duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jul 12, 2019 3:11:09 GMT
Because Col had no permissions you cannot claim losses as things stand at present. I have taken this up with HMRC and 2 months later the 'policy specialist' is yet to get back to me. Good point.. not being in col for some time and being fortunate enough to suffer no losses, (but i did elsewhere) i would simply claim the losses on the tax return... and leave HMRC to decide there and then...my outcome was positive, but as a last resort.. they can only say no.. Sorry but I don't agree with you. By making a claim against Col on your Tax Return you are knowingly making a false return unless you make it very clear what you are doing. The FCA has categorically stated that Col had no permissions and the FOI's that I hold show that Cols application remained at 'case assessment stage ' until they called in the administrators. Whilst I agree that making a claim might force HMRC into making a decision you would have to include very clear notes to show that you have added Col to your 'losses' (normally aggregated on the return) to avoid any problems with HMRC. The other downside is that a rush decision could be made to disallow which would mean a long hard fight to get the decision reversed. With G'ment departments it is always harder for them to reverse a decision than to make the 'correct' decision in the first place. I spent 3 years and many letters getting a VAT rebate when the HMRC website (advice I had followed) was wrong (proved at a Tax tribunal) and I had overpaid. Even in very simple cases getting a 'sorry I was wrong' decision is painfully difficult. Like all things Col related nothing is coming easily / quickly but personally I am holding back from making Tax claims wrt Col until the situation with the FCA is finally sorted.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jul 11, 2019 14:56:28 GMT
Because Col had no permissions you cannot claim losses as things stand at present. I have taken this up with HMRC and 2 months later the 'policy specialist' is yet to get back to me.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jul 9, 2019 16:22:28 GMT
I've had notification that my pension value had dropped from £8 to £6 per year ........... so what shall I do with that £1.50
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jul 6, 2019 13:20:03 GMT
Col must have been really brazen to coolly go to the FCA and ask for full permission when they new full well they didn't have 'real' interim permission. They must have been very confident that they could get away with that or bluff their way through. The really interesting bit is what happened between the 23/11/17 and the 29/01/18, did the FCA give Col time to rectify their position somehow, maybe negotiate a deal to allow them to carry on trading until they got full permission? Or was it time allowed for Col to initiate an orderly wind down? Or did Col manage to put off the inevitable by trying to prove to the FCA that it didn't need permission? I haven't got to the bottom of either of those points and I don't expect to until the investigation is complete. BDO in one of their initial statements referred to a 'protracted dispute' between the FCA and Collateral, but unfortunately I have been unable to extract any information on this, this matter remains 'pending'.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jul 6, 2019 12:35:30 GMT
If I were being cynical I might suggest that there is a certain amount of dragging of feet by both BDO and the FCA. ..... You will be pleased to see that some of us have been giving the FCA a bit of a hurry up.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jul 6, 2019 12:32:30 GMT
As regular readers of this thread will know I and others have been working behind the scenes for the past year and a bit concentrating on the FCA's role in the Collateral debacle.
Yesterday I received further information from the FCA that allowed me to put the following time line together. Andrew Bailey (head of the FCA) recently referred to the Col case as 'unfortunate' I would use stronger words. The FCA failed from the day that they took funds from Collateral to process a FULL Part 4A approval route. If basic checks had been made at that time it would have highlighted that Col was not eligible for IP. Without the interim to full approval route Collateral would not have been allowed to trade.
Regal Pawnbrokers register entry changed to read Collateral 12/12/15.
Collateral applied for full Part 4A approval 23/03/16.
The FCA started the approval process 'on the basis that it held a valid interim approval'*
Cols application remained at 'case assessment stage ' until they called in the administrators.
The FCA knew that Col was trading for the whole period from 23/03/16 to 26/02/2018**
The FCA became aware on 23/11/2017 that the interim approval that was claimed by Col was invalid.
On 29/01/2018 the FCA challenged the directors of Col.
On 07/02/2018 Col withdrew its part 4A application.
On 12/02/2018 Col agreed to cease trading.
Col continued to trade until the screens went blank on 26/02/2018.
*Col was never eligible for interim approval this should have been picked up by the FCA.
** This is actually stating the obvious (but I wanted it in writing). To progress from interim to full approval you have to be trading.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jul 5, 2019 7:38:47 GMT
Hi all Is there a boilerplate complaint forum members could use to send to the FCA? If there is many more people are likely to send in a complaint and this can only be positive I would have thought? If anyone has a form of words they feel could be used it would be appreciated if this could be posted, unless there already is one which I have missed, in which case a link would be great help. many thanks There are several in the early part of this thread. (page 2 onwards) A copy of the register entry is also included in that thread. The process is completed online so is very simple. Less than 5 minutes and most of that is 'ticking boxes' and filling in your details. As for the complaint itself it doesn't have to be more than your personalsied version of 'your release www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/information-investors-collateral-companies states that Collateral (UK) Ltd did not have the requisite permissions to trade. Your register showed Collateral to be regulated for the period in which it was trading' ... and for redress that you expect the FCA to compensate you for any losses following the liquidation. There are better versions in the thread that I have linked to, suggest you have a look there.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jul 4, 2019 5:47:55 GMT
Seems to be a problem downloading transactions currently.
