duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Jun 14, 2019 14:44:41 GMT
... I doubt the CC or anyone else would divulge if there is any definite investigation/action ongoing, ..... Yes there is, is that definite enough, had it from the horses mouth
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Jun 10, 2019 14:31:17 GMT
Thank you duck , all work being done in the background in this case is appreciated. Although fairly late to this forum, I also complained to the FCA several weeks ago. They can take their time getting back to you, as long as you have received an acknowledgement (automatic reply) you are in the system. My initial complaint was answered in 3 weeks (with a deferment) and 6 months down the line it is still sitting in the FCA's office. Not an issue since all complaints are currently deferred pending completion of the investigation.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Jun 10, 2019 11:43:26 GMT
.... Nevertheless, the FCA is off the hook till their investigation concludes. Some of us have submitted complaints individually which are still pending. .... I can assure you they are not. Matters have been escalated and time limits for completion / updates are being discussed. I would love to post more but am aware of the footer to FCA Emails especially the bit I have bolded. This communication and any attachments contain information which is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. It is for intended recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute, publish, rely on or otherwise use it without our consent. Some of our communications may contain confidential information which it could be a criminal offence for you to disclose or use without authority.
There is unfortunately nothing in any of my Emails that says what (if anything) in any of my communications is covered by this sentence so I am treading carefully. The crux of the matter is that until the Liquidation is completed (another year?) losses will not be crystallised. In the meantime work continues 'quietly'.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Jun 6, 2019 17:20:29 GMT
would join facebook page, not sure I have much to contribute though. Not happy with administrators from the point of view of communication , its dire Administrators have to report every 6 months, liquidators I believe once a year. So far BDO have kept to their legal requirements and I see no reason why they won't continue to do so. I have already established that BDO charge the 'going rate' for fees (the Lendy Administrators fees are very similar) yes they are (IMHO) ridiculously high but even if BDO were replaced the p/h costs would not alter but the total bill would be higher. Unfortunately with the liquidation what will be will be. That said the FCA made 'mistakes' wrt Col and I can assure you that they are being pursued by several determined Col investors. The Complaints Commissioner is already 'on the case' and when losses are eventually crystalised (following the liquidation) claims will be made to the FCA for these losses. Parliament and the press are already aware of the issues. The Lendy action group is through necessity attacking the problem in a different way. Lendy was regulated but there are questions for the FCA to answer, these questions are already being asked.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Jun 6, 2019 4:35:32 GMT
The new loans in Lendy are between you and the borrower by contract neither Lendy or administrative team have any means to take funds ring fenced in this way. The run down of loans should have been accounted for in the wind up pre planning as required for FCA registration. On your first point please see my previous comment regarding the Beaufort Securities case. On the second, I hope to hear something from the FCA on that in response to a FOI that I have already sent. With the FCA effectively having control of Lendy in it's dying days (and bringing about it's demise) it would be hard to imagine they didn't look at the wind down arrangements that they had previously agreed to when Lendy was granted approval. 'Interestingly' this topic appeared yesterday in the FCA's latest 'rules' for the sector.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Jun 6, 2019 4:24:51 GMT
I would suggest there is no guarantee and normal 'rules' don't necessarily apply - administrators/receivers/insolvency practitioners have quiet wide ranging legal powers and I really think loan terms will make little difference when/if they need to collect fees for their work. But I'm no expert and in Lendy's case we will probably find out in time. The Court ruling in the Beaufort Securities case means that the difference between 'old' and 'new' terms will make little/no difference as to where costs can be recovered from. Time will tell on this one as to the order in which the various 'pots' are accessed.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Assetz Capital (AC)
IFISA
Jun 1, 2019 7:18:51 GMT
Post by duck on Jun 1, 2019 7:18:51 GMT
My wife has transferred a previous years IFISA into AC. First payment (cash in old account) has gone through fine.
A couple of repayments at the original provider have now appeared meaning there is now cash on account. Does this cash get passed to AC automatically? Do I have to do anything?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on Jun 1, 2019 6:09:43 GMT
...What did Collateral investors receive in the end? ..... A year and a bit in and whilst a few loans have been redeemed/refinanced there is still a long way to go. I don't expect so see anything back from Col for at least another year. assuming there is anything left in the pot.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on May 27, 2019 15:43:16 GMT
I have had experience with the FCA in the past. I wouldn't have too much faith in them. They are very good at shutting the proverbial stable door after the horse has bolted. me, faith, FCA, they are never failing to amaze me wrt Col.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on May 27, 2019 14:59:13 GMT
How many of the 22,000 investors are aware it's gone into administration?
