guff
Posts: 730 
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Apr 4, 2018 12:02:02 GMT
I suggested previously that the COL section on DD-C be closed. There can be little if any discussion on loan Due Diligence and when setting up DD-C, the intention was that anything meaningful posted in DD-C gets posted here. Either there is nothing meaningful being discussed in DD-C or that 'rule' is being ignored. Closing the COL section would 'force' all discussion here for the benefit of COL investors without access. I've nothing against DD-C, I just despair of the dozens of rubbish posts that are made just in order to reach a post-count based entry criterion. ( Whinge over  ) I think DDC COL is needed now more than ever. There are things it would simply be against forum rules to post here. I've engaged in as much discussion as possible here, to the point of reproducing information I found in DDC so far as it can be posted here. It would be a real shame if the only exchange of such information going forward could be by PM or on another site, meaning it might not even reach anyone willing to share it here. What makes you think that being in ddc makes it safe? After all, the rules for entry are publicised and it only takes 50 bland posts to get the key. I can imagine that there is already some sort of supposed forbidden presence there, even if it's only friends or family of platform representatives.
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Apr 4, 2018 12:23:12 GMT
How long is a piece of string? How long is this thread? These questions, and many others, will be answered in the next episode of...Rope  |
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Apr 4, 2018 12:32:56 GMT
How long is a piece of string? How long is this thread? These questions, and many others, will be answered in the next episode of...Rope This is the story of two brothers — Andrew Currie and Peter Currie. And their butler, Gordon..
|
|
yorky
Posts: 28
Likes: 29
|
Post by yorky on Apr 4, 2018 12:47:01 GMT
I think it would be wise to wait until the true facts come out then pass our comments about collateral.up to this episode a lot of us thought this platform was one of the best.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Apr 4, 2018 13:03:52 GMT
I am starting to favour a middle way solution which is halfway between what we have now and what the FCA seems to be after. Given that our friends in the north west have begun work and obviously made a fair bit of progress I would favour seeing them continue with dealing with the administration but under the close oversight of the FCA. That would seem to not lose so much time and end up with us incurring double fees but it would also ensure that RR play with a straight bat- not that I am suggesting that they don't always do that. If the FCA argument is that RR is too close to Collateral then if they were operating under the eyes of the FCA as well as their own industry regulatory body that would seem to provide safeguards and might be in the best interests of investors. I wonder if the Judge will fudge it and come to such a judgment.
|
|
moist
Member of DD Central
Posts: 241
Likes: 251
|
Post by moist on Apr 4, 2018 13:11:13 GMT
Does this not set a precedent for the industry. Living wills not worth the paper they are written on if the FCA gets its way.....
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 4, 2018 13:20:52 GMT
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 1,861
Member is Online
|
Post by archie on Apr 4, 2018 13:24:10 GMT
Does this not set a precedent for the industry. Living wills not worth the paper they are written on if the FCA gets its way..... The living will is part of the full FCA application. If a platform is approved it should remain valid. In this case there was no authorisation.
|
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Apr 4, 2018 13:40:00 GMT
I am starting to favour a middle way solution which is halfway between what we have now and what the FCA seems to be after. Given that our friends in the north west have begun work and obviously made a fair bit of progress I would favour seeing them continue with dealing with the administration but under the close oversight of the FCA. That would seem to not lose so much time and end up with us incurring double fees but it would also ensure that RR play with a straight bat- not that I am suggesting that they don't always do that. If the FCA argument is that RR is too close to Collateral then if they were operating under the eyes of the FCA as well as their own industry regulatory body that would seem to provide safeguards and might be in the best interests of investors. I wonder if the Judge will fudge it and come to such a judgment. I think the issue could be that Collateral did not have the necessary regulatory permission, but neither does the administrator, therefore they cannot proceed.
If the police pull you over for driving without a license, you cannot give the car to your mate to drive if he also doesn't have a license.
