Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 29, 2018 20:42:40 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. But they needed FCA approval to conduct their business (and didn't have it), so they are within the FCA remit.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730 
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Mar 29, 2018 20:48:00 GMT
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 You mean Collateral (UK) Limited? Listed as a previous name between 24/3/16 and 29/1/18 on the FCA website? Or another company?
|
|
p2pete
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 142
|
Post by p2pete on Mar 29, 2018 20:50:21 GMT
As I recall he came back with a positive feedback on which I and perhaps others invested further funds into the platform. Yes, unfortunately I also invested further on the back of that.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Mar 29, 2018 21:00:26 GMT
Though I could only ever suggest how my portion of Our far greater loan book is Administered my personal preference is for the current Administrator assisted by Peter & Andrew + staff to oversee the run off process on our behalves; additionally whilst our 'Book' remains close by the opportunity will undoubtedly remain for willing Directors from other p2p platforms to offer their assistance as requested and felt appropriate to ensure Best Outcome for Our funds. This is an important test of the Alternative Finance sectors ability to show Leadership and Ability to aid another in time of crisis, It is my considered opinion that those with understanding would serve us better than a remote entity with NO understanding of p2p lending. This is a wider p2p sector matter, the skill sets are on hand around us to bring about a Best outcome. This is a chance for Alternative Finance to evidence that it is capable of leading and not just following, this is a time for Unity and common purpose. I shall be emailing Jessica shortly in her capacity as representing Collateral's appointed Administrator to seek the retention of the status quo.Why do you trust this particular Administrator so much when the FCA have doubts?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 29, 2018 21:00:40 GMT
That is what the judge must decide at the hearing based on evidence presented. It is not what you have said previously the judge must decide on whether the current administrator should be repleced by another, and you have lobbied for people to support the current administrator. So far in your posts you have said nothing about the legality or otherwise of the current administrator handling client funds or any court action to decide that.
|
|
p2pmark
Member of DD Central
Posts: 218
Likes: 187
|
Post by p2pmark on Mar 29, 2018 21:07:42 GMT
If COL were acting illegally it would be surprising if they were allowed to appoint the people to sort out their mess.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 29, 2018 21:11:25 GMT
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. Stubs, you have to appreciate how you're coming across here. You've provided us with sensitive information that's describing (in part) one side of an ongoing court case between RR and the FCA, and which is written by RR. You then lobby us directly to support that side of the debate to try and influence that outcome. Despite what you say, the very fact that you have come about this documentation as well as supplementary information and a prescribed course of action for us to take in their favour, strongly suggests you have privileged access to the inner workings of Coll/RR. You offer no information to support the FCA in their actions, and the only one piece of information you give about the proposed new administrators is to undermine them by describing their apparent higher costs to investors. As a result of all of this, you're coming across as an anonymous party with a very one-sided interest and a suspicious level of information for an outsider in a similar way to the jimreaper/developer posts on the DFL001 Lendy thread (for those who followed that saga) . As a result you're in danger of receiving the same frosty reception for similar reasons. I'm not saying you won't ultimately be vindicated, but you'll really help your cause if you start to also provide the other side of the story i.e. What the FCA take issue with about RR's stewardship of the Administration? Why the FCA recommend the proposed new administrators? What has already occurred in court? How you've come about this information and why RR haven't contacted us directly to explain what you're explaining to us, given our support would be beneficial to their cause?
|
|
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 21:14:44 GMT
That is what the judge must decide at the hearing based on evidence presented. It is not what you have said previously the judge must decide on whether the current administrator should be repleced by another, and you have lobbied for people to support the current administrator. So far in your posts you have said nothing about the legality or otherwise of the current administrator handling client funds or any court action to decide that. I have no data on the legality of the current administrator. The judge must decide that in court based on arguments presented. All I am requesting is that people register that our money needs to be protected when the decision is considered. If people wish to alter the wording then fine. If they don't want to register anything thats fine. Should the premise, as set out earlier, not be questioned then we will just need to accept what the judge decides. I prefer to have a small input in the judges deliberations that may bring better returns of my money than the FCA forced alternative. As I have stated this is not advice it is a request. Sending the email costs you nothing. I understand points already eloquently made.
