mickj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 435 
Likes: 191
|
Post by mickj on Apr 4, 2018 16:44:11 GMT
Ive been away for 2 weeks. Was there an email that was sent out? Ive received nothing from Collateral since this whole thing begun! Can someone PM me or post it up somewhere? Or shall I just sit tight and wait for the site to go live again (IF it goes live again). Only the original email on 28th Feb, contained link to a letter that can be found here.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Apr 4, 2018 16:46:26 GMT
From the FCA statement (my bold) So there is no reason for RR to not be paying interest payments to us? Other than they're not authorised to do so.
|
|
dermot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 863
Likes: 517
|
Post by dermot on Apr 4, 2018 17:07:59 GMT
I have not seen that report, where might i find it (been away from home for a few days)? From your page 11 comment, are we all listed? Dermot, I am sorry, seems I am confused, The email dated 28th Feb that I assume you have got contained a link to the 'In Administration' letter from RR, this is the only formal contact I have had, links to this can be found here. On the 29th March another post contained a link to what seems like a leaked report, my page 11 reference was to this report, no we are not all listed. This report can be found here. Sorry for the confusion. Ah, thanks! I was a little confused by your confusion ....
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Apr 4, 2018 17:40:23 GMT
That absolutely makes sense, so the missing license of RR isn´t the case. Finally the FCA shed some light on this case. It seems to me the court case is only to prove RR as independent or otherwise, as that seems to be the main point of why FCA entered the case to high court. However, the “leaked” report that everyone is referring to seemed to have many doubtful areas and even raise questions on their basic competency on the matter itself, leaving alone being independent.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Apr 4, 2018 17:56:03 GMT
Dermot, I am sorry, seems I am confused, The email dated 28th Feb that I assume you have got contained a link to the 'In Administration' letter from RR, this is the only formal contact I have had, links to this can be found here. On the 29th March another post contained a link to what seems like a leaked report, my page 11 reference was to this report, no we are not all listed. This report can be found here. Sorry for the confusion. Ah, thanks! I was a little confused by your confusion ...
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Apr 4, 2018 17:57:33 GMT
From the FCA statement (my bold) So there is no reason for RR to not be paying interest payments to us? Other than they're not authorised to do so. I take this to refer to interest or capital repayments being paid to Col and not authorizing any payments capital or interest out of Col's accounts.
|
|
p2pmark
Member of DD Central
Posts: 218
Likes: 187
|
Post by p2pmark on Apr 4, 2018 18:01:56 GMT
That absolutely makes sense, so the missing license of RR isn´t the case. Finally the FCA shed some light on this case. It seems to me the court case is only to prove RR as independent or otherwise, as that seems to be the main point of why FCA entered the case to high court. My reading is that the court case is about whether FCA approved them. And FCA say they haven't.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 789
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Apr 4, 2018 18:09:26 GMT
Have they said anything about the legality of the loans that Collateral Issued while they were unregulated?
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Apr 4, 2018 18:10:54 GMT
It seems to me the court case is only to prove RR as independent or otherwise, as that seems to be the main point of why FCA entered the case to high court. My reading is that the court case is about whether FCA approved them. And FCA say they haven't. FCA - Mybold- 'The Collateral Companies were required to obtain the approval of the FCA when appointing an administrator. This is designed to protect investors by ensuring an independent person conducts the administration in the best interests of the investors. This did not happen. Accordingly, the FCA has intervened to ensure investors are protected as the law requires.'
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,711
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Apr 4, 2018 18:24:45 GMT
As I understand it, whilst the FCA may allegedly have their faults, they would seem to be exactly the organisation who are going to represent our interests since we are consumer investors (well probably most of us are). None of the other actors are going to.
RR and the COL directors who I understand nominated them, whilst apparently seeming efficient and positive do not have our interests at heart except possibly as a side effect or corollary to their main business.
In my view, it is the management of COL and their subsequent appointed administrators that I am annoyed with. Why are they now contesting this court case when without FCA approval they'll never be able to run a business like COL? Why can't they just stand aside and let the FCA appoint whoever they wish?
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 4, 2018 18:32:28 GMT
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. I don't think it makes it safe, nor did I suggest so. It merely hides the information from search engines and prevents information being linked back to this site.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 4, 2018 18:40:59 GMT
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. Which rules? I'd absolutely understand if it were about borrowers and sites / assets, but can there really be a great deal being discussed with regard to those subjects given the current situation? What is the nature of the discussion which can't be reproduced here that is permissible in the DD-C area? It is exactly discussion relating to borrowers and assets to which I am referring. Extremely useful information has been shared that has helped people in piecing together their loan holdings, and giving them insights into loans that were active at the time the platform collapsed. That information could not have been posted here because it would identify assets/borrowers. It seems to me that you have made a decision that you don't want the benefit of anything posted within DDC, which is absolutely fine. A consequence of that choice is that you don't know what's being discussed there. So trust those who are members when they tell you they are committed to putting as much discussion as possible in this thread. If you can't trust us, you can easily get access and check for yourself.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Apr 4, 2018 18:48:51 GMT
I was hoping the court date would be sooner. Fortunately I misread the sentence about restrictions - at least the administrator can continue to collect repayments.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Apr 4, 2018 20:04:07 GMT
Other than they're not authorised to do so. I take this to refer to interest or capital repayments being paid to Col and not authorizing any payments capital or interest out of Col's accounts. On re-reading the section, I now come to the same conclusion.
|
|
mosaic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 69
Likes: 57
|
Post by mosaic on Apr 4, 2018 20:04:49 GMT
The FCA statement says "The Collateral Companies were required to obtain the approval of the FCA when appointing an administrator."
Who says?
The company was not FCA regulated so why were they "required"
|
|
