mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Apr 14, 2018 15:44:24 GMT
... and that's exactly what I saw when I checked the FCA register in late summer 2017. Collateral (UK) Limited as Firm Name and Active Consumer Credit permission. Unfortunately you cannot run a p2p company from a Consumer Credit IP (fine for a pawnbroker), you require Peer to Peer IP (have a look at Lendy). Yes, Lendy has had the specific Peer to Peer Lending permission added - I don't know exactly when it was added. My recollection was that it wasn't there when I was using the platform, but that was a couple of years ago and I can't be sure (edit: based on ilmoro's post below, it had it already from its OFT regulation days). It's interesting because other platforms went straight to full authorisation without the addition of the Peer to Peer Lending to their interim permissions - for example, take a look at MoneyThing's interim permissions (Reference number 562505), which carried it through to 24/03/2017 when it became fully authorised. Similarly Ablrate was trading on a smaller set of interim permissions (Ref: 663280) that did not include Peer to Peer Lending until it was fully authorised at around the same time. FundingSecure (Ref: 653707) didn't hold the Consumer Credit IP, but held other permissions, including the Peer to Peer Lending permission. There really isn't a lot of consistency in the above, so it would be unreasonable for the FCA to expect that we poor consumers understand exactly what a specific permission entitles an organisation to do. Presumably the Peer to Peer Lending permission is only required if the company doesn't already have other permissions that make it unnecessary. We have now come to understand that a Consumer Credit IP alone is not sufficient. Exactly why Collateral was left alone when (according to the FCA register at that time) it only had Consumer Credit IP is probably intimately linked to the fabled application for full authorisation - the truth of which will probably never come to light. In any case, even if the Consumer Credit IP did allow Collateral (UK) Limited to run a P2P platform, it never legitimately held IP. If it did, the FCA might have taken a slightly different approach.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Apr 14, 2018 15:47:34 GMT
Lendy are still IP - Interim Permission and I expect working toward full. Ablrate have full and I expect that must include P2P (but I am not an expert) I am pretty confused about exactly which permissions (interim or full) that p2p platforms, must have. Lendy do have 'Peer to peer lending platform activity' interim permission, whereas Collateral just had (by relation to Regal Pawnbrokers) the credit agreement permission shown above. I've looked at a few of the other sites and there are lots of permutations of permissions, which ones are essential, or just desirable I am not at all sure, but I suspect the p2p platform one is pretty important. You might think so, but I was able to find examples of platforms that went from IP permissions to full authorisation without having the Peer to Peer Lending interim permission (see my post directly above this one).
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 829
|
Post by 11025 on Apr 14, 2018 15:50:32 GMT
Let us hope the FCA are insistent in overseeing this now because they have some culpability in the situation due to their actions/or lack of in this situation
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Apr 14, 2018 16:05:50 GMT
Let us hope the FCA are insistent in overseeing this now because they have some culpability in the situation due to their actions/or lack of in this situation It would make a great narrative for the FCA - stepping in to ensure the best possible outcome for investors, who acted in good faith based on the available information at the time. Hopefully our interests are aligned.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,077
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 14, 2018 18:51:03 GMT
Full P2P permission is 'Operating an electronic system in relation to lending' which means you are providing article 36H compliant loans via a platform. Only platforms with that permission are true P2P lending platforms. (And the only ones where HMRC loss relief can be claimed)
AIUI
1. Any platform launched before April 1 2014 would have had interim permission from the OFT to offer P2P loans eg Lendy, Zopa, RS, FC and had the P2P permission
2. Some platforms that launched between the OFT ceasing to grant permissions and FCA starting were able to operate using permissions they had for non-p2p lending rather than specific P2p permission provided they were engaged in applying for full permission MT & Abl are the obvious two.