|
|
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 21:20:57 GMT
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. Stubs, you have to appreciate how you're coming across here. You've provided us with sensitive information that's describing (in part) one side of an ongoing court case between RR and the FCA, and which is written by RR. You then lobby us directly to support that side of the debate to try and influence that outcome. Despite what you say, the very fact that you have come about this documentation as well as supplementary information and a prescribed course of action for us to take in their favour, strongly suggests you have privileged access to the inner workings of Coll/RR. You offer no information to support the FCA in their actions, and the only one piece of information you give about the proposed new administrators is to undermine them by describing their apparent higher costs to investors. As a result of all of this, you're coming across as an anonymous party with a very one-sided interest and a suspicious level of information for an outsider in a similar way to the jimreaper/developer posts on the DFL001 Lendy thread (for those who followed that saga) . As a result you're in danger of receiving the same frosty reception for similar reasons. I'm not saying you won't ultimately be vindicated, but you'll really help your cause if you start to also provide the other side of the story i.e. What the FCA take issue with about RR's stewardship of the Administration? Why the FCA recommend the proposed new administrators? What has already occurred in court? How have you come about this information and why haven't RR contacted us directly to explain what you're explaining to us, given our support would be beneficial to their cause? Thanks r00lish67. I understand how it looks and the danger now you have pointed it out. I will postvonly verifiable data that I recievecand question my source much more thoroughly before putting things up. As I have no access to FCA or the other administrator then I am limited on what data I can present from them. I understand it's all one sided and the need to be careful of my wording and burden of proof. I am sorry if I have come across wrong with my wish to present information to the forum.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Mar 29, 2018 22:00:41 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 Given this is now on the public section of the site, I warn everyone: a) This peer stub8535 has not stated (and not answered) as to how he got that leaked report. His intervention and hurry looks to me highly suspicous. I suspect he is an insider in RefreshRecovery or Collateral (so any advice should be taken as not independent). b) He mentioned information which is not even published in that leaked report. c) The information about one administrator being paid with Collateral funds and one other being paid with lenders' money is totally groundless and does not have any legal validation. Any administrator that will take over the company will have to follow the law and certainly will not be able to take over lenders' funds to pay his fees. d) If I had to choose with the current information set, I would DEFINITELY prefer an independent administrator nominated by the FCA to protect lenders' interest and NOT a close friend of Collateral (as it would be Refresh Recovery), so I suggest NOT to send any email To me you are doing the same thing as the poster you are referring to ....personally I don’t like these sort of scare tactics
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 29, 2018 22:01:35 GMT
The key issue seems to be whether or not Col was running a business which was or was not subject to regulation, and I imaging that might be key to the decision at law. From reading the report it appears that Col believed, at the time they decided to go into administration, that they were not running a business subject to regulation which fell within the remit of the FCA. On that basis they could appoint an administrator who, accepting that argument, could decide to act on the basis that the company was not subject to FCA regulation. Their actions and proposals seem consistent with that belief. On the other hand it is clear that the FCA believe that Col's business was subject to their regulation. Only on that basis would they go to court. So they must believe that Col's business required FCA approval, which they also say it did not have. That therefore means that they would also contend, strongly, that any administrator could act only with their approval, which they have not given. So there may be a point of principal to be settled at law before anything can be done. That is, was the business that Col was running subject to regulation and approval by the FCA or not?
It also seems to me that the fact that the document has been made available to Col lenders via this forum and the suggestion that lenders should write in support of the current administrators is no co-incidence. That does not mean it is a bad idea.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Mar 29, 2018 22:14:17 GMT
seems benefit of the doubt of just being gullible has moved firmly into outright shill.
Hopefully the FCA get this sorted and the choice of the chancers at Coll get replaced
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 29, 2018 22:22:07 GMT
So there may be a point of principal to be settled at law before anything can be done. That is, was the business that Col was running subject to regulation and approval by the FCA or not? I would be extremly surprised to learn that 30+ other p2p lending companies had to ask FCA authorisation and COL (running a very similar scheme) imagined they had not to (specially when they had already applied to get an authorisation...). So would I. I was not trying to make a judgement, just analysing the leaked draft report. It is clear that was the position of the owners when appointing the administrator. It is equally clear that the FCA disagree. Others can decide who will win, and who they want to support.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 29, 2018 22:28:36 GMT
The Administrators report of 23 March states that the FCA "tacitly" (whatever that may mean) agreed in 2017 to Collateral's run down (presumably what has been referred to on here as the "living will") plan if it was ever required and Refresh Recovery were named in that document. They claim that in accrodance with that tacit agreement they were consulted in February 2017 and that culminated with Mr Craig's appointment as Administrator on 28th February.
It is clear from subsequent FCA court action they do not accept that tacit agreement either ever took place, or it didn't equate to actual agreement.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 30, 2018 2:51:21 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. Per the adminstrator's report, Coll UK were incorporated 17 Nov 2014, the cut off for interim permissions was 1 Apr Nov 2014. There was a previous business that had consumer credit permission (from pawnbroking) but not peer to peer permission (despite any retrospective name changes) and that business is now dissolved.
|
|
