archie
Posts: 1,866 
Likes: 1,861
Member is Online
|
Post by archie on Mar 29, 2018 17:36:40 GMT
The FCA is contesting the appointed administrators. Very messy. The administrators claim that the COL directors had legal advice that they did not require FCA authorisation, yet the directors continued to use FCA references on their website, even though they had withdrawn their application from the FCA. Yet despite this legal advice they continued to submit documents to the FCA. Very messy. Chinese whispers  I suspect the vital word FULL is missing. it would then make sense and read: The administrators claim that the COL directors had legal advice that they did not require FULL FCA authorisation ............... When I joined last summer I was told they didn't require FULL FCA Authorisation, because they had an P2P interim permission from before the cut off date. I understood platforms, with interim permission from before the cut off date, were only allowed to trade while their full application was being processed. I'd question the advice that made COL withdraw their application.
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Mar 29, 2018 17:41:22 GMT
I'm a little confused. Can anyone brighter confirm whether or not investors' money lent is in fact ring-fenced and cannot be used to pay current administrators or any other administrator which may be appointed by the FCA? I have refrained from posting this before but if Collateral did not have the regulatory authority to act as a P2P platform or handle client's money the appointment of an Administrator does not rectify those defects. Therefore what the company could not do neither can it's Administrator, without the FCA''s approval. So it follows, if I understand correctly, that the appointed Administrator, lacking FCA approval, can do nothing to progress the return of investors' funds.
|
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354 
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 29, 2018 17:53:00 GMT
I'm a little confused. Can anyone brighter confirm whether or not investors' money lent is in fact ring-fenced and cannot be used to pay current administrators or any other administrator which may be appointed by the FCA? I have refrained from posting this before but if Collateral did not have the regulatory authority to act as a P2P platform or handle client's money the appointment of an Administrator does not rectify those defects. Therefore what the company could not do neither can it's Administrator, without the FCA''s approval. You may well be correct - time will tell.
However, my understanding is that the current Administrator was the entity named by COL in its 'living will' - to act in the event of administration? The requirement for a 'living will' was a requirement of the FCA as part of its framework of regulatory requirements necessary to progress P2P companies from interim to full permission? That 'living will' (one assumes) would therefore have had to be submitted to the FCA for approval (why have one otherwise)?
This is looking increasingly like an equation with one or two variables missing - hence currently insoluble?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 29, 2018 17:53:15 GMT
I have refrained from posting this before but if Collateral did not have the regulatory authority to act as a P2P platform or handle client's money the appointment of an Administrator does not rectify those defects. Therefore what the company could not do neither can it's Administrator, without the FCA''s approval. So it follows, if I understand correctly, that the appointed Administrator, lacking FCA approval, can do nothing to progress the return of investors' funds. I regret to answer that in the affirmative. The clent''s account and loans may be in the name of Collateral (UK) Limited but the money belongs to the client neither the company or the Administrator has the regulatory authotity to deal with it. If these rumours are true (remember we have seen neither the Administrator's report or evidence of the alleged FCA action) then it appears the FCA are not prepared to give the necessary approvals to the current Administrator. IMO it is unlikely any amount of lobbying will change that. EDIT again IMO the "living will"if it exists is null and void given the regulatory defects.
|
|
jcb208
Member of DD Central
Posts: 838
Likes: 638
|
Post by jcb208 on Mar 29, 2018 18:03:17 GMT
After reading this report I have a headache too  In my opinion they should just sell the entire loan book to the company offering a return of 100% monies to investors, this should keep costs down and would be the best out come for us all.No doubt the FCA will put a block on this |
|
rxdav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 354
Likes: 349
|
Post by rxdav on Mar 29, 2018 18:17:56 GMT
After reading this report I have a headache too In my opinion If possible why don't they just sell the entire loan book to the company offering a return of 100% moeys to investors, this should keep costs down and would be the best out come for us all.No doubt the FCA will put a block on this I'm getting a sinking feeling that this may become a pi**ing competition between Administrator and FCA - in which little old you and me (and our missing GBP) are merely spectators whose genuine best interests may well be lost in any forthcoming melee?
If this does become a Court case (hopefully not too célèbre), we may well have to ultimately rely on the common sense of the Judge.
Time to consider this further in a quiet darkened room with my friend Merlot me thinks!?
Have a good Easter one and all.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 29, 2018 18:37:07 GMT
I understand the "leaked" documents are approaching two weeks old perhaps stub8535 would like to explain how and why they are in his possession now, why he has chosen now to publish them and why he is actively lobbying for the retention of the current Administrator. If everything disclosed so far is true it appears that the FCA does not have confidence in Refresh Recovery and wants them replaced by a larger firm (B**). Although judges are independent I cannot believe one will go against the considered opinion of a statutory regulator unless manifest error is shown, however much lobbying by third parties happens. I am not privvy to he FCA's thought process and don't know why they are taking this action but on balance they have to act in the public interest and I would be very surprised if they failed to win in court. |
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 29, 2018 19:23:35 GMT
It seems to me as a member of the great unwashed that from previous comments Col never had interim permission and was not regulated by the FCA even though Col directors appear to have acted as though otherwise. FCA used or intended to use its powers stop Col from continuing to trade illegally which was when the company was put into administration. As Col was not permitted/regulated lenders who provided loan money must be creditors under insolvency law even if the Administrator in his initial letter implies a distinction otherwise.
|
|
sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Mar 29, 2018 19:36:14 GMT
It seems to me as a member of the great unwashed that from previous comments Col never had interim permission and was not regulated by the FCA even though Col directors appear to have acted as though otherwise. FCA used or intended to use its powers stop Col from continuing to trade illegally which was when the company was put into administration. As Col was not permitted/regulated lenders who provided loan money must be creditors under insolvency law even if the Administrator in his initial letter implies a distinction otherwise. That doesn't sound right at all. Irrespective of whether COLL had the regulatory permissions they still accepted our money into their client account. I might ask my local garage to try to sell my car for me and give them a commission if successful. If they go bust in the meantime it's still my car and I'd be entitled to take it back.
