moist
Member of DD Central
Posts: 240 
Likes: 250
|
Post by moist on Apr 17, 2018 12:53:43 GMT
Does anyone have a copy of details from the Col website of how loans were structured? ie We were loaning direct to the borrower, and not through the platform. Was there a formal statement on the platform before it was taken down?
I ask as it could well be the difference between us being creditors or investors. I have been chatting to the FCA at length.
essentially if Col were not authorised, loan agreements are nul and void, so we become creditors......
However, FCA painfully aware that they displayed temp authorisation on their website, potentially making them culpable for any losses.
They are very keen for BDO to take over....I would agree. I quote Jessica
'I can confirm that based on all the information I hold all investor monies are secured against properties and the value considerably outweighs investments made, all investors are intended to get 100pence in the pound should we remain in office, if another firm are appointed, I cannot determine what the outcome might be. I can say as a matter of fact that the balance you refer to has not been part of a ponzi scheme and has not been used by the Directors. I can only assume at present that this balance isn’t against the Chesterfield property but against some of the other larger developments, but I can’t say this for definite at the moment as detailed above.'
You will note her complete lack of understanding of p2p....Chesterfield money put to other loans!!
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 829
|
Post by 11025 on Apr 17, 2018 14:44:10 GMT
Does anyone have a copy of details from the Col website of how loans were structured? ie We were loaning direct to the borrower, and not through the platform. Was there a formal statement on the platform before it was taken down? I ask as it could well be the difference between us being creditors or investors. I have been chatting to the FCA at length. essentially if Col were not authorised, loan agreements are nul and void, so we become creditors...... However, FCA painfully aware that they displayed temp authorisation on their website, potentially making them culpable for any losses. They are very keen for BDO to take over....I would agree. I quote Jessica 'I can confirm that based on all the information I hold all investor monies are secured against properties and the value considerably outweighs investments made, all investors are intended to get 100pence in the pound should we remain in office, if another firm are appointed, I cannot determine what the outcome might be. I can say as a matter of fact that the balance you refer to has not been part of a ponzi scheme and has not been used by the Directors. I can only assume at present that this balance isn’t against the Chesterfield property but against some of the other larger developments, but I can’t say this for definite at the moment as detailed above.' You will note her complete lack of understanding of p2p....Chesterfield money put to other loans!! Bit pushed for time atm but in terms I found this , there is much more in section 10 :
10.15. A Loan Contract is between the lender and the borrower. Collateral and/or Collateral Security Holdings have no liability in relation to the Loan Contract.
|
|
moist
Member of DD Central
Posts: 240
Likes: 250
|
Post by moist on Apr 17, 2018 15:25:09 GMT
yep, have passed on full terms and conditions. Issue is simply, if they are not authorised, all contracts nul and void = we are creditors.
however the FCA balls up on their site may reverse that
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Apr 17, 2018 15:47:09 GMT
I would have to disagree that we investors are in any way creditors of Collateral, authorized or not. We lent to the borrowers, not Collateral and never Collateral. Simple as that. If Collateral were/are not authorized to manage our investments, then they need to be replaced by someone else who is, be it Administrators, the FCA, a loan book buyer, or the tooth fairy.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 829
|
Post by 11025 on Apr 17, 2018 15:47:52 GMT
yep, have passed on full terms and conditions. Issue is simply, if they are not authorised, all contracts nul and void = we are creditors. however the FCA balls up on their site may reverse that That was partially my take but I do not agree with the creditors line , I think the FCA have a vested interest here and a lot of eyes watching ...
Thinking back I joined Collateral on these Terms and I visited the FCA website and saw the IP number matched the number on the Collateral website and in their terms , if anything different had been there I would have stopped and made much more extensive enquiries
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Apr 17, 2018 18:06:57 GMT
yep, have passed on full terms and conditions. Issue is simply, if they are not authorised, all contracts nul and void = we are creditors. however the FCA balls up on their site may reverse that I don't think it follows that all contracts would be null and void simply due to the fact that an intermediary was unauthorised. It would all depend on the legal agreements. If they were drawn up correctly they should still stand regardless of the fact Collateral should not have acted as a broker. Both parties to the agreement were uninvolved in any wrongdoing acted in good faith, so the liability of lender to borrower should still exist - our understanding is that funds were indeed advanced to the (correct) borrower, save for one presumably misinformed comment made in the course of speculation. Lack of authorisation will probably affect the way the loans are treated, for example, they will not qualify as Article 36H agreements.
|
|
p2pmark
Member of DD Central
Posts: 217
Likes: 186
|
Post by p2pmark on Apr 17, 2018 18:19:05 GMT
yep, have passed on full terms and conditions. Issue is simply, if they are not authorised, all contracts nul and void = we are creditors. however the FCA balls up on their site may reverse that I don't think it follows that all contracts would be null and void simply due to the fact that an intermediary was unauthorised. It would all depend on the legal agreements. If they were drawn up correctly they should still stand regardless of the fact Collateral should not have acted as a broker. Both parties to the agreement were uninvolved in any wrongdoing acted in good faith, so the liability of lender to borrower should still exist - our understanding is that funds were indeed advanced to the (correct) borrower, save for one presumably misinformed comment made in the course of speculation. Lack of authorisation will probably affect the way the loans are treated, for example, they will not qualify as Article 36H agreements. And, as I understand it, even if the contracts were null and void (which I doubt, for the reasons mason sets out) the capital would still need to be returned to the lenders.
|
|
DDCentral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 32
Likes: 14
|
Post by DDCentral on Apr 22, 2018 17:38:03 GMT
This thread has been moved from DD Central as it contains no information that identifies borrowers or their assets.
|
|
