11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 740 
Likes: 863
|
Post by 11025 on Mar 29, 2018 20:00:41 GMT
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. Ok yes, that would be bad , mind you doesn't sound like it should be allowed.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Mar 29, 2018 20:02:16 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 Thank you for posting. I haven't received an update from the administrator, so could I ask you what is the source of your information stub8535 ? As to your advice: If C(UK) were not authorised and, as dualinvestor says, the current administrator will not be authorised, how do we get our money out if not by appointing someone who is authorised?
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 29, 2018 20:03:24 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. Maybe. But if the dealer had sold the car and used the money elsewhere you would become an unsecured creditor.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Mar 29, 2018 20:12:31 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 I think that you should declare your interest. It is clear that the FCA have concerns, which we are not aware of and cannot second guess. It it is only clear that COL were not on the level, but we all hope for a full return of investors money. Obviously legal proceedings take time and cost, but it needs, for the sake of all P2P investors to be done correctly and as an example to other platforms.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 29, 2018 20:18:27 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 Why should anyone send an email to support a court case in the light of unchecked and unverified information?
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Mar 29, 2018 20:19:46 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. The FCA website showed that C(UK) had interim permissions. It now shows that the permission is lapsed and was used by C(UK) between 24/3/2016 and 29/01/2018: 
|
|
|
|
Post by Proptechfish on Mar 29, 2018 20:23:02 GMT
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 But the FCA are not the police they do not have universal authority over all financial institutions, you have to be a member in the first place right ? I'm hardly beaming about the allegation that COL marketed FCA regulation knowing full well they didn't have it, but allegations are allegations until proven. My point is i disagree with your analogy if you commit murder police have every right to pursue you as it's a criminal act, the FCA have very limited criminal prosecution powers and some civil prosecution powers. Not that i'm suggesting anybody has actually broken any laws as of yet.
|
|
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 20:26:52 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 I think that you should declare your interest. It is clear that the FCA have concerns, which we are not aware of and cannot second guess. It it is only clear that COL were not on the level, but we all hope for a full return of investors money. Obviously legal proceedings take time and cost, but it needs, for the sake of all P2P investors to be done correctly and as an example to other platforms. My interest aligns with yours as an investor only. I managed to get information some of which needs verification that I can point people towards. I have no paid connections to any of the organisations I have posted about and have no relatives involved. I can understand the reticence to take things at face value. I would be the same. I could keep all information received to myself and avoid the need to defend my motives. It is your choice to accept or reject the requests, that are definitely not advice as I am not qualified to give this, and act accordingly. At the moment I will post what I can in the 2 places on the forum with advice from the mods where needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 29, 2018 20:27:10 GMT
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 But the FCA are not the police they do not have universal authority over all financial institutions, you have to be a member in the first place right ? I'm hardly beaming about the allegation that COL marketed FCA regulation knowing full well they didn't have it, but allegations are allegations until proven. My point is i disagree with your analogy if you commit murder police have every right to pursue you as it's a criminal act, the FCA have very limited criminal prosecution powers and some civil prosecution powers. Not that i'm suggesting anybody has actually broken any laws as of yet. They do
|
|
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 20:29:00 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 Thank you for posting. I haven't received an update from the administrator, so could I ask you what is the source of your information stub8535 ? As to your advice: If C(UK) were not authorised and, as dualinvestor says, the current administrator will not be authorised, how do we get our money out if not by appointing someone who is authorised? That is what the judge must decide at the hearing based on evidence presented.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 29, 2018 20:29:37 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. I am often told that Administrators have very wide powers. Are you sure that these powers can be overridden by the FCA who presumably are blocking the Administrators road to settlements and wish to appoint their own (pliable?) Administrator? Since this whole problem arose I sensed from their silence on the matter that the FCA would be anxious to stifle debate on what went amiss vis a vis the regulatory framework. I also would opine that the only substantial assets within Col relate to investor funds which the FCA would like to gain control of to pay the bills. Unfortunately I cannot see the current Administrators being able to take on a government department full of financial services lawyers. It would need a lobbying of local MPs and a press campaign plus the support of other p to p platforms to expose FCAs behind the scenes role in this saga.
|
|
sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Mar 29, 2018 20:30:24 GMT
Just as a little bit of background to new members perhaps now might be a good time to remind ourselves that stub8535 was one of two members who took up Collateral's invitation in their early days to visit their premises and ask the directors various questions posed about the operation of the company.
As I recall he came back with a positive feedback on which I and perhaps others invested further funds into the platform.
I'm not holding stub8535 responsible or suggesting he had any motivation other than as an investor. Just putting out some background.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 29, 2018 20:35:14 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. I am often told that Administrators have very wide powers. Are you sure that these powers can be overridden by the FCA who presumably are blocking the Administrators road to settlements and wish to appoint their own (pliable?) Administrator? Since this whole problem arose I sensed from their silence on the matter that the FCA would be anxious to stifle debate on what went amiss vis a vis the regulatory framework. I also would opine that the only substantial assets within Col relate to investor funds which the FCA would like to gain control of to pay the bills. Unfortunately I cannot see the current Administrators being able to take on a government department full of financial services lawyers. It would need a lobbying of local MPs and a press campaign plus the support of other p to p platforms to expose FCAs dubious role in this saga. Administrator's do have very wide powers but no more than the company they are appointed over. They are agent for the company so if the company did not have regulatory authorisation neither does the Administrator.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Mar 29, 2018 20:36:31 GMT
Thank you for posting. I haven't received an update from the administrator, so could I ask you what is the source of your information stub8535 ? As to your advice: If C(UK) were not authorised and, as dualinvestor says, the current administrator will not be authorised, how do we get our money out if not by appointing someone who is authorised? That is what the judge must decide at the hearing based on evidence presented. But a personal opinion on which administrator to use is not relevant in a judge deciding if the current administrator is legally allowed to return funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 29, 2018 20:39:48 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. The FCA website showed that C(UK) had interim permissions. It now shows that the permission is lapsed and was used by C(UK) between 24/3/2016 and 29/01/2018: Yes but as others have already stated this interim permission does not relate to the company of a similar name which is now in administration
|
|
