In Administration (Col)

'Hints' there are I believe, athough certainly not proof.

Having acquired the growing trust of investors through the jewelry loans, they moved into property developments etc and quickly accelerated.

When it eventually became apparent that the  investor base was too small no more cash would be forthcoming to continue to fill these loans, the operation was, rather conveniently,  put into administration. The means to do this was handily there.

Please do prove me all wrong, collateral. But where is the re-assuring voice of their customer relations spokesman now? No more cash to be had, so why bother now, perhaps?

The outlook of Investboy is, I think, fairly reasonable. Be glad if you get back anything at all, but don't expect the people behind collateral to lose any sleep over it. They will have made their quid.

Thanks for FCA confirmation on top of that of the administrator. Glance at the "Previous Registered Names" section and see if you can spot Collateral (UK) Limited, effective 24/03/2016 until 29/01/2018 (when it was changed back to Regal). So the FCA even believed that reference was valid for Collateral until recently.

lol, took me a minute to realise I was wasn't still in an exchange with the same poster.

I believe that Collateral did have Interim permission.
The Regal Pawnbroker IP lapsed in March 2016, but another Interim Permission was visible on the FCA website in May 2016. p2pindependentforum.com/post/112860/thread. There is no suggestion that it was in any name other than Collateral. I wonder if @bobo can remember what name was used. I suspect other early investors would have read the post and also checked the FCA register at the time. A few days later dualinvestor and ilmoro also posted about FCA registration, and again there is no mention that the IP was in a different name.

This leads me to believe that the FCA had an application from Collateral and displayed it in the register.

Indeed the administrator has specifically stated that
"The Company is continuing to trade under my supervision, however for the timebeing, until the Company position is clarified, the Company will not be facilitating any new loans or allowing the transfer of any loan portion."

However, I understand (though am no expert) that administrators do generally have quite wide reaching powers.

If you have a look on Companies House for the Adminstrators reports for Veh**** Tra**** Gr*** Ltd, you will see that one of the lists of tasks that they carried out was seeking approval from the FCA to collect existing debts. They will not be allowed to issue any new loans whilst under control of an Administrator without full permission.

>scammed/fraud/dodgy does
I know there is a requirement to blame someone and get angry, but I think the readiness to believe this is deliberate fraud rather than maladministration will provide little succour to platform reps who imagine they can build up trust then find it amounts to nothing when things go wrong.
Will this episode provide any lessons to the 'crowd' of the dangers of being irrationally annoyed when failures swamp big established platforms then rush into the arms of untested young platforms with keen platform reps with who have plenty of good news and little bad news to disseminate?
Jack P