11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 738 
Likes: 859
Member is Online
|
Post by 11025 on Jun 15, 2018 13:32:15 GMT
I joined this forum only recently as i have 19K invested with Collatertal and i only just found out this place existed so i have been worrying all on my own. Its took me quite a while to read through the 132 pages and i must say a quite a bit of it goes over my head but its really good to know we have a lot of very clever people amoungst us who will certainly not let the wool be pulled over their eyes so that reassures me a lot. I tend to agree with Carters post. I cant really understand why people are presuming we are going to get nothing back. A lot of the money is allocated to the bling and we know that it is all there. As long as all the loans pay back eventually then we get our money back from those. I know people feel we are getting shafted by the FCA and BDO but someone has to sort this mess out and from what i have read about RR i would not have wanted them onboard. If we dont get a penny from this at the end of the day then who does get all the money? Who gets the bling and cars. Who gets the properties if the loans default or even pay up. I just dont understand how we can get nothing. I cant see how that is possible. It took me a while but i went through all my bank statements and added up money in and out from Colleteral and its near as damn it what i have on my spreadsheets. I also kept all of my emails and the money also tallys off against these so i also know what loans i am in and how much. This will surely help things when the time comes. I havent seen anything terribly negative as of yet so i hope the next update on the 22nd gives us all a boost.
The issues you raise relate to the fact that COL were not authorised by the FCA therefore the legality of the loans they arranged is thrown into question.
If I start a money lending business and don't seek authorisation from the FCA and then I get caught out for doing so, my customers would be entitled to a full refund of the total amount that they have paid to my company and also they do not have to repay any further amounts owed. If COL were acting without interim permission this could be the position that their borrowers are in.
Ironically, if this is the case, then private individual investors won't get anything back but Limited company investors that lent to other limited companies via COL would be able to seek repayment of the amount they are owed as business to business lending is unregulated.
This is obviously a worst case scenario. Still my overall take on this is the FCA knew something was amiss a long , long time before the Coll website was taken down , so why sit back and do nothing ?
|
|
reinvestor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 194
Likes: 224
|
Post by reinvestor on Jun 15, 2018 13:36:02 GMT
Why allow several different Limited company names to be used on one Interim Permission page on the FCA website!!! That is the million dollar question.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Jun 15, 2018 13:43:49 GMT
My opinion of the whole matter is absolutely <moderated> !! (Thought I would save you the trouble, mods)
|
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Jun 15, 2018 13:59:05 GMT
Just my two penneth on one point.
My understanding of the legalities are that if the firm making the loan is not regulated both parties should be 'put back to the position they were in before the contract took place' - i.e not that a borrower can just not repay.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 15, 2018 14:03:22 GMT
My opinion of the whole matter is absolutely <moderated> !! (Thought I would save you the trouble, mods) Didnt realise that Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious was a banned word 
|
|
reinvestor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 194
Likes: 224
|
Post by reinvestor on Jun 15, 2018 14:16:22 GMT
Just my two penneth on one point. My understanding of the legalities are that if the firm making the loan is not regulated both parties should be 'put back to the position they were in before the contract took place' - i.e not that a borrower can just not repay. I don't believe that this is the case.
I run a regulated Hire Purchase finance house. Under the move from the OFT to the FCA is was drilled into us at many of the FCA "Roadshows" that I attended that if you wish to carry on collecting your outstanding book once it was your time to move from OFT supervision to Interim Permission under the FCA, you HAD to register. If you didn't, your clients did not have to pay back a penny more as soon as you were deemed to be acting illegally.
This question kept being asked by small "doorstep" lenders (predominantly family firms where aging family members couldn't be bothered with the new FCA regime and the fees associated with registering).
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Jun 15, 2018 14:24:38 GMT
Just my two penneth on one point. My understanding of the legalities are that if the firm making the loan is not regulated both parties should be 'put back to the position they were in before the contract took place' - i.e not that a borrower can just not repay. I don't believe that this is the case.
I run a regulated Hire Purchase finance house. Under the move from the OFT to the FCA is was drilled into us at many of the FCA "Roadshows" that I attended that if you wish to carry on collecting your outstanding book once it was your time to move from OFT supervision to Interim Permission under the FCA, you HAD to register. If you didn't, your clients did not have to pay back a penny more as soon as you were deemed to be acting illegally.
This question kept being asked by small "doorstep" lenders (predominantly family firms where aging family members couldn't be bothered with the new FCA regime and the fees associated with registering).
I think you highlight the reason the FCA had for making you think this was the only way to carry on. Ultimately this may have to be decided in court & I would certainly expect the "common sense" solution set out by ablrate to prevail.
Lenders & borrowers have clearly acted in good faith & any potential law breaking or wrong doing is SOLELY on the part of the FCA & the directors of Collateral so any legal penalty should rest with those responsible (NOT lenders or borrowers)
|
|
p2pete
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 142
|
Post by p2pete on Jun 15, 2018 14:50:20 GMT
I don't believe that this is the case.