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Mar 29, 2018 19:40:28 GMT
I post this here for those people not on dd central.
The basic premise, with facts to be checked, is that FCA want to appoint their own receiver (report). The information I have, unverified, is that the fees for this top 5 company will be taken from investors fees and not, As with the present administrator, from Collateral funds. I am seeking clarity that I may quote.
Should we wait until after the judge has tested and ruled then we have no influence and may end up in a worse off position.
The email costs nothing to send.
Could I request investors to send an email to Jessica on
jh@refreshrecovery.co.uk in the following form. Change the text to suit how you feel given the posts preceding this today.
Dear Jessica
I am (name) and I have (£x) invested at Collateral.
I wish to register that I do not want the FCA appointed alternative as administrators as it would bring about a less optimal result than the current one being offered through Refresh Recovery.
Yours Sincerely
(Name)
Ends
Yours is the choice now.
I have done what I can to help.
S
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 740
Likes: 863
|
Post by 11025 on Mar 29, 2018 19:45:53 GMT
I post this here for those people not on dd central. The basic premise, with facts to be checked, is that FCA want to appoint their own receiver (report). The information I have, unverified, is that the fees for this top 5 company will be taken from investors fees and not, As with the present administrator, from Collateral funds. I am seeking clarity that I may quote. Should we wait until after the judge has tested and ruled then we have no influence and may end up in a worse off position. The email costs nothing to send. Could I request investors to send an email to Jessica on jh@refreshrecovery.co.uk in the following form. Change the text to suit how you feel given the posts preceding this today. Dear Jessica I am (name) and I have (£x) invested at Collateral. I wish to register that I do not want the FCA appointed alternative administrators as it would bring about a less optimal result than the current one being offered through Refresh Recovery. Yours Sincerely (Name) Ends Yours is the choice now. I have done what I can to help. S Can you clarify what you mean by investors fees ? Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Proptechfish on Mar 29, 2018 19:47:01 GMT
It seems to me as a member of the great unwashed that from previous comments Col never had interim permission and was not regulated by the FCA even though Col directors appear to have acted as though otherwise. FCA used or intended to use its powers stop Col from continuing to trade illegally which was when the company was put into administration. As Col was not permitted/regulated lenders who provided loan money must be creditors under insolvency law even if the Administrator in his initial letter implies a distinction otherwise. If COL never had interim/full FCA regulation in first place surly the FCA have no legal basis to pursue them as COL would be out of their remit. I'm by no means an expert in these things but more i'm hearing the less things stack up and my confidence is seeing any of my capital returned is slowly diminishing. As for insolvency law my understanding is COL are not insolvent, yet, they are just in administration. I'm genuinely at a loss right now to whether i'm actually legitimate creditor or not. Just got to ride it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 29, 2018 19:52:41 GMT
It seems to me as a member of the great unwashed that from previous comments Col never had interim permission and was not regulated by the FCA even though Col directors appear to have acted as though otherwise. FCA used or intended to use its powers stop Col from continuing to trade illegally which was when the company was put into administration. As Col was not permitted/regulated lenders who provided loan money must be creditors under insolvency law even if the Administrator in his initial letter implies a distinction otherwise. If COL never had interim/full FCA regulation in first place surly the FCA have no legal basis to pursue them as COL would be out of their remit. ................ That is like saying if I commit murder it is outside the police's remit to pursue me. IF Collateral were unregulated they should have been and should not have taken the public's money, just as if I kill someone I should not have done. EDIT The FCA is responsible for regulating the former, the police the latter
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 29, 2018 19:54:07 GMT
Presumably Col could not continue to trade as the FCA has regulatory powers to use against an illegal trader. As Col could not continue to trade the only route was Administration even though Col was not insolvent.
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,447
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Mar 29, 2018 19:58:05 GMT
I post this here for those people not on dd central. The basic premise, with facts to be checked, is that FCA want to appoint their own receiver (report). The information I have, unverified, is that the fees for this top 5 company will be taken from investors fees and not, As with the present administrator, from Collateral funds. I am seeking clarity that I may quote. Should we wait until after the judge has tested and ruled then we have no influence and may end up in a worse off position. The email costs nothing to send. Could I request investors to send an email to Jessica on jh@refreshrecovery.co.uk in the following form. Change the text to suit how you feel given the posts preceding this today. Dear Jessica I am (name) and I have (£x) invested at Collateral. I wish to register that I do not want the FCA appointed alternative administrators as it would bring about a less optimal result than the current one being offered through Refresh Recovery. Yours Sincerely (Name) Ends Yours is the choice now. I have done what I can to help. S Can you clarify what you mean by investors fees ? Thanks Sorry. My mistake trying to do too many things at once. I meant out of what would normally be considered investors funds either invested or in cash. As stated, I await verification of this.
|
|
In my opinion they should just sell the entire loan book to the company offering a return of 100% monies to investors, this should keep costs down and would be the best out come for us all.No doubt the FCA will put a block on this
