duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,864 
Likes: 6,896
|
Post by duck on Apr 27, 2019 12:05:57 GMT
I feel I need to add some info here from the FCA (another FOI request), my bolding Did the FCA take any action to preserve data following the Collateral Companies agreeing to cease their lending activities?” The FCA applied to the High Court to appoint new administrators who would take over the business. This application was made on 16 March 2018 and adjourned by the court at the request of the directors and Mr Craig. Both the directors and Mr Craig made formal undertakings to the court that, in the interim, the assets of the Collateral Companies (which would include its data) would be retained....then it turned out it hadn't been. Which again means that the FCA failed to fulfill it's duty to protect 'consumers' by not itself taking proactive action.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,979
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 27, 2019 12:15:04 GMT
Look at the timings.
RR appointed Feb 28th.
FCA took Col to court March 16th. Adjourned.
BDO appointed by court April 27th. Hosting already closed, data already gone.
RR had two months to secure the data. They didn't.
The FCA themselves simply could not legally or physically do anything bar apply to the court for an approved administrator to be appointed. That administrator was appointed by the court in April 27th. Until that point, the administrator - the only people who could do anything - were RR.
Even if you say "Well, RR were told not to do anything after the mid-March court appearance", that's still 28th Feb to 16th March when RR were in unquestioned, unchallenged control of the administration. Yet it turned out that they had failed to take the single most basic step - secure the data.
Or they did secure it, then deleted that secured copy after the first court hearing, despite being explicitly told not to.
I'd call Feb 28th appointment to March 16th hearing pretty "proactive", btw.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 6,896
|
Post by duck on Apr 27, 2019 13:44:28 GMT
Look at the timings. ....... I'd call Feb 28th appointment to March 16th hearing pretty "proactive", btw. I was referring to the fact that the FCA knew on 23 Nov 2017 that Col was trading without requisite permissions and the first 'action' (that they will currently confirm that they took) was to apply to the HC for a hearing to have RR replaced.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Apr 27, 2019 15:26:57 GMT
Perhaps it was the case that (perhaps wilfully?) RR did nothing so the data was 'lost' by default. The FCA perhaps assumed that the data under the court umbrella instruction was under an electronic lock and key so as to speak and did not feel it was necessary to specifically make sure of its safeguard. This cannot have been the first time that a company with sensitive financial data has gone to the wall so it will be interesting in due course to find out exactly what did happen. One wonders what happened to the data of say Carillion or LC & F to name two large organisations recently gone under.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 27, 2019 17:17:59 GMT
The more you think about this mess the more firmly should the finger of blame be pointed at the FCA. BDO are simply the financial equivalent of bluebottles on a rotting carcase doing an unwholesome waste disposal. Whatever we end up with the FCA will be topping up the shortfall if there is any because i cant see they have a leg to stand on if we all sue which i know i will be doing. The slight issue with this is that you can't sue the FCA, I'm afraid.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Apr 27, 2019 18:04:00 GMT
"The slight issue with this is that you can't sue the FCA, I'm afraid." chris1200 Bugger. Explains a LOT about their actions and attitudes then doesn't it.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 27, 2019 18:49:57 GMT
"The slight issue with this is that you can't sue the FCA, I'm afraid." chris1200 Bugger. Explains a LOT about their actions and attitudes then doesn't it. It's certainly less than ideal from our perspective! It does appear to be something that certain MPs aren't overly keen on (see, for example: www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2019-03-04/228164/), but even if there were a change in the law, it's almost impossible that it would act to create retrospective liability. (That said, as discussed elsewhere, there are of course other avenues for complaint which can result in compensation - but they're not damages claims.)
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,979
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 27, 2019 18:52:25 GMT
Perhaps it was the case that (perhaps wilfully?) RR did nothing so the data was 'lost' by default. The data was on a hosted server. That data was lost because nobody paid the hosting bill. RR hadn't thought it necessary to secure a backup copy in the two weeks they were the unchallenged administrators...? Collateral hadn't got any backup copies at all, ever? I've hosted many websites. You ALWAYS make sure you have regular backups of the data under your control. I've had hosting companies go south on me. I've had host hardware go south on me. You ALWAYS make sure you have regular backups of the data under your control... Can I refer you back to what duck said about the March 16th court adjournment...? Both the directors and Mr Craig made formal undertakings to the court that, in the interim, the assets of the Collateral Companies (which would include its data) would be retained. So... we have two basic scenarios... 1. Incompetence. Did they not have any copies of the data at all, except what was with that host? Did they completely forget when making that undertaking to mention the bill would need paying? 2. Malice. Did they have copies but then destroy them in direct contravention of that undertaking? What were they trying to hide? I'm open to other scenarios, but I really can't think of any...