3. Any platform launching after FCA became the regulator had to apply for full permission prior to launch.
Collateral were assumed to be in the same category as MT/ABL but it seems they should have been in the final category or not offering P2P at all.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Apr 15, 2018 4:23:07 GMT
I am pretty confused about exactly which permissions (interim or full) that p2p platforms, must have. Lendy do have 'Peer to peer lending platform activity' interim permission, whereas Collateral just had (by relation to Regal Pawnbrokers) the credit agreement permission shown above. I've looked at a few of the other sites and there are lots of permutations of permissions, which ones are essential, or just desirable I am not at all sure, but I suspect the p2p platform one is pretty important. You might think so, but I was able to find examples of platforms that went from IP permissions to full authorisation without having the Peer to Peer Lending interim permission (see my post directly above this one). I could only find Coll, abl & MT without ‘p2p’ IP (NB I’ve not read your post). AT&C (abl) and CMDL (MT) both had various IPs including Credit Broker for introducing borrowers and lenders. I asked abl - see thread about helping Coll on the abl board - and they stated that they had IPs in place and just as importantly were 36H compliant for peer to peer for their full authorisation. I have not asked MT directly but would expect a similar box ticking/36H answer. By incorporating without any IP Coll could only await full aiuthorisation before legally launching a peer to peer portal. The administrators indicate CUK took c2 years after Nov 2014 fully researching the requirements of the p2p industry before launching. This suggests they had not been preparing for a p2p portal - unlike abl/MT - before the 31/3/14 cut-off in which case they may have been able to submit a p2p IP against Regal/cash4assets/Goldmann et al rather than what looks like a retrospective attempt to graft one on to Consumer Credit only IPs. Edit: chronologically reading - what ilmoro said 😁
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Apr 15, 2018 7:13:36 GMT
You might think so, but I was able to find examples of platforms that went from IP permissions to full authorisation without having the Peer to Peer Lending interim permission (see my post directly above this one). I could only find Coll, abl & MT without ‘p2p’ IP (NB I’ve not read your post). AT&C (abl) and CMDL (MT) both had various IPs including Credit Broker for introducing borrowers and lenders. I asked abl - see thread about helping Coll on the abl board - and they stated that they had IPs in place and just as importantly were 36H compliant for peer to peer for their full authorisation. I have not asked MT directly but would expect a similar box ticking/36H answer. By incorporating without any IP Coll could only await full aiuthorisation before legally launching a peer to peer portal. The administrators indicate CUK took c2 years after Nov 2014 fully researching the requirements of the p2p industry before launching. This suggests they had not been preparing for a p2p portal - unlike abl/MT - before the 31/3/14 cut-off in which case they may have been able to submit a p2p IP against Regal/cash4assets/Goldmann et al rather than what looks like a retrospective attempt to graft one on to Consumer Credit only IPs. Edit: chronologically reading - what ilmoro said 😁 Yes, ABL and MT were the only ones I found (though I didn't search exhaustively). Based on ilmoro's post, we can't be sure Consumer Credit only IP would be insufficient for COL to start running a P2P platform while applying for full authorisation. The problem of course is that Collateral (UK) Limited never had any OFT permissions and therefore no IP from the FCA. But that's not what the FCA register said.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 829
|
Post by 11025 on Apr 15, 2018 9:25:19 GMT
FWIW I have been in contact with the FCA several times by telephone and email over the last month or so .
I have been questioning the situation here and the details Coll were trading with also the details shown on the FCA website - I am very much alarmed and disappointed at what has gone on and have conveyed this , I haven't had an answer to these main points yet .
Is it worth others raising these points too ?
As I am not sure they totally understand the level of upset yet
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Apr 16, 2018 6:15:38 GMT
FWIW I have been in contact with the FCA several times by telephone and email over the last month or so .
I have been questioning the situation here and the details Coll were trading with also the details shown on the FCA website - I am very much alarmed and disappointed at what has gone on and have conveyed this , I haven't had an answer to these main points yet .
Is it worth others raising these points too ?
As I am not sure they totally understand the level of upset yet I'm waiting to see the likely outcome before deciding what to do, if anything.
|
|
DDCentral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 32
Likes: 14
|
Post by DDCentral on Apr 16, 2018 11:25:10 GMT
Do any of the participants on this thread have any objection to it being moved to the public board ?
Posts on DDC should ordinarily be restricted to just those that identify borrowers and borrower's assets, with the comentary and discussion on the public board.
Similiarly whilst DDC was probably the best place for the leaked "report" from the administrators, much of the discussion thereof could have taken place on the public board.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Apr 16, 2018 11:48:08 GMT
No harm in moving it as it's just a rehash of discussion on pages 35 and 36 of the In Administration thread (Collateral being added to Regal Pawnbrokers' IP), followed by a rehash of discussion on page 51 (MT and ABL not having P2P IP but having other permissions vs COL appearing to only have Consumer Credit IP).
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 829
|
Post by 11025 on Apr 16, 2018 12:51:11 GMT
No Problem
|
|
mickj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 433
Likes: 191
|
Post by mickj on Apr 16, 2018 13:44:23 GMT
no objections here chance to use a coolsmiley...........
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,243
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 16, 2018 13:55:14 GMT
Don't mind at all.
|
|
mikeymike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 76
Likes: 77
|
Post by mikeymike on Apr 16, 2018 18:57:17 GMT
As the OPer I put it behind the wall: 1) Had no idea what it would throw up. 2) To aid clarity of fact and avoid speculative and misleading postings of which there are far too many. The question still outstanding for me is: At any point was it possible for Regal to edit/update/alter/any of its own details on the interim register or to misinform the FCA regarding these? The reference to Coll on Regal's entry on the FCA interim register came from somewhere and has only served to confuse and distract from the fact that: "The Collateral Companies operated a peer-to-peer lending platform through a website (collateraluk.com) and Collateral UK Ltd purported to hold an interim permission from the FCA to carry on regulated activities. In fact, none of the Collateral Companies held any valid authorisation or permission to carry on regulated activities." www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/information-investors-collateral-companies So in the spirit of the blog take it out there. Edit Mods see next post
|
|