liso
Member of DD Central
Posts: 389
Likes: 394
|
Post by liso on Mar 21, 2019 22:00:44 GMT
You are within the time frame, just. The platform closed at the end of February, but the problem with the FCA register was not immediately known. It was about a month later ie end March/very early April that the 'error' became apparent to lenders. There is a 1 year window to make a complaint. So be quick.....
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 5,723
|
Post by duck on Mar 23, 2019 6:07:16 GMT
You are within the time frame, just. The platform closed at the end of February, but the problem with the FCA register was not immediately known. It was about a month later ie end March/very early April that the 'error' became apparent to lenders. There is a 1 year window to make a complaint. So be quick..... Whilst there was much speculation the 'official' date I would argue is 04/04/18 the date of the FCA statement since this was the first official notification.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,055
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Mar 23, 2019 13:19:22 GMT
Thanks for all the posters on this thread - I just banged out my FCA compliant. It took me a while to draft so I posted the content below to assist any others looking to make a compliant for similar reasons. Before investing on any platform I always check the firm regulatory status and permission held. Col was no different. I even raised questions regarding specific permissions Col did not have via this forum to which I received sufficient comfort from Col to proceed with my investment. However, it is one thing to be misled by representatives of the platform, it quite another to be misled by the Financial Services Register - if you can't rely on that then something is very wrong......
Date when issue arose: Wed, 04/04/2018
Brief details of your complaint:
Collateral (UK) Limited operated a peer-to-peer website based platform for approximately two years, during most of which time, it purported to have an interim permission ('IP') pending an application for full authorisation. Before investing on the firm's platform in mid 2017, I checked the firm was authorised on the FCA's Financial Services Register (the "Register") which led me to believe that the firm was fully authorised to carry out the activities it was doing, as the Register showed the firm as having Interim Permission under the Firm Reference Number 656714.
On 4 April 2018, the FCA published a news story highlighting that none of the Collateral (UK) Limited group of companies held any valid authorisation or permission to carry out regulated activities. It stated that, when challenged by the FCA, Collateral (UK) Limited agreed to cease their lending activities and, on 26 February 2018, the lending platform became inoperative. Following this, the firm voluntarily entered administration. Whilst the administrator has yet to provide an indication of the likely realisations on investor/creditor claims, it appears that investor losses will be significant. Therefore, the FCA's failure to maintain an accurate register led to it containing which I relied on in making my decision to invest on the platform. Had I known that the firm was not regulated I would not have invested on the platform and would not now be exposed to significant losses on my investments. I had/have a reasonable expectation that the Register would not have a significant mis-statement regarding the permissions and regulatory status of firms contained in it.
Brief details of the steps you have taken so far to try and resolve the matter (including any compensation received to date):
I await the conclusion of the administration process. Until this process is complete, I will not know the extent of my losses.
Misconduct alleged:
The public have a reasonable expectation that they can place rely on the accuracy of information held on the Financial Services register that such information is not materially mis-stated. The FCA have a responsibility and a duty of care to the public to ensure that the Financial Services Register is accurate and does not provide misleading information, and should have effective processes and controls to ensure this.
I believe the FCA were negligent in:
(i) allowing misleading information regarding the regulatory status of Collateral (UK) Limited to be shown on the Register;
(ii) failing to identify the misleading information contained on the register for an extended period of time (apparently over 2 years), even after the firm made an application for authorisation in March 2016; and
(iii) failing to alert investor and the public that the firm was not authorised or regulated earlier when it was aware of the mis-information on the register and the claims the firm was making on it's website.
