11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 716
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Nov 17, 2018 14:44:19 GMT
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Nov 17, 2018 19:01:21 GMT
Yes, but... "We are exploring the viability of making the register, in some way, publicly indicate [sic] when a firm's information has not been updated within required timeframes. Some of the proposals we are considering would require us to consult and upgrade the systems... Firms are required to keep up to date the information they provide to the regulator as part of their authorisation. The regulator now prompts firms to check their data if there has been no change to their recorded details in the last 12 months."How about checking that the information that they submit isn't fraudulent?
|
|
nyneil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 348
Likes: 435
|
Post by nyneil on Nov 18, 2018 11:34:24 GMT
Yes, but... "We are exploring the viability of making the register, in some way, publicly indicate [sic] when a firm's information has not been updated within required timeframes. Some of the proposals we are considering would require us to consult and upgrade the systems... Firms are required to keep up to date the information they provide to the regulator as part of their authorisation. The regulator now prompts firms to check their data if there has been no change to their recorded details in the last 12 months."How about checking that the information that they submit isn't fraudulent?
The firms should only have read access to the register. The only way to prevent 'abuse', intentional or otherwise, is for all data to be verified by the FCA BEFORE it is added to the register.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Nov 18, 2018 21:14:10 GMT
This is final result of the deal... link
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Nov 18, 2018 21:22:40 GMT
This is final result of the deal... link
I'll remove it from your post, but it'd be good if you could post without it happening
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Nov 19, 2018 16:59:46 GMT
Not that I was aware of I thought Firefox for iPad didn’t do add ones I.ll check. I did ask elsewhere if anyone had a solution thanks I’ll just switch to other browser till I fix it.
seems to have resolved on update I think
|
|
|
Post by Please turn me over on Nov 21, 2018 16:13:08 GMT
The bottom line is this: Collateral said it was authorised and regulated by the FCA: The FCA's register confirmed it: The FCA publicly says things like "If you're on the [FCA] register, it means we've checked you out and there are safeties in place if things go wrong." streamable.com/u4tzcBut after Collateral goes into administration, the FCA says that none of the Collateral companies held any valid authorisation or permission to carry on regulated activities. www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/information-investors-collateral-companiesThe FCA has failed to provide an explanation for the apparently false/incorrect information in the registry about Collateral. The Telegraph article in the OP says that the FCA has paid compensation to consumers who complained about incorrect information in the registry. While it is premature for Collateral investors to be claiming compensation from anyone, every Collateral investor may wish to email their MP asking for an investigation. The FCA is (or should be) entirely responsible for its failure to maintain accurate information about firms in its registry. And, as in the case cited in the Telegraph, the FCA should be financially accountable to Collateral investors should any losses occur. And don't just email your MP, email members of the Treasury Committee who have oversight of the FCA. www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/membership/
|
|
|
Post by p2psavvy on Nov 21, 2018 17:10:28 GMT
Hi Timmy
Do you know what date that copy of the entry was obtained as the current entry shows Regal Pawn Brokers Ltd and having lapsed on the 31/03/2016.
I registered with Collateral in May 2017 and did check the register. It was as Collateral and did not have a end date. I wish I had captured it at the time!
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Nov 21, 2018 18:12:58 GMT
Hi Timmy Do you know what date that copy of the entry was obtained as the current entry shows Regal Pawn Brokers Ltd and having lapsed on the 31/03/2016. I registered with Collateral in May 2017 and did check the register. It was as Collateral and did not have a end date. I wish I had captured it at the time! See the "Names" section of the register entry for the "Previous Registered Names". The FCA has conveniently given the dates on which the last two changes were made (i.e. it was Collateral (UK) Limited from 24/03/2016 to 29/01/2018) All interim permissions lapsed automatically on 31/03/2016 unless the firm applied for full authorisation. Regal Pawnbroker Limited did not apply for full authorisation, hence the lapse date, which was added when the record was attributed to the right company name.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 716
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Nov 21, 2018 20:14:35 GMT
Hi Timmy Do you know what date that copy of the entry was obtained as the current entry shows Regal Pawn Brokers Ltd and having lapsed on the 31/03/2016. I registered with Collateral in May 2017 and did check the register. It was as Collateral and did not have a end date. I wish I had captured it at the time! See the "Names" section of the register entry for the "Previous Registered Names". The FCA has conveniently given the dates on which the last two changes were made (i.e. it was Collateral (UK) Limited from 24/03/2016 to 29/01/2018) All interim permissions lapsed automatically on 31/03/2016 unless the firm applied for full authorisation. Regal Pawnbroker Limited did not apply for full authorisation, hence the lapse date, which was added when the record was attributed to the right company name. so the tracks were covered ...
