duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,882 
Likes: 6,972
|
Post by duck on Apr 2, 2018 16:04:25 GMT
..... 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: .... COLLATERALUK.COM shows 'Registry Expiry Date: 2018-04-25T08:51:36Z'
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Apr 2, 2018 18:00:47 GMT
Again?! if they not bring it back anyway in the readonly mode, then renewing the website is just waste of money.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Apr 2, 2018 18:24:43 GMT
Reading through the posts, it really does seem like a complete mess.
My personal summary so far is:
The lads at Collateral, being just a little 'Arthur Daley-esque' decided they could play it a little 'fast & loose' with the FCA.
The FCA, eventually tired of the scam ploy methodolgy, finally called 'time!' and pull the plug on the 'operation'. Had they being working in our interests, perhaps a way to continue, at least for a while, may have been found, who knows.
The lads at Collateral had the excuse ready - ''those lawyers said it wuz okay, not our fault!'' (cozy lawyer-client relationship assumed).
The duly 'appointed' administrators (cozy relationship assumed here also), duly get to work (nice upfront earner duly in place, please note!), and completely muddy our waters, by telling us very little, making creditor deadlines when no-one knows what it means, refusing to put a 'static' website back up, etc.
The FCA meanwhile, thoroughly tired of 'oor lads' antics, decide to haul the matter before the judge.
Just my personal take. Personally I have very little trust in Collateral, their lawyers, or their administrators. As many have pointed out, the FCA is unlikely to act in our interests.
Conclusion: Its a no-win situation for us 'investors'. Hope for the best!
|
|
hendragon
Member of DD Central
Posts: 631
Likes: 619
|
Post by hendragon on Apr 2, 2018 18:48:02 GMT
I am in agreement with the above views expressed by Kaya. Sad to say I feel under-informed by Refresh and am wondering where any court case will end. I have no wish to be an inhabitant of Bleak House during a protracted Jarndyce v Jarndyce dispute between the FCA and Refresh. Legal costs can mount up very quickly and could have a harmful effect on the conduct of any administration. The frustration is that as an investor I do feel that I have few options to act or avenues to do so. Indeed if it were not for this forum I would be completely in the dark. The p2p industry needs some form of specialist oversight body/ombudsman. The FCA, whatever people's opinion of it might be, is too general. If this sector is to continue to expand and thrive it is going to need investors. We may be a paraniod and complaining bunch (not me of course  ) but there needs to be a more user friendly solution than this. |
|
zedi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80 
Likes: 47
|
Post by zedi on Apr 2, 2018 19:13:20 GMT
This case is a precedent for the wind-down plans of much of the p2p-industry but so far, it is not handled well at all...
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 2, 2018 19:28:40 GMT
Reading through the posts, it really does seem like a complete mess. My personal summary so far is: The lads at Collateral, being just a little 'Arthur Daley-esque' decided they could play it a little 'fast & loose' with the FCA. The FCA, eventually tired of the scam ploy methodolgy, finally called 'time!' and pull the plug on the 'operation' . Had they being working in our interests, perhaps a way to continue, at least for a while, may have been found, who knows. The lads at Collateral had the excuse ready - ''those lawyers said it wuz okay, not our fault!'' (cozy lawyer-client relationship assumed). The duly 'appointed' administrators (cozy relationship assumed here also), duly get to work (nice upfront earner duly in place, please note!), and completely muddy our waters, by telling us very little, making creditor deadlines when no-one knows what it means, refusing to put a 'static' website back up, etc. The FCA meanwhile, thoroughly tired of 'oor lads' antics, decide to haul the matter before the judge. Just my personal take. Personally I have very little trust in Collateral, their lawyers, or their administrators. As many have pointed out, the FCA is unlikely to act in our interests.Conclusion: Its a no-win situation for us 'investors'. Hope for the best! Coll lenders have quite a large amount of information on which to make an assessment of the Coll owners, and now, recently, a fair amount of information on which to make an assessment of their chosen administrator. The lawyers - no, not fair, but they are paid by Coll and answerable only to Coll. On the FCA in this case, all you have is what they published on their site about Coll, and what Coll and their administrator have told you about their actions. The FCA are not going to leak their internal report. You can judge the FCA by your opinion of what they have done for the p2p sector, and the experience of the other operators who have dealt with them. 41 in this list p2pindependentforum.com/thread/7741/fca-authorised-ifisa-list?page=1 The FCA are going to be here tomorrow, and their sole purpose is to provide effective regulation of the sector. And the Coll side? Coll wanted to run a successful and legitimate p2p business. What do they want now?
