tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300 
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 3, 2018 13:57:09 GMT
Then why silently remove FCA from email and secretly change T&C? If in good faith, shouldn’t they have ceased trading there and then? All these questions and shady actions made people worried.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
Member is Online
|
Post by micky on Mar 3, 2018 14:04:49 GMT
Ok, or they were forced to call in the administrators by FCA.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 3, 2018 14:29:23 GMT
But if collateral ever make a come back, I am not going to have anything to do with it. I took that view after the events of 11/10/2016 and pulled out then. There have been times since when I have regretted missing out on juicy interest and wondered whether I was over-reacting. But p2p is risky enough without investing in a platform which has lost your trust, and C certainly forfeited my trust over the Bootle fiasco.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 3, 2018 14:30:53 GMT
My money is trapped to stop me from spending it. Thank you, collateral. But if collateral ever make a come back, I am not going to have anything to do with it. Very wise words. Although some form of continued trading may allow the company to continue long enough to oversee the return of your funds for spending. Edit - crossed with seeingred (on the 2nd bit, not the rosie bit).
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 3, 2018 14:35:40 GMT
But if collateral ever make a come back, I am not going to have anything to do with it. I took that view after the events of 11/10/2016 and pulled out then. There have been times since when I have regretted missing out on juicy interest and wondered whether I was over-reacting. But p2p is risky enough without investing in a platform which has lost your trust, and C certainly forfeited my trust over the Bootle fiasco. Tbf you called called it all long.
|
|
JamesFrance
Member of DD Central
Port Grimaud 1974
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 897
|
Post by JamesFrance on Mar 3, 2018 15:06:43 GMT
I get the impression that the Administrator believes that the directors acted in good faith and were let down by faulty advice from lawyers and compliance specialists. If that is the case I would hope they have adequate professional liability insurance.
I have followed this thread and seen many accusations made, but prefer to reserve judgement until things become clearer.
I see no point in lenders badgering the Administrator who will have lots of more important things to deal with at this early stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 3, 2018 16:41:11 GMT
The lawyers and compliance specialists definitely did not put up the current, [bogus], 'down for server upgrade' webpage/announcement. That's not how you do it.
|
|
JamesFrance
Member of DD Central
Port Grimaud 1974
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 897
|
Post by JamesFrance on Mar 3, 2018 17:02:34 GMT
The lawyers and compliance specialists definitely did not put up the current, [bogus], 'down for server upgrade' webpage/announcement. That's not how you do it. Most likely the Administrator as I imagine he was in control by the time that appeared.
|
|
spiral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 967
Likes: 486
|
Post by spiral on Mar 3, 2018 17:47:49 GMT
Current hourly fees (Ex VAT) for liquidators time spent on an investment trust I have that is in the process of being wound up:
Partner £510
Associate Director £445
Manager £340
Executive £260
Administrator £200
Treasury £180
Assistant £150
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Mar 3, 2018 17:51:37 GMT
any idea what they charge for knocking up a misleading website holding page ? (if the slightly fanciful notion it was the admins what done it is accurate) I guess it must be quite the grey area of compliance law - your permission has lapsed can you just carry on regardless ermmm  |
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 3, 2018 18:13:45 GMT
The only circumstances where administration fees and costs will affect lenders is if they exceed Collateral's assets and any ring fenced funds meant to cover them.
They have made very positive noises so far about returns to "investors" so the point of how much their hourly rate is should be of no concern.
The hopes of a COL2 are imo fanciful bit never say never.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 3, 2018 19:37:15 GMT
They have made very positive noises so far about returns to "investors" so the point of how much their hourly rate is should be of no concern. The hopes of a COL2 are imo fanciful bit never say never. I am more concerned how to identify this Collateral 2! So that I can avoid. The brothers could let another director to join as new partner and as director. Association between companies and they FCA authorisation has proven very hard to keep track of. It’s almost like watch Dark on Netflix and trying to keep track of all then people in the episodes. I want to ask advice from other users, how do you do your on-going due diligence? I search company house, director detault history and company opening closing history, AND verify FCA authorisation. But this is point of time checks, and I, as well as many, still got caught out by Collateral because they lost their approval but chose not to tell us, none of us. Any advice? On-going checks are vital, but how?
|
|
withnell
Member of DD Central
Posts: 550
Likes: 491
|
Post by withnell on Mar 3, 2018 19:41:44 GMT
Everyone seems to want to work out how to avoid "COL2", but has anyone actually lost any money yet? Beyond the lapsed authorisation, there's no suggestion so far that they ran the administration of lender/borrower accounting in a bad way
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 3, 2018 19:58:22 GMT
They have made very positive noises so far about returns to "investors" so the point of how much their hourly rate is should be of no concern. The hopes of a COL2 are imo fanciful bit never say never. I am more concerned how to identify this Collateral 2! So that I can avoid. The brothers could let another director to join as new partner and as director. Association between companies and they FCA authorisation has proven very hard to keep track of. It’s almost like watch Dark on Netflix and trying to keep track of all then people in the episodes. I want to ask advice from other users, how do you do your on-going due diligence? I search company house, director detault history and company opening closing history, AND verify FCA authorisation. But this is point of time checks, and I, as well as many, still got caught out by Collateral because they lost their approval but chose not to tell us, none of us. Any advice? On-going checks are vital, but how? They are not vital. They are just a hurdle to be overcome by anyone wanting to get around them as has been demonstrated.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698 
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Mar 3, 2018 19:59:01 GMT
Everyone seems to want to work out how to avoid "COL2", but has anyone actually lost any money yet? Beyond the lapsed authorisation, there's no suggestion so far that they ran the administration of lender/borrower accounting in a bad way Except that they clearly did do something wrong. We may never know what, but the FCA clearly caught them out, which, while no guarantee, does at least show they are not completely asleep at the wheel.
|
|
