oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Apr 2, 2018 10:16:46 GMT
Yes. Not actually expecting anything meaningful from her in a hurry. Just wanted to make sure (?) my presence on her (easily deleted) mail "list" is there.
I see that RR demand the replies by 6 April in writing. Does that mean (in law) hard copy delivered in an envelope? How clever of RR to require that after not sending us the report in the first place!
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 2, 2018 10:19:09 GMT
I am considering this. I am holding back until Jessica replies (if she does) and will need to consider exactly what to say. (I'll need help on that, to make my complaint as comprehensive and detailed as possible). oldgrumpy - I've read everything being posted on this thread - contributions from myself virtually zero as I need to take on board others more knowledgeable than myself in these matters.
What I am coming to the conclusion is that the current - was it a convenient pre-pack administrator deal? - are they simply out of their depth? They are no doubt fine dealing with a straightforward company cessation but in this case we've got (hopefully) a client account with full segregation of investor funds, FCA oversight, etc, etc. Also of course as they are not FCA approved then would they would be breaking those grey FCA rules by simply pushing the button to enable investors to view their loan portfolios - I really have no idea and I suspect the administrators don't know either.
Apart from the initial e-mail with formal letter direction, their communication has been dire. Having made that point, as they are operating on a fixed cost basis then it's in their interests to minimise costs irrespective.
|
|
amphoria
Member of DD Central
Posts: 156
Likes: 124
|
Post by amphoria on Apr 2, 2018 10:19:26 GMT
Good luck with getting a response before 6th April. I sent her an email on 21st March and didn't get a response until 28th March which didn't even answer the question that I had asked. The response consisted of "Good Morning I am hoping to get an update out to all investors in the next two weeks, so everyone will have a better understanding of the current position of the Company. As soon as this is available, all investors will be notified accordingly. Yours sincerely For Collateral (UK) Limited Jessica Hodgson For Gordon Craig Administrator" So it looks like she is now sending out boilerplate responses. I note that she is quoting the same two weeks that she had given to another Indy member a week earlier, but from a starting point a week later. The question I had asked was whether I needed to put in a creditor claim for the uninvested cash in the client account as Gordon Craig's original letter sent on 28th Feb only referred to money lent via the platform. TBH I am in the same situation and I think I will put a claim in as a creditor anyway for this , as the information we have been given is very unclear I am thinking along the very same lines as you as it does no harm to play it safe.
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Apr 2, 2018 10:25:54 GMT
I've completed some sections of the Proof of Debt Form sent by RR last month. It is the final page of the downloadable document and followed the letter and form AM01.
My question: I'm not sure what to write, if anything, in sections 8, 9, and 13. Can anyone advise? Many thanks!
8. Particulars of any security held, the value of the security, and the date it was given:
9. Particulars of any reservation of title claimed, in respect of goods supplied to which the claim relates:
13: Position with or in relation to creditor: I'm thinking here I should write 'investor'?
|
|
snowmobile
Member of DD Central
Posts: 230 
Likes: 448
|
Post by snowmobile on Apr 2, 2018 10:55:06 GMT
A couple of additional matters to add to @mason 's good summary, especially as it was from memory and there was a lot of technical information. 1 Although you may be relying on a leaked copy of the report it is part of the public record as it should have been filed at Companies House. 2 You have until Friday (6th April) to register your request for a meeting of creditors to consider the Administrators proposals. The report, clearly erroneously, said there are no secured, preferential or unsecured creditors so 10% of the investors, by value, who are owed interest in the undrawn loans is sufficient. radar it has long been possible for official communications to be sent by email there is a specific section of the Companies Act 2006 covering it, but it is irrelevent in this case because he has not sent it to anyone as far as I am aware. I have noted that the administrator gives until 6 April to register any dissent regarding his proposals. I have sent an email to Jessica asking why I have not been sent a copy of the report containing those proposals. As far as she is concerned I don't even know about that 6 April deadline, let alone make a decision on responding to it. She can guess whether I have actually seen it. Highly sloppy and unprofessional, in my opinion. Does anyone know for sure if the leaked report is considered to be officially issued and part of the public record. It has not yet been filed at Companies House as far as I can see, although that process would not be instant. The leaked report may be an internal draft from within RR. Is it possible that the initial court hearing put a stop on any further issuance of official reports until the appointment matter is resolved?
|
|
sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Apr 2, 2018 11:00:15 GMT
It has been suggested to me that there has already been one court hearing and that resulted in some sort of 'gagging order'.
