blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 23, 2018 16:26:20 GMT
Is it definitely known that Col held valid interim permission for P2P lending? To further speculate, if Collateral did not hold valid interim permission for P2P lending, does that mean that any loans made during this period are not legally valid? I do wish the FCA would step up and clarify some of the many questions raised in the past 57 pages. Better still if they had policy in place initially. These are uncharted waters indeed. I doubt it but I don't think that matters much. The Borrowers would have to repay the money if the loans were voided. What matters is that whatever mechanism the Administrator uses to take the loans forward must be compliant. They would want it signed off by the FCA.
|
|
bfish
Member of DD Central
Posts: 106
Likes: 131
|
Post by bfish on Mar 23, 2018 17:13:43 GMT
Oh man this thread is spiraling into a pit of despair, blatantly misinformed comments, and negative speculation. Pretty much par for course with the skittish P2P crowd  Never give up hope, Hazel...  Change of address just received from Companies House:- 'Registered office address changed from 12th Floor, Blue Tower Media City Uk Manchester M50 2st to C/O Refresh Rovery Limited West Lancashire Investment Centre Maple View Skelmersdale Lancashire WN8 9TG on 23 March 2018.' Not sure about 'Refresh Rovery Ltd' . . . but guess the Friday gremlins have crept in !!? At least, somebody's doing something - for better or worse - 'til death do us part !! 
|
|
reinvestor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 194 
Likes: 224
|
Post by reinvestor on Mar 23, 2018 19:30:37 GMT
Yes, they were operating under Interim Permission which has now lapsed. FCA website is showing : Status: No longer authorised (Reference number: 647161) This is a firm that can no longer provide regulated products and services, but was previously authorised by the PRA and/or FCA Those permissions are for "The Collateral Loan Company Limited". It is a different company. This thread relates to Collateral (UK) Limited. It was the permissions issued to Regal Pawnbroker Limited, Reference Number 656714 that Collateral (UK) Limited displayed on the website prior to February. It appears those permissions did not include permissions relating to operating a P2P platform. It may also be the case that those permissions were non-transferable between the two separate businesses, since the authorisation was transferred back to Regal prior to being marked lapsed. Categorically, permissions cannot be transferred between different Limited companies. You can add trading names but they cannot be limited or even include the term limited
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 23, 2018 20:02:04 GMT
Those permissions are for "The Collateral Loan Company Limited". It is a different company. This thread relates to Collateral (UK) Limited. It was the permissions issued to Regal Pawnbroker Limited, Reference Number 656714 that Collateral (UK) Limited displayed on the website prior to February. It appears those permissions did not include permissions relating to operating a P2P platform. It may also be the case that those permissions were non-transferable between the two separate businesses, since the authorisation was transferred back to Regal prior to being marked lapsed. Categorically, permissions cannot be transferred between different Limited companies. You can add trading names but they cannot be limited or even include the term limited Thanks, that makes it clear that Collateral (UK) Limited never held valid interim permissions of any kind. Presumably, the record on the FCA register was updated on the misunderstanding that it was the same business and the company name had changed, whereas it was actually a different Limited company. Shame nobody at the FCA checked at the time - or in the subsequent year and a half.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354 
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 23, 2018 20:28:07 GMT
Crikey - what a mess !!
I do find it rather hard to believe that in all their time trading COL didn't even have an inkling that their FCA permission (interim or whatever) was invalid?
To date I have taken consolation in the (naïve it seems) belief that even if FCA permissions had latterly elapsed and/or been revoked the earlier loans would have been covered by FCA permission at their inception.
If this proves to be the case (i.e. no FCA permission - at any time) then I guess COL Directors are potentially looking at criminal prosecution?
But where does this leave us lenders - unknown territory I suspect?
That update report from the Administrator can't come soon enough!!
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,049
Likes: 5,169
|
Post by adrianc on Mar 23, 2018 21:19:05 GMT
Interesting article in one of yesterday's daily newspapers on the accountants dealing with the Carillion collapse. Head Accountant: £865 an hour Support Staff: £360 an hour With a caveat of they are one of the first in line when the money is dished out. One may just think that in this kind of profession it can at times pay extremely well to procrastinate... With all due respect to the administrators of Collateral, I'm not sure they're quite in the Carillion-collapse league. Also - those fees come out of the company's funds. The whole point of client monies being ring-fenced is that they AREN'T the company's monies, and can't be used for company purposes. Including paying the company's administrators. Those fees would be paid out of COL's margin, the gap between the rate the borrower pays and the rate we receive.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 24, 2018 9:26:31 GMT
If this proves to be the case (i.e. no FCA permission - at any time) then I guess COL Directors are potentially looking at criminal prosecution? Potentially. It would also mean that the FCA register held incorrect information about the company for the vast majority of the time it was trading. Many of us will have made the decision to invest on the assumption that the information on the FCA register was accurate.
|
|
reinvestor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 194
Likes: 224
|
Post by reinvestor on Mar 24, 2018 10:08:17 GMT
The FCA register would have held correct information about the company that it had granted Interim Permission to. It seems that this wasn’t the trading company that Collateral were using and / or they didn’t have the correct permissions for that company.
