 2024 15:08:48 GMT
Blame staff sickess for the late update! Does only one staff member have the right to press 'go' on the non updates?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 7, 2024 9:58:46 GMT
What more can there be left to investigate? Why were they previously able to give a timescale of how much longer the investigation would take, but are now unable to do so? Don't forget 'reputation management' is now one of the highest FCA priorities. With the confiscation hearing due in May just wait for "We have protected consumers and have secured 50p as redress through the proceeds of crime act." Fact is Col was very dodgy (potentially criminal, certainly broke Companies and tax law) even before they applied for Part 4A permissions, the FCA and I have the proof. The FCA had key information on the loan book ........... but they didn't look at it for a year ......... and then they realised that consumers were at risk of serious harm and potentially financial crime. As I put in yesterdays complaint "I accept that the Case of Collateral is very embarrassing to the FCA but that cannot be used as an excuse to further delay answering investors complaints." Answering some of the complaints will show the whole can of worms that is Col, this is not compatible with my first sentence "Don't forget 'reputation management' is now one of the highest FCA priorities."
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 6, 2024 18:04:33 GMT
So has mine! That said chicken and egg ...... The complaint that I sent will still have to be answered since it raised issues above and beyond the late 'update' which of course says nothing substantive Got to be the faster response youve got from them Complaint sent 16.40 Auto response to the complaint 16.41 update(s) 16.52 We know from previous complaints that these 'updates' are written in advance (remember where the 'track changes' were not 'accepted') and then sent out as a batch at the last possible moment. In one of my previous complaints on this subject I speculated that somebody had forgotten to hit the 'send' button at the set time, wonder if that happened today ......
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 6, 2024 17:18:36 GMT
You should have waited 5 more minutes. My email just arrived 😀 So has mine! That said chicken and egg ...... The complaint that I sent will still have to be answered since it raised issues above and beyond the late 'update' which of course says nothing substantive
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 6, 2024 16:46:36 GMT
Just sent
Official Complaint - Collateral (UK) Ltd
As per my previous complaints this one is written on behalf of myself Peter Cornell, my wife XXX and my Limited Company XXX.
It is with a serious sense of déjà vu, despair and anger that I find myself having to write this complaint.
In your email of 06/02/2024 (attached) you wrote “We acknowledge that you were not provided with an update in either December 2023 or January 2024 and would like to apologise for this.”
It was also stated “We will continue to update you every 4 weeks.”
Four weeks have passed since the previous ‘update’ and yet again you have not sent out an update to me or to any other Collateral complainees.
For six years now the FCA have stalled answering the c300 complaints that the FCA hold regarding their handling of Collateral (UK) Ltd.
The trial was over nearly a year ago and yet you are still ‘investigating’ complaints that in many cases were lodged over five years ago, perhaps you need to mount an investigation into the length of this ‘investigation’.
The fact of the insecure IP register has been in the public domain for years now as has the ‘protracted argument’ that took place between the FCA and the Currie brothers.
It is an undisputed fact that the FCA allowed Collateral to continue trading when the FCA knew the register entry to be false costing investors a further £3.8m.
It is public knowledge that the FCA broke the law when they continued to hold discussions with the Currie brothers and their team after the statutory max time limit of 12 months specified in s55V of FSMA2000 had expired. This decision to break the law was the cause of most of the losses that investors have experienced since most investment took place after this time limit had expired.
As you will know from my complaints file I have only touched on a few of the issues that I have raised in official complaints. I will not detail them here but as you will know each one relates to FCA failures not only with respect to their conduct but also to further frauds committed by the Currie brothers under the ‘watchful eyes’ of the FCA.
I accept that the Case of Collateral is very embarrassing to the FCA but that cannot be used as an excuse to further delay answering investors complaints.
The FCA’s performance with respect to Collateral investors has been lamentable and continues to be so.
Is it too much to expect that a four weekly ‘update’ is sent out on time? It appears so.
Peter Cornell
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Mar 6, 2024 13:26:26 GMT
Anybody get an update on their complaint(s) yesterday? I did not, should I have? Yes. It was 4 weeks from the date of the last update that everybody received i.e. 06/02/24. The email stated "We will continue to update you every 4 weeks." If I receive nothing later today I will be writing (yet) another official complaint!
|
|