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Apr 2, 2018 20:02:10 GMT
I have nothing to add except I am in a mournful mood because I have a substantial five figure sum tied up through this platform and who knows what the outcome will be and when it will be and what the ultimate recovery rate will be. Any warm words from the current administrator are not worth the pixels they are written on because nobody knows.
All I can do is pour a stiff one and keep smiling through the rain.
I was quite strong on due diligence and reviewing the assets and was quite proactive in terms of maintaining an up-to-date investment strategy and keeping things new. However I didn't factor in such a calamity as this because while platform failure was always a risk on my radar the fact that a platform may be operating without the necessary permissions did not enter my mind. A lesson learned the hard way. Trust nothing and no-one.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 2, 2018 20:05:26 GMT
Reading through the posts, it really does seem like a complete mess. My personal summary so far is: The lads at Collateral, being just a little 'Arthur Daley-esque' decided they could play it a little 'fast & loose' with the FCA. The FCA, eventually tired of the scam ploy methodolgy, finally called 'time!' and pull the plug on the 'operation' . Had they being working in our interests, perhaps a way to continue, at least for a while, may have been found, who knows. The lads at Collateral had the excuse ready - ''those lawyers said it wuz okay, not our fault!'' (cozy lawyer-client relationship assumed). The duly 'appointed' administrators (cozy relationship assumed here also), duly get to work (nice upfront earner duly in place, please note!), and completely muddy our waters, by telling us very little, making creditor deadlines when no-one knows what it means, refusing to put a 'static' website back up, etc. The FCA meanwhile, thoroughly tired of 'oor lads' antics, decide to haul the matter before the judge. Just my personal take. Personally I have very little trust in Collateral, their lawyers, or their administrators. As many have pointed out, the FCA is unlikely to act in our interests.Conclusion: Its a no-win situation for us 'investors'. Hope for the best! Coll lenders have quite a large amount of information on which to make an assessment of the Coll owners, and now, recently, a fair amount of information on which to make an assessment of their chosen administrator. The lawyers - no, not fair, but they are paid by Coll and answerable only to Coll. On the FCA in this case, all you have is what they published on their site about Coll, and what Coll and their administrator have told you about their actions. The FCA are not going to leak their internal report. You can judge the FCA by your opinion of what they have done for the p2p sector, and the experience of the other operators who have dealt with them. 41 in this list p2pindependentforum.com/thread/7741/fca-authorised-ifisa-list?page=1 The FCA are going to be here tomorrow, and their sole purpose is to provide effective regulation of the sector. And the Coll side? Coll wanted to run a successful and legitimate p2p business. What do they want now?
Excuse me if i am going to appear dim.....but could you elaborate on that bit
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Apr 2, 2018 20:11:15 GMT
I think the poster just means that the FCA aren't going to go bust or go out of business. They certainly won't be making a guest appearance on the forum and communicating directly with mere mortals like ourselves.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Apr 2, 2018 20:50:03 GMT
This case is a precedent for the wind-down plans of much of the p2p-industry but so far, it is not handled well at all... Well, more like a precedent for winddown plans for platforms without FCA approval. One would hope that FCA approved wind down plans would be less controversial.
|
|
hendragon
Member of DD Central
Posts: 631
Likes: 619
|
Post by hendragon on Apr 2, 2018 21:17:06 GMT
provided they are genuinely approved of by the FCA of course.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 2, 2018 21:28:54 GMT
I think the poster just means that the FCA aren't going to go bust or go out of business. They certainly won't be making a guest appearance on the forum and communicating directly with mere mortals like ourselves. Lol I didn’t think quite that....it was more to do with suddenly doubting court dates etc
|
|
|
|
Post by elephantrosie on Apr 2, 2018 21:36:13 GMT
Not optimistic of this
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 1,861
|
Post by archie on Apr 3, 2018 7:14:45 GMT
I'd be more suspicious of the RR appointment if it was made after COL ran into trouble. They were engaged over a year ago, presumably at the time of the full FCA application to cover the living will requirement. No objection was made by the FCA then as far as we are aware. For lenders, I doubt the outcome will be very different whichever administrator is in place (as long as they are allowed to legally progress the wind down) but the intervention means it'll take longer. I suspect the court restrictions on distributing assets/cash would also block paying for non-essential items such as the website being brought back. RR aren't likely to be as critical of the directors as any new administrator. Holidays are over, I'll await the next instalment.  |
|
|
|
Post by elephantrosie on Apr 3, 2018 7:21:03 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'? Do lenders have to send in the proof of debt form?
|
|
) but there needs to be a more user friendly solution than this.
