registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,184
Likes: 5,990
|
Post by registerme on Apr 27, 2018 1:25:36 GMT
My parting cheerful comment is that the losses that will be incurred by investors may not be able to be set against gains from 'legal' P2P platforms, or maybe not even against the interest gained from Collateral loans themselves before the platform folded. HMRC will have to rule on that one. Special pleading may be to no avail also. Yes. My fear, particularly given the most recent comment from RR concerning "us" lenders being considered to be "creditors", is that this is going to be ugly, drawn out, and.... not conducive to much in the way of returns .
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Apr 27, 2018 6:51:00 GMT
insideout , for the avoidance of doubt, if it in any way transpires that the directors misleadingly took my money - say, by using the IP of a separate legal entity, senior staff members providing any incorrect fca authorisation information on here, soliciting additional funds after already engaging an administrator and changing their T&Cs before taking the website down - then I would not in the slightest be concerned if they were subsequently bankrupted and the key thrown away.
|
|
zedi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 47
|
Post by zedi on Apr 27, 2018 8:03:57 GMT
What I find especially puzzling is that according to the 'leaked' creditors report from Refresh Recovery, Collateral were in regular contact with the FCA from (say) 2106 to early 2018 and working towards some sort of FCA accreditation or maybe a further stage of accreditation. Surely, the FCA can hardly claim not to have known that Collateral was an 'ongoing' operation and undertaking business of a P2P nature very similar to that of many other P2P platforms, and over many years, and to the tune of £17 million?? Or can they? Exactly, this whole case doesn´t put the FCA in a very favourable light. Even if Collateral haven´t been in contact with the FCA, I would expect that a regulating authority like the FCA constantly keeps track of the market (there are many platforms but also not that many compared with other regulated financial activities like brokers etc.).
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 27, 2018 8:26:42 GMT
So whats the verdict....9 o'clock start...surely should be all over by now
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on Apr 27, 2018 8:29:54 GMT
It's been great fun reading all the recent posts but I fear not being able to gain enough insight to what has actually happened, to satisfy the demand for detail from forum members. I don't think that I will be able to be a representative or spokesperson but will certainly make our point/ask our questions if the opportunity arises. That must be the part of the procedings where the judge, having heard the evidence from the parties to the case, asks if the general public present have any questions, comments or opinions on the matter. This would be a nice idea but I'm pretty certain that it just does not happen.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Apr 27, 2018 8:31:08 GMT
What I find especially puzzling is that according to the 'leaked' creditors report from Refresh Recovery, Collateral were in regular contact with the FCA from (say) 2106 to early 2018 and working towards some sort of FCA accreditation or maybe a further stage of accreditation. Surely, the FCA can hardly claim not to have known that Collateral was an 'ongoing' operation and undertaking business of a P2P nature very similar to that of many other P2P platforms, and over many years, and to the tune of £17 million?? Or can they? Exactly, this whole case doesn´t put the FCA in a very favourable light. Even if Collateral haven´t been in contact with the FCA, I would expect that a regulating authority like the FCA constantly keeps track of the market (there are many platforms but also not that many compared with other regulated financial activities like brokers etc.). "Regular contact" means about as much as "tacit approval". The onus is on a Company to ensure it has the correct permissions for its activities and not the FCA who cannot be expected to automatically know if a company is operating outside/without permission. The FCA may have made an error by incorrectly showing IP but even if they did IP is NOT a guarantee of FULL permission, so anyone lending on an IP platform has the risk that full will not be granted. Col clearly were either unwilling or unable to get full permission so their IP (whether valid or not) would have lapsed anyway
|
|
mikeymike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 76
Likes: 77
|
Post by mikeymike on Apr 27, 2018 8:41:08 GMT
That so-called "report" along with associated posts, I consider to be nothing other than desperate examples of using smoke and mirrors to obfuscate and mislead. I would not give credence to any alleged "facts" contained therein.
