|
|
Post by threeds on Oct 5, 2018 5:14:47 GMT
I know this is in the threads somewhere, but does anyone have a screen print of the entry showing collateral (UK) Ltd?
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666 
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Oct 5, 2018 6:35:06 GMT
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Oct 5, 2018 9:15:35 GMT
That only shows interim permission for consumer credit loans to allow such loans to be made to borrowers - but has nothing to infer interim permission required for p2p/electronic lending. I thought they had "inadvertently" been shown as having p2p interim permission but could be wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 5, 2018 10:58:27 GMT
I'm not able to add anything to the specific point being asked here, but for those interested in a trip down memory lane, remember that the Wayback Machine has archived copies of various (public) pages from the COL website at various date points during its life. The page footers could perhaps be considered a "Classic" of their time. web.archive.org/web/20170101000000*/collateraluk.com
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 5, 2018 11:27:04 GMT
That only shows interim permission for consumer credit loans to allow such loans to be made to borrowers - but has nothing to infer interim permission required for p2p/electronic lending. I thought they had "inadvertently" been shown as having p2p interim permission but could be wrong Platforms launching in the window between OFT issuing P2P permission and the new FCA regime requiring full permission didnt have P2P permissions, they operated with consumer credit permissions whilst they went through the authorisation process eg MT. Comparison with MT etc permissions plus Coll own site statement was the basis to believe they were operating with permission.
AIUI the issue with Collateral is that they apparently didnt even have that as the permission belonged to another company to which they had added themselves incorrectly.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,678
Likes: 2,974
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 5, 2018 13:28:15 GMT
That only shows interim permission for consumer credit loans to allow such loans to be made to borrowers - but has nothing to infer interim permission required for p2p/electronic lending. I thought they had "inadvertently" been shown as having p2p interim permission but could be wrong Platforms launching in the window between OFT issuing P2P permission and the new FCA regime requiring full permission didnt have P2P permissions, they operated with consumer credit permissions whilst they went through the authorisation process eg MT. Comparison with MT etc permissions plus Coll own site statement was the basis to believe they were operating with permission.
AIUI the issue with Collateral is that they apparently didnt even have that as the permission belonged to another company to which they had added themselves incorrectly.
My understanding too (thanks to others on the forum pointing it out). Does is then follow that the FCA as owner and maintainer of the register were to blame to allow this to happen? Admittedly without knowing all the facts my gut tells me they are. What would happen if the medical register allowed someone to change name to "Johnny The Butcher" ? Or the General Dental Council allowed something similar? What about GasSafe....the list goes on and on. And we are supposed to be a world leader in financial services.....
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Oct 5, 2018 14:50:21 GMT
hat would happen if the medical register allowed someone to change name to "Johnny The Butcher" ? Or the General Dental Council allowed something similar? What about GasSafe....the list goes on and on. And we are supposed to be a world leader in financial services..... For all the hoo ha about the FCA simply 'allowing' a name change; it's the same with individuals - a deed poll is just a self-declarion of whatever you want to be known as, nothing more. It's not recorded anywhere or checked, you tell them I used to be Mr. Bloggs and now I am Mr. Maniac they will ask you for your deed poll document (which you can scrawl on the back of a napkin if you like) and that's that. Your 'name' is strangely only what you choose to go by - since there is no national ID system there's nothing official to submit to a national database
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 737
Likes: 858
|
Post by 11025 on Oct 5, 2018 15:42:00 GMT
That only shows interim permission for consumer credit loans to allow such loans to be made to borrowers - but has nothing to infer interim permission required for p2p/electronic lending. I thought they had "inadvertently" been shown as having p2p interim permission but could be wrong Platforms launching in the window between OFT issuing P2P permission and the new FCA regime requiring full permission didnt have P2P permissions, they operated with consumer credit permissions whilst they went through the authorisation process eg MT. Comparison with MT etc permissions plus Coll own site statement was the basis to believe they were operating with permission.
AIUI the issue with Collateral is that they apparently didnt even have that as the permission belonged to another company to which they had added themselves incorrectly.
and then displayed the corresponding FCA IP number on all their business material ....
