elsee
Member of DD Central
Retired:D
Posts: 201 
Likes: 117
|
Post by elsee on Jun 13, 2018 13:09:59 GMT
This is news to me. Is this another unsecured creditor for unpaid rent? I wonder whether this is in fact Bridge Lending Limited, which has a registered address in Blackpool and whose director is A Currie, and an ex-director, as of 5 March (interesting timeing!) is P Currie. If you follow P Currie on C House there is a company with an address in Blackpool. M*t*a*n* Ltd. He is an active director. Interestingly, the nature of business is 62020 - Information technology consultancy activities. If I weren't an 4 figure investor (that's a lot to me) I'd have to laugh at the current debacle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Jun 13, 2018 13:17:48 GMT
maybe RR could provide 'proof' of investor/mug status for the Swiss spv and the fans of RR and the currie crooks could moderate ? At some point fairly soon hopefully, people will realise we 'are where we are' and stop arguing about where we might have been in a parallel universe. I totally agree, in fact said so in one of my earlier posts, but to highlight the different approaches taken by RR "lender specific loans" & BDO "single pot creditors" is not arguing for a parallel universe it is showing that lenders may need to band together in the not too distant future & demonstrate that if the FCA really want to "protect their interests" as was supposedly the original reasoning of the court case then the current approach of THEIR APPOINTEE is certainly not achieving that.
It may then be the case that a legal challenge is required to either enforce lenders rights or petition to have the current administrator removed & replaced with one that understands the situation (which is what I understand that the MT proposal is currently exploring) so I urge ALL lenders to consider their own position & that of the wider group & be prepared to think about a collective response to the 22/6/18 BDO statement of affairs.
|
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 631 
Likes: 772
|
Post by m2btj on Jun 13, 2018 13:41:42 GMT
At some point fairly soon hopefully, people will realise we 'are where we are' and stop arguing about where we might have been in a parallel universe. I totally agree, in fact said so in one of my earlier posts, but to highlight the different approaches taken by RR "lender specific loans" & BDO "single pot creditors" is not arguing for a parallel universe it is showing that lenders may need to band together in the not too distant future & demonstrate that if the FCA really want to "protect their interests" as was supposedly the original reasoning of the court case then the current approach of THEIR APPOINTEE is certainly not achieving that.
It may then be the case that a legal challenge is required to either enforce lenders rights or petition to have the current administrator removed & replaced with one that understands the situation (which is what I understand that the MT proposal is currently exploring) so I urge ALL lenders to consider their own position & that of the wider group & be prepared to think about a collective response to the 22/6/18 BDO statement of affairs.
I am watching the situation with great interest. If I believe that BDO or the FCA have failed to act in the interests of lenders I would support a collective response. Any such action would need to be managed, well organised & coordinated.
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 1,861
Member is Online
|
Post by archie on Jun 13, 2018 14:15:55 GMT
I want to be paid back based on the loans I invested in as they settle, not a share of the total recovered at the end of the process.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jun 13, 2018 14:27:16 GMT
The issue of irrecoverable details (whilst massive) is not the reason BDO have given for making us creditors. It is very likely that many investors could reasonably prove their exact secured debts, meaning it would not be a 'catch-all'. The reason given is s26 - which is where FCA messed up. That being the case, there would now be direct causation between FCA error and any losses (when crystallised). Day 1 - Hear about Col. Day 2 - Check FCA register - says authorised with interim permission Day 3 - I invest £10k Day 4 - oops, FCA were wrong, not authorised. Register changed. Day 5 - I am now a creditor of a failed business Day 6 - I lose 50% of my investment due to FCA error DAY 7 - I sue FCA for their incorrect register causing me losses I plan to write to the FCA to make it clear that a claim will be on their table the day after I crystallise any losses. FCA can avoid this by issuing "interim" permission as originally stated on their register. If others do the same they may actually LISTEN  |
|
snowmobile
Member of DD Central
Posts: 230
Likes: 448
|
Post by snowmobile on Jun 13, 2018 14:33:30 GMT
I wonder whether this is in fact Bridge Lending Limited, which has a registered address in Blackpool and whose director is A Currie, and an ex-director, as of 5 March (interesting timeing!) is P Currie. If you follow P Currie on C House there is a company with an address in Blackpool. M*t*a*n* Ltd. He is an active director. Interestingly, the nature of business is 62020 - Information technology consultancy activities. If I weren't an 4 figure investor (that's a lot to me) I'd have to laugh at the current debacle. Ah I remember posting a comment mentioning that company. They were referred to in the November 2016 accounts filed at CH in respect of Collateral (Uk) Limited. The publicly available accounts state "during the year the company lent £86,000 to Mettanie Limited, a company associated by common ownership of the director." I wouldn't like to speculate on why an apparently dormant company would need to borrow from Collateral. It is worth noting that the loan would create an accounting transaction, meaning dormant company accounts should not have been filed.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jun 13, 2018 15:32:34 GMT
The parties to the security agreements are the borrower, the Security Trustee (Collateral Security Trustee) and the lender Collateral Agent Limited (on whose behalf the ST holds the security). Collateral Agent Limited is not subject to the administration of BDO AFAIA.