|
|
|
|
Post by riddler on Apr 4, 2018 14:47:57 GMT
Hello I have trawled throughout my mails, but do not seem to have received anything from Collateral UK, neither the generic update of 28-Feb, nor any mails thereafter. I am at a loss, and hoping that the stalwarts on this forum can guide me on the best possible course of action for me to take this up please. I am not heavily invested (around £1,100), but I am still concerned that I haven't had the update that all investors seem to have received. Thanks Riddler Hello all Could you please assist me with the above post? Specifically, if you could pm me the boilerplate mail from Collateral (I understand this was dated the 28-Feb), the 'leaked response' thereafter, and the coordinates / email / contact of the people to write to or call to check the reason for me not having received the standard message that has gone across to all lenders? Apologies for bumping this up, but would be truly grateful to have assistance please. Thanks Riddler
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 1,861
Member is Online
|
Post by archie on Apr 4, 2018 14:52:01 GMT
Hello I have trawled throughout my mails, but do not seem to have received anything from Collateral UK, neither the generic update of 28-Feb, nor any mails thereafter. I am at a loss, and hoping that the stalwarts on this forum can guide me on the best possible course of action for me to take this up please. I am not heavily invested (around £1,100), but I am still concerned that I haven't had the update that all investors seem to have received. Thanks Riddler Hello all Could you please assist me with the above post? Specifically, if you could pm me the boilerplate mail from Collateral (I understand this was dated the 28-Feb), the 'leaked response' thereafter, and the coordinates / email / contact of the people to write to or call to check the reason for me not having received the standard message that has gone across to all lenders? Apologies for bumping this up, but would be truly grateful to have assistance please. Thanks Riddler Check your Messages. I sent you the 28 Feb link yesterday.
|
|
p2pete
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 142
|
Post by p2pete on Apr 4, 2018 14:56:49 GMT
These questions, and many others, will be answered in the next episode of...Rope Thanks, I can't get the Soap theme tune out of my head now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Apr 4, 2018 15:01:06 GMT
I am starting to favour a middle way solution which is halfway between what we have now and what the FCA seems to be after. Given that our friends in the north west have begun work and obviously made a fair bit of progress I would favour seeing them continue with dealing with the administration but under the close oversight of the FCA. That would seem to not lose so much time and end up with us incurring double fees but it would also ensure that RR play with a straight bat- not that I am suggesting that they don't always do that. If the FCA argument is that RR is too close to Collateral then if they were operating under the eyes of the FCA as well as their own industry regulatory body that would seem to provide safeguards and might be in the best interests of investors. I wonder if the Judge will fudge it and come to such a judgment. I think the issue could be that Collateral did not have the necessary regulatory permission, but neither does the administrator, therefore they cannot proceed.
If the police pull you over for driving without a license, you cannot give the car to your mate to drive if he also doesn't have a license.
However you could safely park the car at the side of the road & whilst sat in the police car discussing your fate your mate could take the keys home in a taxi & give them to your wife.
I don't see how what the administrator is doing is any of the FCA's business, he is simply informing borrowers to repay &/or refinance their loans & then overseeing/accounting for the return of lenders cash, then distributing back to their registered bank accounts; none of which needs any form of FCA regulatory permission, over & above that which he already has as the authorised administrator (which is again nothing to do with the FCA)
|
|
seb8072
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 99
|
Post by seb8072 on Apr 4, 2018 15:14:16 GMT
Hello all Could you please assist me with the above post? Specifically, if you could pm me the boilerplate mail from Collateral (I understand this was dated the 28-Feb), the 'leaked response' thereafter, and the coordinates / email / contact of the people to write to or call to check the reason for me not having received the standard message that has gone across to all lenders? Apologies for bumping this up, but would be truly grateful to have assistance please. Thanks Riddler Check your Messages. I sent you the 28 Feb link yesterday. riddler; Yes, I sent you a link yesterday also.
|
|
zedi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80 
Likes: 47
|
Post by zedi on Apr 4, 2018 15:15:01 GMT
I am starting to favour a middle way solution which is halfway between what we have now and what the FCA seems to be after. Given that our friends in the north west have begun work and obviously made a fair bit of progress I would favour seeing them continue with dealing with the administration but under the close oversight of the FCA. That would seem to not lose so much time and end up with us incurring double fees but it would also ensure that RR play with a straight bat- not that I am suggesting that they don't always do that. If the FCA argument is that RR is too close to Collateral then if they were operating under the eyes of the FCA as well as their own industry regulatory body that would seem to provide safeguards and might be in the best interests of investors. I wonder if the Judge will fudge it and come to such a judgment. I think the issue could be that Collateral did not have the necessary regulatory permission, but neither does the administrator, therefore they cannot proceed.
If the police pull you over for driving without a license, you cannot give the car to your mate to drive if he also doesn't have a license.
But then to logical solution would be that the administrator hands the case over to someone who has the appropiate license and since there are (allegedly) enough competitors who already threw their hats into the ring this should only be a problem if either the current administrator doesn´t want to hand over (and is therefore still discussing with the FCA) or the FCA is blocking the transfer because this (unexpected) special case has to be further discussed by bureaucrats.
|
|
)