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Apr 27, 2019 20:37:04 GMT
Perhaps it was the case that (perhaps wilfully?) RR did nothing so the data was 'lost' by default. The data was on a hosted server. That data was lost because nobody paid the hosting bill. RR hadn't thought it necessary to secure a backup copy in the two weeks they were the unchallenged administrators...? Collateral hadn't got any backup copies at all, ever? I've hosted many websites. You ALWAYS make sure you have regular backups of the data under your control. I've had hosting companies go south on me. I've had host hardware go south on me. You ALWAYS make sure you have regular backups of the data under your control... Can I refer you back to what duck said about the March 16th court adjournment...? Both the directors and Mr Craig made formal undertakings to the court that, in the interim, the assets of the Collateral Companies (which would include its data) would be retained. So... we have two basic scenarios... 1. Incompetence. Did they not have any copies of the data at all, except what was with that host? Did they completely forget when making that undertaking to mention the bill would need paying? 2. Malice. Did they have copies but then destroy them in direct contravention of that undertaking? What were they trying to hide? I'm open to other scenarios, but I really can't think of any... Add in the missing £400,000 from the bank account and 2 must be a real possibility
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,979
Likes: 5,131
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 27, 2019 21:41:45 GMT
You may very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
|
|
tommytaylor
P2P - The new wild west
Posts: 234
Likes: 375
|
Post by tommytaylor on Apr 28, 2019 9:52:11 GMT
Whatever we end up with the FCA will be topping up the shortfall if there is any because i cant see they have a leg to stand on if we all sue which i know i will be doing. The slight issue with this is that you can't sue the FCA, I'm afraid. There goes my train of thought then. What would be the reason why you cannot sue them. Are they above the law? Just basically means they can do what the hell they want when they want. Are they a profit making organization? What would be the reason we have all sent our we want our money back if it all goes to  letters then? Yes i know too many questions in one post. Sorry.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 28, 2019 10:43:32 GMT
The slight issue with this is that you can't sue the FCA, I'm afraid. There goes my train of thought then. What would be the reason why you cannot sue them. Are they above the law? Just basically means they can do what the hell they want when they want. Are they a profit making organization? What would be the reason we have all sent our we want our money back if it all goes to letters then? Yes i know too many questions in one post. Sorry. See my subsequent response to ozboy, including the link. Basically the FCA has statutory immunity from damages actions, but you can still make complaints which could result in compensation.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Apr 28, 2019 10:55:37 GMT
The slight issue with this is that you can't sue the FCA, I'm afraid. ... What would be the reason we have all sent our we want our money back if it all goes to letters then? ... Because it isn't always about what benefits the 'me' and 'now'. Sometimes, taking a particular, coordinated course of action and then strategically publicising it, generates improvements which benefits the 'us' and 'others' and 'the future'.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Apr 28, 2019 14:36:24 GMT
... What would be the reason we have all sent our we want our money back if it all goes to letters then? ... Because it isn't always about what benefits the 'me' and 'now'. Sometimes, taking a particular, coordinated course of action and then strategically publicising it, generates improvements which benefits the 'us' and 'others' and 'the future'. Also because, as I said above, there is still the Complaints Commissioner who can order compensation to be paid.
|
|
squid
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 204
|
Post by squid on Apr 28, 2019 17:21:42 GMT
Hi all, new poster here.
I have a mid five-figure sum invested via Collateral. With reference to potentially suing the FCA, I believe this has previously been attempted through the European Court of Human Rights. Not sure how Brexit may affect any such action in future however.
I am certainly no expert in such matters, but I would like to think that some form of class legal action could be considered appropriate in due course should it become necessary in order to recover any shortfall of funds.
|
|
letters then?