Whilst you can see transactions for a period on the screen the downloaded xls sheet only shows 3rd and 4th July. Changing the dates for download makes no difference. Checked on the 3 accounts I run and all have the same problem. I've reported the issue.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jul 3, 2019 12:15:43 GMT
Just a quick note to say the Complaints Commissioner has taken note of the 6 month deferment but will be keeping an eye on the delays. My main complaint I will have to take up with the information commissioner, nothing is easy!
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jun 29, 2019 10:11:35 GMT
Without wishing to sound overly technical, I am reading it as.... Blah blah blah deferred for another six months? yep, bit like brexit, need more time to squirm out of it.... ...... unless you do something. I have just contacted the complaints commissioner. Whilst I brought the deferment to his notice my Email centered on other issues that I have been experiencing when dealing with the FCA for the past year. A small extract
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jun 28, 2019 15:35:59 GMT
Unfortunately the letter that all complainants have received is about par for the course when dealing with the FCA. Only yesterday I had a batch of FOI's that were asked at the start of April deferred for the 2nd/3rd time. Carter has raised a very valid point wrt the deferment date that the Complaints Commissioner had already looked into. The relevant sentence is " For that reason, I consider that the FCA should defer consideration of your complaint (and any other essentially similar complaints) for six months or until the conclusion of the Enforcement investigation (whichever is the sooner)." (Point 12). I'm surprised that the FCA have felt fit to release the link to this Complaints Commissioners report since there was heavy restrictions placed on the person who it was sent to. It was for this reason that I didn't post the link here previously. I have a feeling the Complaints Commissioner will be receiving a lot of Emails.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jun 28, 2019 3:35:12 GMT
I think the most amusing aspect of this meeting is its location: Given the FCA's notable lack of organisational ability, I suspect that arranging drunken revelry in this venue will be completely beyond them. Well if enough Col investors register to attend the 'Annual Public Meeting' (and submit questions) then perhaps the FCA will have to relocate to a more sober establishment.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jun 27, 2019 14:48:36 GMT
....... so I guess it makes him highly qualified and a shoe-in for The Bank of England jobbie?!!! If you feel so strongly ozboy perhaps you should register to attend the FCA's Annual Public Meeting 2019 where you can ask Mr Bailey a few difficult questions I'm a long way away but perhaps Col investors who live closer would like to attend?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jun 26, 2019 13:20:18 GMT
Sounds interesting Monetus. Hopefully we can collectively leave no stone unturned in our quest to get a fair outcome, and without having to wait many years. You can rest assured that no stones are being left unturned. The other line of inquiry is indeed 'interesting', something I am also working on. I would love to say that timescales are more certain but they are not however as the thread title says efforts are being made to stop bureaucracy from grinding us to a halt.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 5,829
|
Post by duck on Jun 26, 2019 4:14:21 GMT
Correct Bailey is playing a balancing game , Technically , it could be argued that by failing to maintain a proper register and themselves being unfit for purpose the FCA by their negligence have exposed investors to an Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme , (UCIS) Indeed. It's interesting that you raised Collateral potentially being a UCIS as it's something I've been thinking about a lot lately. People (myself included) thought we were investing in an FCA authorised platform under Interim P2P/consumer credit permissions when in fact it was nothing of the sort - with seemingly no appropriate permissions to operate since the very beginning. If the FCA's negligence regarding their Register has unknowingly exposed retail investors to a UCIS then the FCA and any other relevant parties have some very serious questions to answer. Especially as UCIS's cannot be promoted to the general public. www.fca.org.uk/publication/archive/fsa-factsheet-ucis.pdfInteresting to see the subject of UCIS's being raised. One of the questions that I asked the Treasury Committee to ask yesterday was on this exact subject. Unfortunately it wasn't asked. I will progress. So did I. My digging has confirmed that Col were never able to claim that they had interim approval (lack of OFT license and date of incorporation) which makes the FCA statement that Col never had any permissions correct. Even basic checks by the FCA at any time from March 2016 (the date Col applied to the FCA for approval) would have shown the register entry to be incorrect. As I have previously posted the FCA have stated that they found the incorrect entry in Nov 2017 which of course begs a lot of questions..... which have of course been asked.
|
|