daveb4
Member of DD Central
Posts: 220 
Likes: 116
|
Post by daveb4 on May 13, 2018 5:23:51 GMT
I was thinking about writing to John Glen MP, who appears to be responsible for looking after the FCA (appreciate this may not be correct depending on if I have Googled properly and any cabinet reshuffles).
This would NOT be to complain/winge, but if MP/Govt have an interest in FCA case there is a small possibility that it MAY influence some decisions as our case is progressed.
The thought process is:
- Govt want P2P to help businesses borrow money
- Govt proactively want us to lend and have allowed us to offset losses and introduced ISA allowances to help us lend more
- Govt I presume want this to continue and to also keep pressure on big banks
What does the Govt know about Col situation?
Is the Govt aware of what the potential outcome of a bad result with Col would be?
Do they care?
If poor result many lenders could:
- Lose significant amount of money that will not be reinvested and also affect the amount they will invest in future.
- Press will enjoy criticising P2P saying I told you so, many other investors will not lend as scared.
- A number of P2P companies could now struggle with loss of jobs in the sector as well as all the attached roles such as solicitors, valuers, insolvency practioners etc
- Govt will lose an amount of tax as everyone in col will have a large offset of tax to put in!
Has anyone done the above? Eg sample letter
Is it worth thinking about? Wasting my/our time?
Do we need to send a lot of letters/emails/tweets in to make him aware of it?
Just as a note I personally am hopeful of getting more than 85% of capital back as means I would not lose anything based on interest accrued whilst I was with them. Anything more is a bonus and anything less general offsets a chunk of my tax! As with most people here I am already slowly reducing P2P not just because of this but also rates generally reducing and risk getting higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on May 13, 2018 6:59:51 GMT
Whilst I doubt it could do any harm, personally I wouldn't waste my time for several reasons; FCA is supposed to be dealing with it totally independent of govt so they are likely to want to avoid what might be perceived as "interfering", protecting the hard right, fascist Tory  that are capitalists, even the cuddly P2P version, is never a popular choice in political circles (even most Conservatives MP's tend to be very cautious) & I only see this becoming a "live issue" if & when any actual losses are crystallised & personally I doubt that will happen for most lenders; with perhaps the exception being the large development loans, which were always going to be risky, even without all these extra complications & they may take several years to actually be finalised, depending on how BDO engineer the exit route. Good luck any how & let us all know how you get on if you choose to go ahead. |
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 1,346
|
Post by ptr120 on May 13, 2018 8:33:23 GMT
Do please write and report back if you get a reply. One important point, you seem fairly confident that you can write off your losses with COL against tax. It is only possible to offset P2P losses against tax in Authorised platforms, and it is now believed that COL was not authorised and as such, losses can't be offset. If you do write to the relevant MP, perhaps you can ask for an appropriate dispensation as we all invested with the understanding that they were authorised?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 13, 2018 8:55:26 GMT
Do please write and report back if you get a reply. One important point, you seem fairly confident that you can write off your losses with COL against tax. It is only possible to offset P2P losses against tax in Authorised platforms, and it is now believed that COL was not authorised and as such, losses can't be offset. If you do write to the relevant MP, perhaps you can ask for an appropriate dispensation as we all invested with the understanding that they were authorised? Well my agreement says they were authorised, so I am going to write off any losses and let HMRC argue the toss in the unlikely event that it can be bothered.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,840
Likes: 11,068
|
Post by ilmoro on May 13, 2018 9:55:40 GMT
Do please write and report back if you get a reply. One important point, you seem fairly confident that you can write off your losses with COL against tax. It is only possible to offset P2P losses against tax in Authorised platforms, and it is now believed that COL was not authorised and as such, losses can't be offset. If you do write to the relevant MP, perhaps you can ask for an appropriate dispensation as we all invested with the understanding that they were authorised? Well my agreement says they were authorised, so I am going to write off any losses and let HMRC argue the toss in the unlikely event that it can be bothered. Not sure on what grounds you could possibly claim at the moment. If it is accepted that the loans are Article 36H and the platform had interim permission, and thats a very big if on the second point as they didnt even have OFT P2P permission (unlike Lendy & there remains doubt that that actually meets the criteria), then none of the loans can be said to be treatable as irrecoverable as there is no evidence any are in legal recovery. Furthermore, if you were claiming on the basis they are irrecoverable because Collateral is in administration then the claim could not be made this tax year as Collateral did not legally enter administration until 27 April as the previous appointment was declared illegal and void.
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 727
Likes: 492
|
Post by jo on May 13, 2018 10:06:18 GMT
The British Business Bank (or similar?) has skin in the game on a couple of platforms. Hard to think that a messy scandal, leading to an industry confidence crisis would help their investment.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 13, 2018 10:16:23 GMT
Well my agreement says they were authorised, so I am going to write off any losses and let HMRC argue the toss in the unlikely event that it can be bothered. Not sure on what grounds you could possibly claim at the moment. If it is accepted that the loans are Article 36H and the platform had interim permission, and thats a very big if on the second point as they didnt even have OFT P2P permission (unlike Lendy & there remains doubt that that actually meets the criteria), then none of the loans can be said to be treatable as irrecoverable as there is no evidence any are in legal recovery. Furthermore, if you were claiming on the basis they are irrecoverable because Collateral is in administration then the claim could not be made this tax year as Collateral did not legally enter administration until 27 April as the previous appointment was declared illegal and void. No, not going to claim now, but if and when there are confirmed losses I will!
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,587
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on May 13, 2018 11:06:19 GMT
I was thinking about writing to John Glen MP, who appears to be responsible for looking after the FCA What were you hoping to achieve? The FCA have no influence over BDO fees, or the amount of money that they recover, and it is highly unlikely that the Government is going to cover losses on the ground they want P2P to flourish.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on May 13, 2018 11:15:32 GMT
Personally I think it is futile to be writing letters this early, as the administration is only in its 3rd week. An outsider looking in would see everything proceeding as it should .... the FCA having acted within its remit to ensure that the appointment of administrators is now lawful, and the administrators proposals are due to be published within the next 6 weeks. The danger here is in crying "wolf" too soon, and being ignored if we reach a point where the FCA is indeed perceived to be no longer acting in the interests of lenders. That said, the parliamentary oversight of the FCA is primarily vested in the Treasury Select Committee (chaired by Nicky Morgan). They have been involved in the establishment of the FCA's oversight of the p2p sector, and a number of their researchers are members of this forum. There may well be a case against the FCA here if it is the case that names on the interim register could be (can be) changed by the finance provider through the FCA portal without any FCA oversight. Forcing a resolution to isues such as that would be upto to the treasury select committeee rather than the treasury minister. |
|
that are capitalists, even the cuddly P2P version, is never a popular choice in political circles (even most Conservatives MP's tend to be very cautious) & I only see this becoming a "live issue" if & when any actual losses are crystallised & personally I doubt that will happen for most lenders; with perhaps the exception being the large development loans, which were always going to be risky, even without all these extra complications & they may take several years to actually be finalised, depending on how BDO engineer the exit route. Good luck any how & let us all know how you get on if you choose to go ahead.