Performing any form of credit brokerage (effectively what a peer to peer platform does) or lending without authorisation is a criminal offence that attracts massive fines at best and at worst imprisonment.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 24, 2018 10:12:11 GMT
The FCA register would have held correct information about the company that it had granted Interim Permission to. It seems that this wasn’t the trading company that Collateral were using and / or they didn’t have the correct permissions for that company. Performing any form of credit brokerage (effectively what a peer to peer platform does) or lending without authorisation is a criminal offence that attracts massive fines at best and at worst imprisonment. But these are matters for down the road, they do not help, or probably even affect the Administration.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 24, 2018 10:42:55 GMT
The FCA register would have held correct information about the company that it had granted Interim Permission to. It seems that this wasn’t the trading company that Collateral were using and / or they didn’t have the correct permissions for that company. Performing any form of credit brokerage (effectively what a peer to peer platform does) or lending without authorisation is a criminal offence that attracts massive fines at best and at worst imprisonment. Several of us checked the register during the time Collateral were trading and "Collateral (UK) Limited" was listed in the "Firm Name" field of the register entry. Even now, "Previous Registered Names" are listed as "Regal Pawnbroker Limited, Collateral (UK) Limited - 24/03/2016, Regal Pawn Broker Limited - 29/01/2018" (IP Reference number: 656714) You've told us categorically that permissions cannot be transferred between different Limited companies, and I believe you are correct. Based on the information recorded on the FCA register, this happened. The only logical conclusion is that the information held on the register was incorrect and has subsequently been corrected.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 24, 2018 10:57:26 GMT
I have not read all 58 pages as I am out of Coll, so this may have already been mentioned. If Coll was not authorised then any capital losses cannot be offset against interest for tax purposes.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 24, 2018 10:59:49 GMT
The FCA register would have held correct information about the company that it had granted Interim Permission to. It seems that this wasn’t the trading company that Collateral were using and / or they didn’t have the correct permissions for that company. Performing any form of credit brokerage (effectively what a peer to peer platform does) or lending without authorisation is a criminal offence that attracts massive fines at best and at worst imprisonment. Several of us checked the register during the time Collateral were trading and "Collateral (UK) Limited" was listed in the "Firm Name" field of the register entry. Even now, "Previous Registered Names" are listed as "Regal Pawnbroker Limited, Collateral (UK) Limited - 24/03/2016, Regal Pawn Broker Limited - 29/01/2018" (IP Reference number: 656714) You've told us categorically that permissions cannot be transferred between different Limited companies, and I believe you are correct. Based on the information recorded on the FCA register, this happened. The only logical conclusion is that the information held on the register was incorrect and has subsequently been corrected. So to extrapolate that logic - if you are correct, and the FCA register was previously incorrect (something no lender could have known at the time), then the FCA will have to accept a legal and/or moral responsibility for that error - an error which promulgated false information and which lenders accepted as the truth in good faith?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 24, 2018 11:09:35 GMT
Too many hares being set running here. I think this is all covered by the initial statements and actions. They believed they were authorised. It turned out that they were not. They went into voluntary administration. No-one is going to want to have the past investigated and resolved in detail if there is no-one who would benefit from it. The lenders are not going to be punished. The directors are not going to be made an example of for an honest misunderstanding in their dealings with the FCA. The FCA are not going to be investigated. Going forward the details of the past should make no difference to lenders outcomes, and best to let them get on with achieving that.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 24, 2018 11:12:16 GMT
Several of us checked the register during the time Collateral were trading and "Collateral (UK) Limited" was listed in the "Firm Name" field of the register entry. Even now, "Previous Registered Names" are listed as "Regal Pawnbroker Limited, Collateral (UK) Limited - 24/03/2016, Regal Pawn Broker Limited - 29/01/2018" (IP Reference number: 656714) You've told us categorically that permissions cannot be transferred between different Limited companies, and I believe you are correct. Based on the information recorded on the FCA register, this happened. The only logical conclusion is that the information held on the register was incorrect and has subsequently been corrected. So to extrapolate that logic - if you are correct, and the FCA register was previously incorrect (something no lender could have known at the time), then the FCA will have to accept a legal and/or moral responsibility for that error - an error which promulgated false information and which lenders accepted as the truth in good faith? The possibility is certainly something to be kept in mind as we await the outcome of the administration.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 740
Likes: 863
Member is Online
|
Post by 11025 on Mar 24, 2018 11:13:03 GMT
Too many hares being set running here. I think this is all covered by the initial statements and actions. They believed they were authorised. It turned out that they were not. They went into voluntary administration. No-one is going to want to have the past investigated and resolved in detail if there is no-one who would benefit from it. The lenders are not going to be punished. The directors are not going to be made an example of for an honest misunderstanding in their dealings with the FCA. Going forward the details of the past should make no difference to lenders outcomes, and best to let them get on with achieving that. Totally agree , I believe that no-one here knew or could have foreseen this situation
|
|