Given that the UK is full of dodgy dealings, it seems reasonable to use Occam's razor.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 717
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Apr 27, 2018 8:51:16 GMT
What I find especially puzzling is that according to the 'leaked' creditors report from Refresh Recovery, Collateral were in regular contact with the FCA from (say) 2106 to early 2018 and working towards some sort of FCA accreditation or maybe a further stage of accreditation. Surely, the FCA can hardly claim not to have known that Collateral was an 'ongoing' operation and undertaking business of a P2P nature very similar to that of many other P2P platforms, and over many years, and to the tune of £17 million?? Or can they? Exactly, this whole case doesn´t put the FCA in a very favourable light. Even if Collateral haven´t been in contact with the FCA, I would expect that a regulating authority like the FCA constantly keeps track of the market (there are many platforms but also not that many compared with other regulated financial activities like brokers etc.). Yesterday I was on the telephone to the FCA . As expected they were very guarded in their responses to my questions and I asked many pertinent questions that I know we as Investors want the answers to which they didn't answer , including : did the FCA give Collateral no option but to go into administration and if Collateral were not in any way FCA authorised why are the FCA taking the steps they are at present ?
Certain information regarding the FCA website contents changing seemed to be of genuine surprise to them , even to the point of asking me for copies of my screenshots (Which I haven't given)
However my underlying impression is that the FCA have been very much involved with this for some time and it appears they feel they have a duty to oversee this situation , so hopefully that will mean that there will be fair treatment .
The point was again re-iterated by them that they have not approved RR as an administrator and this is not acceptable to them .
I sincerely hope this turns out well for all concerned.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Apr 27, 2018 9:05:51 GMT
The onus is on a Company to ensure it has the correct permissions for its activities and not the FCA who cannot be expected to automatically know if a company is operating outside/without permission. The FCA may have made an error by incorrectly showing IP but even if they did IP is NOT a guarantee of FULL permission, so anyone lending on an IP platform has the risk that full will not be granted. Col clearly were either unwilling or unable to get full permission so their IP (whether valid or not) would have lapsed anyway Equally, for P2P firms with the correct permissions, the onus is on the company to ensure it is actually compliant with the regulations, and the lenders will bear the risk of it not being compliant.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 717
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Apr 27, 2018 9:39:13 GMT
The onus is on a Company to ensure it has the correct permissions for its activities and not the FCA who cannot be expected to automatically know if a company is operating outside/without permission. The FCA may have made an error by incorrectly showing IP but even if they did IP is NOT a guarantee of FULL permission, so anyone lending on an IP platform has the risk that full will not be granted. Col clearly were either unwilling or unable to get full permission so their IP (whether valid or not) would have lapsed anyway Equally, for P2P firms with the correct permissions, the onus is on the company to ensure it is actually compliant with the regulations, and the lenders will bear the risk of it not being compliant. The way it appears at present in this unprecedented situation is that both parties have failed in various respects of correct information made available to investors .
|
|
|
Post by thecleaner on Apr 27, 2018 9:49:59 GMT
Just have to wait and see. I am confident it will all work out Could I know please who supplied your crystal ball? I would need the model number too. Thank you. He said confident , not will work out. Dont need no crystal ball to be confident
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Apr 27, 2018 10:34:43 GMT
I have been checking legal precedent, and have come across a similar case.
The presiding official, a certain King Solomon came up with the suggestion that the disputed item was cut in half and equally split. One party being more interested in the said Item remaining intact to the benefit of all, offered to forgo their claim. King Solomon ruled their intentions 'so worthy' as to prove their right to ownership.
Lets hope Judge Solomon is in court today.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Apr 27, 2018 13:03:34 GMT
I'm beside myself with excitement here, can't wait for the next thrilling installment of "The Collateral Saga" by close of court today.
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Apr 27, 2018 13:49:59 GMT
From what I'm hearing on the grapevine, the FCA won and BDO have now been appointed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2018 14:04:18 GMT
From what I'm hearing on the grapevine, the FCA won and BDO have now been appointed. The British Darts Organisation? Wow, things are worse than I thought!
|
|