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 5, 2018 15:50:22 GMT
hat would happen if the medical register allowed someone to change name to "Johnny The Butcher" ? Or the General Dental Council allowed something similar? What about GasSafe....the list goes on and on. And we are supposed to be a world leader in financial services..... For all the hoo ha about the FCA simply 'allowing' a name change; it's the same with individuals - a deed poll is just a self-declarion of whatever you want to be known as, nothing more. It's not recorded anywhere or checked, you tell them I used to be Mr. Bloggs and now I am Mr. Maniac they will ask you for your deed poll document (which you can scrawl on the back of a napkin if you like) and that's that. Your 'name' is strangely only what you choose to go by - since there is no national ID system there's nothing official to submit to a national database The difference is of course that an individual doesn't public advise people to check their details to avoid scams, misselling etc or position themselves as an official regulatory body.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Oct 5, 2018 16:02:07 GMT
For all the hoo ha about the FCA simply 'allowing' a name change; it's the same with individuals - a deed poll is just a self-declarion of whatever you want to be known as, nothing more. It's not recorded anywhere or checked, you tell them I used to be Mr. Bloggs and now I am Mr. Maniac they will ask you for your deed poll document (which you can scrawl on the back of a napkin if you like) and that's that. Your 'name' is strangely only what you choose to go by - since there is no national ID system there's nothing official to submit to a national database The difference is of course that an individual doesn't public advise people to check their details to avoid scams, misselling etc or position themselves as an official regulatory body. The point was, you can change your registration on the General Dental Council database by simply sending a certified copy of a deed poll declaration - it was a reply...
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Oct 5, 2018 16:23:16 GMT
That only shows interim permission for consumer credit loans to allow such loans to be made to borrowers - but has nothing to infer interim permission required for p2p/electronic lending. I thought they had "inadvertently" been shown as having p2p interim permission but could be wrong Platforms launching in the window between OFT issuing P2P permission and the new FCA regime requiring full permission didnt have P2P permissions, they operated with consumer credit permissions whilst they went through the authorisation process eg MT. Comparison with MT etc permissions plus Coll own site statement was the basis to believe they were operating with permission.
AIUI the issue with Collateral is that they apparently didnt even have that as the permission belonged to another company to which they had added themselves incorrectly.
Although MT did have broker permission to introduce borrowers/lenders (from their mortgage antecedent) and so did abl, so it’s not a direct comparison of consumer credit only companies, I haven’t found a p2p authorised company that was only trading with that permission.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Oct 5, 2018 19:22:05 GMT
Platforms launching in the window between OFT issuing P2P permission and the new FCA regime requiring full permission didnt have P2P permissions, they operated with consumer credit permissions whilst they went through the authorisation process eg MT. Comparison with MT etc permissions plus Coll own site statement was the basis to believe they were operating with permission.
AIUI the issue with Collateral is that they apparently didnt even have that as the permission belonged to another company to which they had added themselves incorrectly.
Although MT did have broker permission to introduce borrowers/lenders (from their mortgage antecedent) and so did abl, so it’s not a direct comparison of consumer credit only companies, I haven’t found a p2p authorised company that was only trading with that permission. Yes, I've looked myself and it appears there is no precedent for a business with consumer credit licence alone to start a legitimate P2P platform using that permission. I'm not sure it is a reasonable expectation that consumers searching the register should appreciate these subtleties. In any case, the IP in question was fraudulent and published without checks (for example against the company number). It would be very harsh to suggest investors should have known better than to have assumed COL was operating legitimately based on the information held at the time on the FCA register, even if we can now recognise one or two irregularities with the benefit of hindsight.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Oct 5, 2018 19:24:52 GMT
The difference is of course that an individual doesn't public advise people to check their details to avoid scams, misselling etc or position themselves as an official regulatory body. The point was, you can change your registration on the General Dental Council database by simply sending a certified copy of a deed poll declaration - it was a reply... The direct comparison here would be for a third party to change your registration on the General Dental Council and then open a dental practice while impersonating you for 2 years, undetected. Then, "accidentally lose" the dental records of all of the patients treated. It's hard to find an appropriate analogy for the financial loss, but perhaps due to lack of hygiene this impostor dentist might have infected various patients with HIV and hepatitis during the period.
|
|
justme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 203 
Likes: 89
|
Post by justme on Oct 5, 2018 20:59:01 GMT
It's hard to find an appropriate analogy for the financial loss, but perhaps due to lack of hygiene this impostor dentist might have infected various patients with HIV and hepatitis during the period.[/quote] Can we not spread misinformation please - that chap did not infect ANYBODY , in fact when his patients were screened the incidence of blood borne infections was lower amongst them than amongst general population. Just shows what  all these "hygiene" is. |
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Oct 6, 2018 8:19:16 GMT
Can we not spread misinformation please - that chap did not infect ANYBODY , in fact when his patients were screened the incidence of blood borne infections was lower amongst them than amongst general population. Just shows what all these "hygiene" is. I don't think there is anything factually incorrect in that article. It appears to be well balanced and states the risk was considered to be low. I should point out for those not following my post that the dentist in the article is not the fictitious "imposter" who was able to fraudulently pose as xell. I linked to the article to show an analogous outcome to the Collateral saga - the dentist mentioned was struck off, and his patients were subjected to a lot of unnecessary distress. Perhaps Collateral investors will be equally lucky in the final outcome.
|
|
all these "hygiene" is.