I've yet to receive any direct notifications from the platform.
What's more if you go to the FCA register you will see that Lendy is still authorised. Since the FCA have been involved as shown in their statement " These appointments have been made by the firms, in respect of Lendy Ltd, with the consent of the FCA." their 'errors' wrt Col and their admission (FOI) that they instructed Col to inform investors (the Email we all got) you might have expected that the FCA might have made a better attempt this time.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on May 19, 2019 11:53:36 GMT
...
There may be recourse against the FCA but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will wiggle like a caught fish. Undoubtedly there will be a committee set up, then another. This thing will drag on for years IMO unfortunately.
....
They are wiggling already. 'Unfortunately' for the FCA the Complaints Commissioner is already involved and scrutiny (inc on timescales) is being imposed. Sorry, can't say more at present.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on May 13, 2019 12:50:59 GMT
I have just received a response to my letter (previous post) it goes as follows Thank you for your query about Peer to Peer lending. I am very sorry for the time it has taken to acknowledge.I appreciate that the circumstances surrounding Collateral UK Ltd are very unusual and also the decision of the Administrators to recall loans and wind up the the business has blurred matters even further.For these reasons I have referred the details to a Policy Specialist to reviewWe will write to you again once a decision has been made.Yours sincerely So there you have it HMRC don't know how to deal with this
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on May 12, 2019 3:33:00 GMT
For those who don't have access to todays Telegraph article, a small quote: "there was a six-fold increase in (FCA) register-based complaints in 2018. Of these, three in four concerned Collaterals's incorrect listing"
Good! Glad to say I was one and due to Ducks good work the FCA should see even more this year from what we have learnt 😁 Thanks for the comment and for sending in your complaint, every one helps. That said I am not the only one working 'behind the scenes' so I will spread the credit around .
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on May 11, 2019 11:42:49 GMT
The article that I mentioned in my previous post is now available online but I'm not sure if I can post the link here but Mr Google will get you there.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 5,736
|
Post by duck on May 9, 2019 3:39:01 GMT
Slightly worrying though that the FCA refused to settle because "there is no evidence to suggest the complainant had checked the Register". I know I did in the case of Collateral, but how do I or anyone else prove it? It also seems that the Commissioner cannot adjudicate but can only make recommendations that the FCA is free to ignore. Not good if, like me, you're expecting the FCA to accept responsibility for their incompetence and offer appropriate compensation for losses incurred as a result of it. All good points. Extracting ex gratia payments was never going to be easy which is why I and others have taken to digging into this matter in depth. Random thoughts. Being a member 'here' gives you access to a lot of information. If there had been inklings of problems they would have been posted. I and others take screen dumps of important information so if (as is the case with Col) the entry showing them to have interim approval disappears somebody will have it. When I made my initial complaint I included the screen dump. Col (the Curries and Gordon) were active on this forum. I have re-read all of their posts and I cannot find anything to suggest that full permission was not progressing. The FCA are currently remaining very tight lipped on this subject but I have found out that the FCA accepted fees (applicable for gaining full approval) from Col on 24/03/16. I am still trying to find out what happened between March 2016 and Feb 2018. The Commissioners powers are indeed limited but should be viewed as 'persuasive'. In the case that I posted the FCA have produced a reasoned argument as to why payment should not be made. These arguments are not in general applicable in the case of Col. The fact that the FCA cannot be sued under UK law (something I would not advocate even if it was possible) must have been a deliberate action of Parliament when the FCA was set up. This leaves 'consumers' (the very people the FCA are tasked to protect) in a position where they have little strength when taking on the FCA which is why I and others wrote to the Treasury Select Committee when Col went pop. I posted here that the FCA have admitted to knowing that Col was trading without authorisation/permissions on 23/11/17. This is very important since action should have been taken at the time and wasn't. I have put in a complaint to the FCA regarding the '3 months' since I added further funds in that period. I know others have taken similar action. Whilst proving that consulting the register may be problematic, proving new funds were added isn't. If anybody added new funds during this period and wants to strengthen their case I would suggest that they consider putting in a complaint. This subject has been picked up by the press, if you read/have access to the Telegraph there should be something in there on Saturday. As I said at the start of this post extracting ex gratia payments was never going to be easy but with the TSC, the Complaints Commissioner and Press informed (and active), information being extracted (slowly) the possibility is now far better than it was in Feb 2018.
|
|