11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 716
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Jan 8, 2019 10:13:57 GMT
You appear to have more information than me regarding the FCA's behaviour in this No, I only know what's public here and through the BDO direct information. Perhaps you should re-read what I've written above. Still, good to read your constructive thoughts on what should have happened... I'm going to a meeting now , when I have time I'll reply to you.
|
|
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 Jan 8, 2019 10:15:16 GMT
My the fingers have been typing furiously this morning. I have no problems With BDO as long as things are done expeditiously. Their appointment was the correct thing to do given RR situation.
We can’t change where we are so no point in raking over the ashes.
Re. Supplying emails with purchase details I would doubt many would wish to risk a criminal prosecution trying to get money from previous sales. Because it would be easily proven once details are verified.
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Jan 8, 2019 11:25:38 GMT
I replied to the email at 8am today giving my agreement to the resolution in the way they asked for. Now at 11am they send me an email politely reminding me to please respond to them agreeing to the resolution?? are we all paying for here. This lot are absolutely useless. ****ing robbery.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,788
Likes: 11,007
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 8, 2019 11:51:54 GMT
I replied to the email at 8am today giving my agreement to the resolution in the way they asked for. Now at 11am they send me an email politely reminding me to please respond to them agreeing to the resolution?? are we all paying for here. This lot are absolutely useless. ****ing robbery. I suspect its a mass mailing, everyone got it. I suppose they could not have bothered but then people would have moaned for not being reminded.
Consider the cost of one person sending an email to an entire email database. ie pressing a button. Compare to the cost of that person having to go through all the replies received, match them to the database and remove those addresses from the mailing list.
If its not a mass mailing, as they have already done the above as part of the counting process, it could have been prepared yesterday and nobody thought it necessary to knock of the replies that arrived later or they havent had time.
I doubt the cost of sending you a redundant email is going to really inflate the costs overly
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 716
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Jan 8, 2019 12:28:25 GMT
You appear to have more information than me regarding the FCA's behaviour in this No, I only know what's public here and through the BDO direct information. Perhaps you should re-read what I've written above. Still, good to read your constructive thoughts on what should have happened... It goes without saying that I like you am totally unhappy with the behaviour from Collateral. However we were told the FCA and Collateral were in regular discussions , so it would be prudent to assume the FCA were up to speed with Collateral ( if not then they certainly should have been ), so at the end February 2018 when they finally told Collateral no FCA authorisation and then changed the information displayed on the FCA web/register and were aware Collateral would stop lending did they just think that that would be the end of it and there would be no backlash – surely they should have realised this situation needed to be overseen with the utmost care and control then maybe at the start of march the FCA at the time of speaking to the court should have insisted that data and records were to be kept safe as utmost priority , did nobody at the FCA ever see the FCA numbers and authorisation information on the collateral web etc (If not why not) . I believe if this was handled better the Data loss could have been avoided, whether as you mention the data was lost for a reason we don’t know. But I do think the FCA should have been all over this - much, much earlier, if they had been I think the situation today would be different. This is my own personal opinion based on the information I see , Your opinion may be different and we can keep going round and round , sadly this has all happened now , this must be fully investigated and explained as there have to be lessons learned from this as repetition of a scenario like this definitely needs to be avoided. I wish the best for all Lenders Involved.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,874
Likes: 4,753
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 8, 2019 18:44:45 GMT
...so at the end February 2018 when they finally told Collateral no FCA authorisation and then changed the information displayed on the FCA web/register and were aware Collateral would stop lending did they just think that that would be the end of it and there would be no backlash Of course there was going to be a "backlash". After all, COL were operating illegally, and were put into administration. If they'd been operating within permission, they'd have had an approved run-on plan, wouldn't they...? Perhaps they assumed that RR, whilst not approved, were at least basically competent...? Surely that should have been job one on them being appointed? Sure, but that's not the FCA's problem. That's down to RR either being utterly incompetent or actively conspiring to hide evidence of fraud. RR should never have been appointed by COL in the first place. When they were, they should have done the most basic tasks competently. Is that too much too expect from a company that were, allegedly, qualified and experienced administrators? And let's not forget there were many here who thought RR should have been left to get on with the job...