Erm!!
Oh dear
As far as I can tell you're right.
Company status
Active
First accounts made up to 30 September 2017
due by 22 June 2018So the company that holds the legal interest in the loans technically appear to be outside the admins reach for some reason - or BDO have dropped the ball and missed this - or CH is just wrong and status should show In Administration. Strange.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,385
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jun 13, 2018 15:51:10 GMT
BDO say prior to their appointment, RR were in charge and were trying to continue to be in charge up to the date of the court case and should have secured all the data (prior to that), if they ever actually had it. I think in charge is questionable from both sides..just an opinion Edit I’m not surprised BDO said that it excuses then from all responsibility..but as soon as RR’s appointment was challenged it left everything in limbo and with no one in charge imho RR wrote a report on the company finances, either they had the data then and lost it subsequently, or they didn't have it. They are meant to be a reputable, professional company, if they were missing substantial data they should have said so in the report and if they did have the data they should have made sure it was secure. Also just an opinion.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Jun 13, 2018 15:54:22 GMT
Day 6 - I lose 50% of my investment due to FCA error DAY 7 - I sue FCA for their incorrect register causing me losses
Nice idea in principle, but how are you going to prove the extent to which FCA actions have caused your loss, as opposed to other factors (such as the security being grossly overvalued)
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 13, 2018 16:17:45 GMT
Oh dear
As far as I can tell you're right.
Company status
Active
First accounts made up to 30 September 2017
due by 22 June 2018So the company that holds the legal interest in the loans technically appear to be outside the admins reach for some reason - or BDO have dropped the ball and missed this - or CH is just wrong and status should show In Administration. Strange. BDO and the FCA both provide a specific list of three companies (Collateral (UK) Ltd, Collateral Security Trustee Ltd and Collateral Sales Ltd) placed into administration, none of which are Collateral Agent limited.
That said, the CH listings for all three of those companies seem a bit of a mess - Collateral (UK) have had the registered address changed to what I assume is BDO's, whilst the other two still list RR's. Additionally the administrator on all three is still listed as RR.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 13, 2018 16:28:44 GMT
Bizarrely, it seems that money I had on the system in cash, which I was told was safely in a separate client account, is now probably less safe than money that was invested in loans, which I was told I risked losing money on.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jun 13, 2018 16:52:41 GMT
Interesting especially as it is dated 31 May 2018, over three months after the company had ceased trading. True but not for the right reason! I wouldn't quite put it like that...  This is news to me. Is this another unsecured creditor for unpaid rent? I remember seeing a similar (identical?) article last year when I discovered the barabingbarabing.com site, see here. I suspect it's a rehash of an older article by a clueless marketing dept.
|
|
p2pmark
Member of DD Central
Posts: 218
Likes: 187
|
Post by p2pmark on Jun 13, 2018 17:01:23 GMT
The issue of irrecoverable details (whilst massive) is not the reason BDO have given for making us creditors. It is very likely that many investors could reasonably prove their exact secured debts, meaning it would not be a 'catch-all'. The reason given is s26 - which is where FCA messed up. That being the case, there would now be direct causation between FCA error and any losses (when crystallised). Day 1 - Hear about Col. Day 2 - Check FCA register - says authorised with interim permission Is this confirmed? Which exact company were authorised with interim permission? And what exactly did they have permission for? My understanding is that Regal Pawnbrokers Ltd (not Col themselves) only held "interim permission to enter into a regulated credit agreement as lender and to exercise, or have the right to exercise, the lender’s rights and duties under a regulated credit agreement." And, according to the FCA "These are unlikely to cover the activities carried on by a peer-to-peer lender. The permission lapsed, in the absence of an application for authorisation by Regal Pawnbroker Ltd, on 31 March 2016." Do we have a screenshot or something that suggests Col were registered with the right permission? Sorry if I've missed something.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jun 13, 2018 17:24:30 GMT
I wonder whether this is in fact Bridge Lending Limited, which has a registered address in Blackpool and whose director is A Currie, and an ex-director, as of 5 March (interesting timeing!) is P Currie. If you follow P Currie on C House there is a company with an address in Blackpool. M*t*a*n* Ltd. He is an active director. Interestingly, the nature of business is 62020 - Information technology consultancy activities. If I weren't an 4 figure investor (that's a lot to me) I'd have to laugh at the current debacle. See this post by mrclondon for details on the various companies registered at the address in Blackpool (available to those with DD Central access).
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Jun 13, 2018 17:35:26 GMT
Proving that you are an investor may be more difficult. Arguably a core could b e established from posting history then work on a solution. Any signed email (a loan update or a loan part purchase for example) from collateral is verifiable proof enough if you wanted a fairly undeniable method (would just be a case of forwarding to a forum admin to verify the signature), particularly if the email address in question matches the forum login. Although that requires the lenders' willingness to share the email in the first place. EDIT: I guess maybe not anymore now that someone else owns the domain and could sign whatever they like with whatever keys they like The new owner of the domain won't be able to acquire the private key used to sign emails from Collateral, although if deliberate destruction of data isn't being ruled out, neither can deliberate leaking of the key.
|
|