I have no information about what that means of who it applies to.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 2, 2018 11:10:03 GMT
I have noted that the administrator gives until 6 April to register any dissent regarding his proposals. I have sent an email to Jessica asking why I have not been sent a copy of the report containing those proposals. As far as she is concerned I don't even know about that 6 April deadline, let alone make a decision on responding to it. She can guess whether I have actually seen it. Highly sloppy and unprofessional, in my opinion. Does anyone know for sure if the leaked report is considered to be officially issued and part of the public record. It has not yet been filed at Companies House as far as I can see, although that process would not be instant. The leaked report may be an internal draft from within RR. Is it possible that the initial court hearing put a stop on any further issuance of official reports until the appointment matter is resolved? Good questions ...worth being answered before ‘blame’ is attached to a certain party
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 2, 2018 11:17:27 GMT
Jessica’s email address
Any chance of this being posted on that thread started by Stardust
TIARA
|
|
amphoria
Member of DD Central
Posts: 156
Likes: 124
|
Post by amphoria on Apr 2, 2018 11:23:18 GMT
Jessica’s email address Any chance of this being posted on that thread started by Stardust TIARA If you have the original letter from Gordon Craig, it can be found on page 2 at the end of the section titled Information request.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 2, 2018 11:27:42 GMT
Jessica’s email address Any chance of this being posted on that thread started by Stardust TIARA If you have the original letter from Gordon Craig, it can be found on page 2 at the end of the section titled Information request. Thanks yes I do
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 2, 2018 12:21:33 GMT
I've completed some sections of the Proof of Debt Form sent by RR last month. It is the final page of the downloadable document and followed the letter and form AM01. My question: I'm not sure what to write, if anything, in sections 8, 9, and 13. Can anyone advise? Many thanks! 8. Particulars of any security held, the value of the security, and the date it was given: 9. Particulars of any reservation of title claimed, in respect of goods supplied to which the claim relates: 13: Position with or in relation to creditor: I'm thinking here I should write 'investor'? For 8/9, there is no security/title as the loan did not complete. 13 appears to apply only if you are claiming on someone else's behalf.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Apr 2, 2018 12:56:12 GMT
Does anyone know for sure if the leaked report is considered to be officially issued and part of the public record. It has not yet been filed at Companies House as far as I can see, although that process would not be instant. The leaked report may be an internal draft from within RR. Is it possible that the initial court hearing put a stop on any further issuance of official reports until the appointment matter is resolved? TBH I don't think anyone knows, it quotes the relevant piece of legislation on the title page, but it is required by law to be sent to thr registrar of companies, creditors, and members (shareholders) of the company. It states therin that there are no secured, preferential or unsecured creditors. It also states that when Mr Craig (refering tohimself in the third person) "On 21 February 2018 the proposed Administrator met with the Directors to discuss the financial position of the Group. At this meeting, the Directors advised that the Group was unable to pay its debts when they fell due and consequently was insolvent. Debts are defined as amounts due to creditors. The report is purportedly signed by Mr Craig but in the five working days from signature it has not been filed at Companies House. The report also refers to a court hearing on 16 March so, if a "gagging order" was made a report a week later is in breech of it, although I have not seen or heard about any such "gagging order"
|
|
macro
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 70
|
Post by macro on Apr 2, 2018 13:47:30 GMT
Gagging order or otherwise, it seems reasonable to expect to be advised by an appointed administrator whether or not one qualifies as an investor or creditor.
|
|
up
Posts: 59
Likes: 62
|
Post by up on Apr 2, 2018 15:27:01 GMT
To share a technical detail re our Collateral account records: each the website originated contract-note emails were digitally signed via DKIM-Signature. Thus each note has a unique cryptographic signature covering date/time contents etc that only collateraluk could have authored.
The purpose of these is for mail systems to prevent spam. But the signatures stand and are separately verifiable at any time against the email even when extracted from an email client.
I verified a couple of sample mails (23-Feb-2018 and 01-Aug-2016).
Thus we each potentially hold non-falsifiable history of amounts/datetime our deposits/withdrawals/loan-part purchase and sales. Except for interest payments and allowing that occasional contract notes were not delivered that would allow fairly accurate account statement to be reconstructed and stronger than any retained statements exported from the website. The company should already hold correct records but they should also know that many their investors have this audit-trail.
I rely on this as excuse to not contact & assert a creditor claim with the administrator.
One weakness with ongoing verification would be if collateraluk.com domain server lapsed or ceased to publish the DKIM public key - so we can preserve a copy here:
dkim:collateraluk.com:mandrill
v=DKIM1; k=rsa; p=MIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQCr
LHiExVd55zd/IQ/J/mRwSRMAocV/hMB3jXwaHH36
d9NaVynQFYV8NaWi69c1veUtRzGt7yAioXqLj7Z4
TeEUoOLgrKsn8YnckGs9i3B3tVFB+Ch/4mPhXWiN
fNdynHWBcPcbJ8kjEQ2U8y78dHZj1YeRXXVvWob2
OaKynO8/lQIDAQAB;
(public info retrieved by every mail system when verifying mail)
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Apr 2, 2018 15:38:33 GMT
The above statement of affairs must "give the names and addresses of the company’s creditors". The terms and conditions we are bound by clearly outline Collateral (UK) Limited's liability to us for interest on loans we have part-funded between the date of our funding and draw-down. Anyone who placed a bid on a loan during February in which the loan did not draw down on the same day would automatically become a creditor of the company. Has anyone managed to save a copy of the new terms and conditions from 1st February, the ones we weren't informed about? The google cache link I saved no longer appears to work, it now takes me to the holding page of the website on 24th March. I am curious to know if any attempt was made to change the terms related to the liability to us for interest on loans not yet drawn down. IIRC the T&Cs uploaded shortly before Coll took the website down said CUK were not FCA regulated and any monies on the client accounts would be treated as unsecured creditors (although unsecured Cr's were given as zero in the RR report). There has been discussion re interest on pre-drawdown loans being payable by Coll and therefore might be considered an unsecured Cr of CUK. I also seem to remember when pressed about the tax treatment of cashbacks that the platform rep said there had been an update to the borrower agreement for CB to be added to the borrower's fees. So potentially another known unknown. (Although I thought Coll stumped up pre-drawdown interet as an incentive to invest).
|
|