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 716
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Jan 8, 2019 18:50:25 GMT
...so at the end February 2018 when they finally told Collateral no FCA authorisation and then changed the information displayed on the FCA web/register and were aware Collateral would stop lending did they just think that that would be the end of it and there would be no backlash Of course there was going to be a "backlash". After all, COL were operating illegally, and were put into administration. If they'd been operating within permission, they'd have had an approved run-on plan, wouldn't they...? Perhaps they assumed that RR, whilst not approved, were at least basically competent...? Surely that should have been job one on them being appointed? Sure, but that's not the FCA's problem. That's down to RR either being utterly incompetent or actively conspiring to hide evidence of fraud. RR should never have been appointed by COL in the first place. When they were, they should have done the most basic tasks competently. Is that too much too expect from a company that were, allegedly, qualified and experienced administrators? And let's not forget there were many here who thought RR should have been left to get on with the job... As I said you will no doubt have you own opinion , I have not mentioned RR or BDO , I was basically referring to situations prior to that.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,874
Likes: 4,753
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 8, 2019 19:01:48 GMT
I have not mentioned RR or BDO , I was basically referring to situations prior to that. Before RR? That was when COL were in total control...
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 716
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Jan 8, 2019 19:02:42 GMT
I have not mentioned RR or BDO , I was basically referring to situations prior to that. Before RR? That was when COL were in total control... I am tired with this now read my post.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,874
Likes: 4,753
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 8, 2019 19:07:25 GMT
Before RR? That was when COL were in total control... I am tired with this now read my post. I did, thanks. Basic timeline: COL were working happily, but without approval. The FCA said "Nope, you are not." COL put up the shutters and appointed an administrator, RR. The FCA said "Try again, one that we've approved." COL said "Nope." The FCA said "Court?" The court said "BDO" BDO said "But where's the database, guys?"
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 716
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Jan 8, 2019 19:09:27 GMT
I am tired with this now read my post. I did, thanks. Basic timeline: COL were working happily, but without approval. The FCA said "Nope, you are not." COL put up the shutters and appointed an administrator, RR. The FCA said "Try again, one that we've approved." COL said "Nope." The FCA said "Court?" The court said "BDO" BDO said "But where's the database, guys?" I didn't say that and I am bored now.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,874
Likes: 4,753
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 8, 2019 19:10:39 GMT
No, I just explained that to you.
I don't know what other steps you were expecting. How about helping me understand what you mean?
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 716
Likes: 825
|
Post by 11025 on Jan 8, 2019 19:12:42 GMT
No, I just explained that to you. I don't know what other steps you were expecting. How about helping me understand what you mean? I have said all I can be bothered to ,if you can't understand it from that then so be it .
|
|
p2pete
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 142
|
Post by p2pete on Jan 8, 2019 19:25:53 GMT
I believe if this was handled better the Data loss could have been avoided Sure, but that's not the FCA's problem. That's down to RR either being utterly incompetent or actively conspiring to hide evidence of fraud. When the FCA applied to the court to replace RR, the court restrict RR's role to collect incoming payments only, with immediate effect. It would have been illegal for RR to continue to pay the IT hosting company. At the time of the court case, the FCA should have requested a Legal Hold to protect the data. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_hold
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Jan 8, 2019 20:42:19 GMT
Consider the cost of one person sending an email to an entire email database. ie pressing a button. Compare to the cost of that person having to go through all the replies received, match them to the database and remove those addresses from the mailing list. It can be automated, they cant let an email address vote twice so they have to mark off on a database somewhere when an email address votes. It is trivial to only email the people who have not yet voted. I do not like a single thing I am seeing from how they operate, the small things give a clue.
|
|