I run a regulated Hire Purchase finance house. Under the move from the OFT to the FCA is was drilled into us at many of the FCA "Roadshows" that I attended that if you wish to carry on collecting your outstanding book once it was your time to move from OFT supervision to Interim Permission under the FCA, you HAD to register. If you didn't, your clients did not have to pay back a penny more as soon as you were deemed to be acting illegally. This question kept being asked by small "doorstep" lenders (predominantly family firms where aging family members couldn't be bothered with the new FCA regime and the fees associated with registering).
That's different though. In your scenario, the company acting illegally is the one lending the money, so it makes sense that they don't get paid back.
|
|
jcm9000
Member of DD Central
Posts: 181
Likes: 153
|
Post by jcm9000 on Jun 15, 2018 14:52:48 GMT
I don't believe that this is the case.
I run a regulated Hire Purchase finance house. Under the move from the OFT to the FCA is was drilled into us at many of the FCA "Roadshows" that I attended that if you wish to carry on collecting your outstanding book once it was your time to move from OFT supervision to Interim Permission under the FCA, you HAD to register. If you didn't, your clients did not have to pay back a penny more as soon as you were deemed to be acting illegally. This question kept being asked by small "doorstep" lenders (predominantly family firms where aging family members couldn't be bothered with the new FCA regime and the fees associated with registering).
That's different though. In your scenario, the company acting illegally is the one lending the money, so it makes sense that they don't get paid back. Therein lies another key question that may well have been answered above. Who were the agreements actually between? I think it will need to go to the courts to clarify such matters for P2P and Coll, and the FCA if really wanting to act to 'protect us' have a lot of thinking to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Please turn me over on Jun 15, 2018 15:08:28 GMT
<snip> This question kept being asked by small "doorstep" lenders (predominantly family firms where aging family members couldn't be bothered with the new FCA regime and the fees associated with registering).
Reminds me of the Making Tax Digital for VAT initiative that takes effect 1 April 2019. It's going to be a nuisance for a lot of small businesses. (But accountants are lovin' it.)
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Jun 15, 2018 15:24:39 GMT
doesn't anyone else wonder why COL decommissioned the website/data
if it was me and i had made an honest mistake re regulations, then i would be bending over backwards to assist in anyway possible in the hope that i could one day return to what appears to be a profitable business
Nothing like a good conspiracy theory.
Lets not forget that the hiatus in the administration process (and potential loss of data) was caused by RR appealing against their proposed removal (I believe saying that they would defend their position vigorously) and 4 weeks later not attending the court case. The cynical out there might think this was a deliberate delaying tactic so that there was time to get dirty washing out of view.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Jun 15, 2018 15:41:49 GMT
You would assume that the FCA took account of this before BDO's appointment (no, don't laugh). If you can prove that there is a contract between yourself and a borrower, I find it difficult to believe that <moderated>. The problem is can anyone prove what their money was actually invested in? The only person who can sort out the latter is probably a judge
And he's not going to be impressed by a lever arch file full of emails from COL purporting to say what they did with your money.
No way that an email is going to be accepted as proof of investment.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 738
Likes: 859
Member is Online
|
Post by 11025 on Jun 15, 2018 16:00:43 GMT
The only person who can sort out the latter is probably a judge
And he's not going to be impressed by a lever arch file full of emails from COL purporting to say what they did with your money.
No way that an email is going to be accepted as proof of investment.
Maybe not concrete in itself , but hundreds of people with thousands of emails all showing Collateral company and FCA info , who knows , I certainly think anybody would have to notice and take that on board ....
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 15, 2018 16:44:51 GMT
Just my two penneth on one point. My understanding of the legalities are that if the firm making the loan is not regulated both parties should be 'put back to the position they were in before the contract took place' - i.e not that a borrower can just not repay. I don't believe that this is the case.
I run a regulated Hire Purchase finance house. Under the move from the OFT to the FCA is was drilled into us at many of the FCA "Roadshows" that I attended that if you wish to carry on collecting your outstanding book once it was your time to move from OFT supervision to Interim Permission under the FCA, you HAD to register. If you didn't, your clients did not have to pay back a penny more as soon as you were deemed to be acting illegally.
This question kept being asked by small "doorstep" lenders (predominantly family firms where aging family members couldn't be bothered with the new FCA regime and the fees associated with registering).
Yes but this is not the same case. An HP lender who is trading unregistered may have difficulty in obtaining his money back. But the p2p lenders and borrowers have a direct contract and are not at fault, and should be entitled to be put into an equitable arrangement, as Ablrate has said.
|
|
TenKay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 117
|
Post by TenKay on Jun 15, 2018 17:16:13 GMT
doesn't anyone else wonder why COL decommissioned the website/data
if it was me and i had made an honest mistake re regulations, then i would be bending over backwards to assist in anyway possible in the hope that i could one day return to what appears to be a profitable business
Nothing like a good conspiracy theory.
Lets not forget that the hiatus in the administration process (and potential loss of data) was caused by RR appealing against their proposed removal (I believe saying that they would defend their position vigorously) and 4 weeks later not attending the court case. The cynical out there might think this was a deliberate delaying tactic so that there was time to get dirty washing out of view.
think they attended the Hilary Clinton school of record keeping
|
|