Remedy sought:
For the FCA to pay compensation for any losses that I may incur following the administration process.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 5,723
|
Post by duck on Mar 24, 2019 6:31:52 GMT
excellent post nick There are now many examples of complaints on this thread from my early days 'minimalist' complaint to nicks complaint that contains far more detail ..... so if you are unsure about what to write take your pick, amend as necessary and get your complaint in before the extrapolated cut off date arrives. As I wrote in this thread a long time ago your complaint should to be genuine, but since you are reading this forum it shows a level of commitment to check your investments and the safety of your money. So even if you are not like me (a regular visitor to the register and other government websites) the lack of negative posts regarding Col permissions during the time that Col was operating is telling*. Eagle eyed visitors to the FCA website will notice the disclaimer** at the foot of the page regarding the (lack) of responsibility that the FCA try to take for the register (Andrew Bailey admitted to the Treasury Select Committee that the register was until recently 'neglected') IMHO this disclaimer is spurious when viewed against our position as 'consumers'. Parliament was/is very clear on the responsibilities it places on the FCA and it's register in the protection of consumers. I and others have commented on this in 'another place'. I also commented earlier in this thread 'don't underestimate the work that is going on behind the scenes', rest assured that this continues. A decent picture is being built up of what went on and when including the FCA's role in the whole debacle. Unfortunately I can't post details at present but I and others are dragging out information from official sources via FOI requests*** Net archives and similar. Whilst the FCA investigation progresses publishing the information I hold is a 'no no' so please simply accept that the work progresses. As a matter of disclosure, I am not a big hitter, I have a small amount of money tied up in Col (equivalent to approx 6 months interest that I receive from P2P) so the outcome will not be life changing for me. The only reasons I am pursuing this matter (to the depth I am) is because others will not be in a similar position and whilst challenging 'authority' is not everybody's cup of tea the prospect never daunts me. Anyway, back on topic. If you are wavering about sending in a complaint it is really simple, takes minutes and will help support those of us who are working 'behind the scenes'. Sorry about the length of this post, congratulations if you have got this far! * I have recently read every post on the Col boards 'here' and there are none by posters or by Col representatives that would indicate the shenanigans that may/may not have taken place. ** The disclaimer has always been there in one form or another. Minor detail changes have taken place over the years and there is an updated version on the beta register that I have managed to find a few pages from. *** Many of the requested details are not currently being supplied due to possible criminal action. I will have to wait for the end of the investigation for clarity on these but the important thing is that these details have been asked for and will not be forgotten.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 5,723
|
Post by duck on Apr 15, 2019 4:16:26 GMT
I realise that this thread has been quiet for the best part of a month now and the extrapolated date for complaints has now passed so a few points Firstly 'well done' to all those that sent in complaints, this has contributed to raising the profile of the Col collapse and has helped to influence the writing of press articles such as those highlighted by 11025 here. The 'behind the scenes' work is still progressing unfortunately rather slowly. This is not through lack of effort simply but because the FCA are stonewalling information requests. I note Adam Williams at the Telegraph (article highlighted above) is getting the same response. Matters have been escalated but as in all things 'official' timescales stretch. In this case I can see the timescale stretching to a another 6 months (possibly longer) before the full picture will be known. As a side note I was shocked yesterday to find out that the FCA's budget for 18/19 is £543m ..... value for money?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 15, 2019 7:00:28 GMT
... As a side note I was shocked yesterday to find out that the FCA's budget for 18/19 is £543m ..... value for money? Getting a handle on it, with 58,000+ businesses regulated it amounts to about £10,000 per business, although it's obviously not allocated like that. Edit: I guess Col (and Lendy) have had their full allowance recently.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 5,723
|
Post by duck on Apr 25, 2019 3:45:25 GMT
I and several other 'behind the scenes' workers had it confirmed yesterday by the FCA that the they knew/found out that Col was trading without the requisite permissions on 23/11/2017.
I and I have no doubt others reading this increased their investments from this date until the plug was pulled. One of the primary purposes of the FCA is to 'protect consumers'. I will leave you to draw your own conclusion as to whether the afforded protection was sufficient.
