reinvestor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 194 
Likes: 224
|
Post by reinvestor on Mar 24, 2018 11:21:34 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. They are not different companies though. Where it states “previous registered names” that is the same company that has changed its name which of course any company is able to do and that is allowed by the FCA.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 24, 2018 11:27:20 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. They are not different companies though. Where it states “previous registered names” that is the same company that has changed its name which of course any company is able to do and that is allowed by the FCA. They are different companies: Company number 08422560 beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08422560REGAL PAWNBROKER LIMITED 27 Feb 2013 - 25 Nov 2015 FITZWILLIAM BLACK LIMITED 25 Nov 2015 - 14 Mar 2017 Company Status: Dissolved (14 Mar 2017) Company number 09314729 beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09314729COLLATERAL (UK) LIMITED Incorporated on 17 November 2014 Company status: In Administration
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354 
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 24, 2018 11:27:41 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. I hear what you are saying and to a significant extent agree with you. However, it does no harm whatsoever to try and ascertain the actual situation and chain of events from an independent investigative perspective - even if that eventually serves simply to confirm what we have already been told. I am certainly not going to blindly accept what I am told without some empirical, documentary and verifiable evidence in support. Crikey, looks at the moment (subject to confirmation) like we all blindly accepted the FCA database as true and correct - and they are paid (allegedly) to be on the side of the consumer!!
As I said previously, the sooner the forthcoming Administrator report is published the better - that should (hopefully) at least clear some of the fog.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 24, 2018 11:30:10 GMT
I was going to post about how my "gut" feeling was 100% return on cash in account and 50% recovery of loans. Then my cup half full brain got the better of me with a couple of nagging doubts: Could someone more knowleable than I stop the following nightmare scenarios in their tracks? Are they possible? Likely? A/ If COL wasn't authorized to lend or collect debt, it still isn't. Could that mean a doomsday scenario of all borrowers simply not being asked to return any capital? B/ Almost as bad, if the administrator is only interested in creditors of COL of which we are not, then is it quite possible there will not be any arrangements put in place to collect repayments and make distributions? Responses in this thread made over the past 24 hours would go some way to assuaging some of your doubts. The administrator has expressed a desire to run down the loan book in the manner we have come to understand was intended in the event of the demise of the platform. The FCA, however, will have significant influence over what actually happens, and this situation is unprecedented. Unprecedented yes, but anticipated and thought about.
|
|
reinvestor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 194
Likes: 224
|
Post by reinvestor on Mar 24, 2018 11:31:13 GMT
They are not different companies though. Where it states “previous registered names” that is the same company that has changed its name which of course any company is able to do and that is allowed by the FCA. They are different companies: Company number 08422560 beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/08422560REGAL PAWNBROKER LIMITED 27 Feb 2013 - 25 Nov 2015 FITZWILLIAM BLACK LIMITED 25 Nov 2015 - 14 Mar 2017 Company Status: Dissolved (14 Mar 2017) Company number 09314729 beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09314729COLLATERAL (UK) LIMITED Incorporated on 17 November 2014 Company status: In Administration Then the whole thing really is a mess!!
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 24, 2018 11:34:47 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. The administrator Gordon said to me (early on) that he thought that they (COL directors) would be justified in making a case against the lawyers who had advised them that the permissions were ok.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 24, 2018 11:37:34 GMT
Responses in this thread made over the past 24 hours would go some way to assuaging some of your doubts. The administrator has expressed a desire to run down the loan book in the manner we have come to understand was intended in the event of the demise of the platform. The FCA, however, will have significant influence over what actually happens, and this situation is unprecedented. Unprecedented yes, but anticipated and thought about. By unprecedented, I was alluding to the regulatory problems. I have confidence that there are well thought out plans, but those regulatory issues may be an impediment to the execution of those plans.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 24, 2018 11:41:59 GMT
Unprecedented yes, but anticipated and thought about. By unprecedented, I was alluding to the regulatory problems. I have confidence that there are well thought out plans, but those regulatory issues may be an impediment to the execution of those plans. Can't be sure of course - but that could well have been what Jessica was alluding to when I talked to her recently and she said 'The FCA are currently trying to make matters even more difficult' (or words to that effect)?
Just saying.......!
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 26, 2018 1:29:56 GMT
So quiet when the end of 4th week approaches. Soon marking the mid point for the 8 week of wait time for a truly “refresh”ing report ...
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Mar 27, 2018 9:53:08 GMT
Testing 1 2 3
Oh it does work....no posts in 24 hours ...just checking
|
|
sjg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 67
Likes: 61
|
Post by sjg on Mar 27, 2018 11:39:25 GMT
Testing 1 2 3 Oh it does work....no posts in 24 hours ...just checking Ha yes I think all has been said for now. Were just stuck in a limbo waiting on the Administrators to feed us a few crumbs about whats going on!
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Mar 27, 2018 11:59:38 GMT
Indeed, I have refrained from entering the conjecture fray and it is, and always has been, in the lap of the gods. Doris Day's moste excellente philosophy reigns - " Que Sera Sera"!!! (And I have middling five figures rotting here  .) |
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 27, 2018 12:00:52 GMT
Hoping to get Jessica’s email for the report she promised and reconciliation result soon, real soon.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 27, 2018 12:17:19 GMT
Testing 1 2 3 Oh it does work....no posts in 24 hours ...just checking Now look what you've done. Woken everyone up.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Mar 27, 2018 12:28:16 GMT
Testing 1 2 3 Oh it does work....no posts in 24 hours ...just checking Now look what you've done. Woken everyone up. I know ...I feel I should apologise  Back to sleep everyone!
|
|
.)