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Nov 21, 2018 20:37:14 GMT
See the "Names" section of the register entry for the "Previous Registered Names". The FCA has conveniently given the dates on which the last two changes were made (i.e. it was Collateral (UK) Limited from 24/03/2016 to 29/01/2018) All interim permissions lapsed automatically on 31/03/2016 unless the firm applied for full authorisation. Regal Pawnbroker Limited did not apply for full authorisation, hence the lapse date, which was added when the record was attributed to the right company name. so the tracks were covered ... Well it could be argued that it was necessary to enter the actual date the permissions had lapsed, even if it was not known at the time because of the actions of a different Limited company which pretended to be one and the same. At least the firm name history has been preserved.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,548
Likes: 5,539
|
Post by duck on Nov 22, 2018 15:59:59 GMT
so the tracks were covered ... Well they would have needed to do a better job than that as the screen shot posted by @timmy above shows. When Col investors received the questionnaire I did wonder about the motive of asking Did you believe that Collateral were authorised by the FCA?and Why did you think they were authorised by the FCA?So to help them out I sent them a copy of their register entry '656714 Collateral (UK) Limited'. Subsequently I have emailed the Treasury Select Committee since they have expressed an interest in the failings of the FCA/Register. Basically I'm not content to just sit back and see my cash disappear without putting up a fight!
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,155
Likes: 4,823
|
Post by ozboy on Nov 22, 2018 16:48:40 GMT
so the tracks were covered ... Well they would have needed to do a better job than that as the screen shot posted by @timmy above shows. When Col investors received the questionnaire I did wonder about the motive of asking Did you believe that Collateral were authorised by the FCA?and Why did you think they were authorised by the FCA?So to help them out I sent them a copy of their register entry '656714 Collateral (UK) Limited'.Subsequently I have emailed the Treasury Select Committee since they have expressed an interest in the failings of the FCA/Register. Basically I'm not content to just sit back and see my cash disappear without putting up a fight!I like you duck. A LOT.
|
|
seb8072
Member of DD Central
Posts: 177
Likes: 99
|
Post by seb8072 on Nov 22, 2018 17:28:24 GMT
The bottom line is this: Collateral said it was authorised and regulated by the FCA: The FCA's register confirmed it: The FCA publicly says things like "If you're on the [FCA] register, it means we've checked you out and there are safeties in place if things go wrong." streamable.com/u4tzcBut after Collateral goes into administration, the FCA says that none of the Collateral companies held any valid authorisation or permission to carry on regulated activities. www.fca.org.uk/news/news-stories/information-investors-collateral-companiesThe FCA has failed to provide an explanation for the apparently false/incorrect information in the registry about Collateral. The Telegraph article in the OP says that the FCA has paid compensation to consumers who complained about incorrect information in the registry. While it is premature for Collateral investors to be claiming compensation from anyone, every Collateral investor may wish to email their MP asking for an investigation. The FCA is (or should be) entirely responsible for its failure to maintain accurate information about firms in its registry. And, as in the case cited in the Telegraph, the FCA should be financially accountable to Collateral investors should any losses occur. And don't just email your MP, email members of the Treasury Committee who have oversight of the FCA. www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/membership/
What's our Creditors Committee's take on this?
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 716
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Nov 22, 2018 17:51:27 GMT
so the tracks were covered ... Well they would have needed to do a better job than that as the screen shot posted by @timmy above shows. When Col investors received the questionnaire I did wonder about the motive of asking Did you believe that Collateral were authorised by the FCA?and Why did you think they were authorised by the FCA?So to help them out I sent them a copy of their register entry '656714 Collateral (UK) Limited'. Subsequently I have emailed the Treasury Select Committee since they have expressed an interest in the failings of the FCA/Register. Basically I'm not content to just sit back and see my cash disappear without putting up a fight! I totally agree and I already have all that information saved and my sentiments are exactly the same as yours including my questionnaire replies . When I said the tracks were covered I mean't they have covered their tracks in a somewhat poor and deceitful way. In my opinion the FCA would have seemed much more trustworthy and transparent if they had left everything exactly as it was until this mess was rectified , The fact that everything was changed as such imo displays guilt.
|
|