The picture of what went on is building nicely (sorry can't disclose more at present) and I'm pleased (if that is the right word) to see that my initial suspicions that the FCA had questions to answer is proving correct.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 5,723
|
Post by duck on Apr 25, 2019 5:41:05 GMT
As a follow on to my previous post I have lodged another official complaint wrt this latest disclosure.
|
|
|
Post by Please turn me over on Apr 25, 2019 6:22:01 GMT
Thanks, duck. This is significant new information. I will be sending another complaint too (after I peel myself from the ceiling).
|
|
seb8072
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 99
|
Post by seb8072 on Apr 25, 2019 6:56:47 GMT
I and several other 'behind the scenes' workers had it confirmed yesterday by the FCA that the they knew/found out that Col was trading without the requisite permissions on 23/11/2017. I and I have no doubt others reading this increased their investments from this date until the plug was pulled. One of the primary purposes of the FCA is to 'protect consumers'. I will leave you to draw your own conclusion as to whether the afforded protection was sufficient. The picture of what went on is building nicely (sorry can't disclose more at present) and I'm pleased (if that is the right word) to see that my initial suspicions that the FCA had questions to answer is proving correct. Hi duck, are you able to provide evidence of this either by PM or otherwise?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 5,723
|
Post by duck on Apr 25, 2019 7:11:04 GMT
From my FOI request FOI6297 (blows my cover with the FCA but some of the early FOI requests are due to appear on the website soon ) On what date did the FCA become aware that Collateral (UK) Ltd was trading without valid authorisations / permissions?
23 November 2017
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Apr 25, 2019 8:23:25 GMT
From my FOI request FOI6297 (blows my cover with the FCA but some of the early FOI requests are due to appear on the website soon ) On what date did the FCA become aware that Collateral (UK) Ltd was trading without valid authorisations / permissions?
23 November 2017 When did Col decide it didn't need to be regulated and changed it's footer to remove the FCA regulation? I think it was mentioned somewhere but probably buried in the long threads. I wonder if that was in response to the FCA 'becoming aware'.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Apr 25, 2019 8:25:15 GMT
As a follow on to my previous post I have lodged another official complaint wrt this latest disclosure. Right behind you duck. Looking through my statements I had a substantial net increase on Col from the 23/11/2017 to the day it went pop. My initial FCA complaint focused on the issues regarding the register. I have now submitted a further complaint relating to the lack of action to protect consumers at the point they understood Col to be operating with an invalid IP. FCA should have stepped in on day one and frozen Client Money accounts to prevent new money as a minimum. Instead they allowed them to continue trading. The FCA has a responsibility to protect consumers. In this they have been negligent. On another point my request to the FCA has now moved from compensation to lenders for the losses incurred once the process completes to immediate payment from the FCA of all monies invested in the platform by lenders. In my view they should now take on the financial risk of the loan book and the recovery process and allow lenders to get back to their lives that have been impacted by the FCA's incompetence and negligence.
|
|
|
Post by Please turn me over on Apr 25, 2019 8:39:01 GMT
From my FOI request FOI6297 (blows my cover with the FCA but some of the early FOI requests are due to appear on the website soon ) On what date did the FCA become aware that Collateral (UK) Ltd was trading without valid authorisations / permissions?
23 November 2017 When did Col decide it didn't need to be regulated and changed it's footer to remove the FCA regulation? I think it was mentioned somewhere but probably buried in the long threads. I wonder if that was in response to the FCA 'becoming aware'. According to emails I received from Col, the footer changed at the end of January 2018.
|
|
picnicman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 238
Likes: 215
|
Post by picnicman on Apr 25, 2019 10:00:44 GMT
I and several other 'behind the scenes' workers had it confirmed yesterday by the FCA that the they knew/found out that Col was trading without the requisite permissions on 23/11/2017. I and I have no doubt others reading this increased their investments from this date until the plug was pulled. One of the primary purposes of the FCA is to 'protect consumers'. I will leave you to draw your own conclusion as to whether the afforded protection was sufficient. The picture of what went on is building nicely (sorry can't disclose more at present) and I'm pleased (if that is the right word) to see that my initial suspicions that the FCA had questions to answer is proving correct. duck - yes thanks added to all the others - I have asked Monetus on the feedback from CC thread to ask for an update on the chattels as you might have seen - I will also be asking if the Administrators are able to advise on their plans for repayments - is it when all recoveries on the entire loan book are achieved/an interim process etc. At least might give us some more idea. cheers P
|
|