liso
Member of DD Central
Posts: 389
Likes: 394
|
Post by liso on Sept 8, 2021 20:32:54 GMT
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 6,558
|
Post by Mousey on Sept 8, 2021 23:17:22 GMT
Mr Lloyd doesn't provide a source for that piece of info tho ...
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,576
Likes: 5,688
|
Post by duck on Sept 9, 2021 3:32:59 GMT
Very interesting. Will follow up. I have seen and heard nothing. that coincides with my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by kjwx109 on Sept 10, 2021 6:54:51 GMT
I read somewhere that other investors had received a personal exposure schedule. Having not received one I wrote to INVESTORCOLLATERAL@bdo.co.uk at the end of August but have not received a reply? Have others received a schedule, and if so who should I chase up?
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 3,136
|
Post by jonno on Sept 10, 2021 9:03:18 GMT
I read somewhere that other investors had received a personal exposure schedule. Having not received one I wrote to INVESTORCOLLATERAL@bdo.co.uk at the end of August but have not received a reply? Have others received a schedule, and if so who should I chase up? I received mine (which was correct) in June 2020. You do need to chase this up as they're looking to tie up an end date after which any further claims will not be considered.
|
|
|
Post by kjwx109 on Sept 10, 2021 22:13:29 GMT
Ok, I have now found my investor schedule after all. It was from June 2020. Is there anything I need to do to make a claim?
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 3,136
|
Post by jonno on Sept 11, 2021 9:13:53 GMT
Ok, I have now found my investor schedule after all. It was from June 2020. Is there anything I need to do to make a claim? No. Presuming you have not queried the amount then that confirms your holding ( but of course not a guarantee of what you will receive back). Apparently some realisations have been made by the liquidators, but nothing has yet been paid out due to there still being disagreement with some investors as to their level of investment. They are seeking court approval for a final cut-off date after which disbursements (for what they're worth) will begin.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,576
Likes: 5,688
|
Post by duck on Sept 18, 2021 16:32:28 GMT
Very old news (2019) but I have come across one of the FRCC's rulings on Col whilst I perform a 'back trawl'. I am posting it since it might answer some questions that Col investors have about what is going on. This complaint and referral to the FRCC was early on, much more is of course now known. There are some 'new' Col investors who have joined the forum since this link was originally posted (I believe it was) so it might help fill in a few gaps. The original complaint (not one of mine) is still deferred among with +350 others.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,598
Likes: 4,183
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 18, 2021 16:52:23 GMT
Very old news (2019) but I have come across one of the FRCC's rulings on Col whilst I perform a 'back trawl'. I am posting it since it might answer some questions that Col investors have about what is going on. This complaint and referral to the FRCC was early on, much more is of course now known. There are some 'new' Col investors who have joined the forum since this link was originally posted (I believe it was) so it might help fill in a few gaps. The original complaint (not one of mine) is still deferred among with +350 others. When you read the 4 complaints it does ring a bell, but then you move onto the proposed resolution:
To resolve your complaint, you have stated you would like compensation from the FCA for any loss incurred, which you say should amount to a full reimbursement of capital and interest due.
So a claim from one of the many (excluding forum members) that thought that P2P investing was risk free?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,576
Likes: 5,688
|
Post by duck on Sept 18, 2021 17:07:45 GMT
...
To resolve your complaint, you have stated you would like compensation from the FCA for any loss incurred, which you say should amount to a full reimbursement of capital and interest due.
So a claim from one of the many (excluding forum members) that thought that P2P investing was risk free?
Not an unreasonable request when the whole picture is considered. If the FCA had checked the Part 4A application against information they already held or Companies House they would have spotted the Company number didn't tie up (investors could not see this since the IP register didn't show the Company No.) The FCA took applications 'on trust', no checks. The FCA are required by law to maintain a secure and accurate register, they didn't ........... and to make it worse there were no 'flags' when changes were made. All you needed was an authorisation and you could make the changes that were made in changing Regal Pawnbroker to Collateral (UK) Ltd. I could go on about what wasn't done but you see the picture .... If the FCA had performed the most basic checks, the stuff most of us did when P2P was flourishing, Col would not have been allowed to go live, nobody would have seen the site, nobody would have lost 1p. So I don't feel the request is unreasonable.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,598
Likes: 4,183
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 19, 2021 9:11:50 GMT
...
To resolve your complaint, you have stated you would like compensation from the FCA for any loss incurred, which you say should amount to a full reimbursement of capital and interest due.
So a claim from one of the many (excluding forum members) that thought that P2P investing was risk free?
Not an unreasonable request when the whole picture is considered. If the FCA had checked the Part 4A application against information they already held or Companies House they would have spotted the Company number didn't tie up (investors could not see this since the IP register didn't show the Company No.) The FCA took applications 'on trust', no checks. The FCA are required by law to maintain a secure and accurate register, they didn't ........... and to make it worse there were no 'flags' when changes were made. All you needed was an authorisation and you could make the changes that were made in changing Regal Pawnbroker to Collateral (UK) Ltd. I could go on about what wasn't done but you see the picture .... If the FCA had performed the most basic checks, the stuff most of us did when P2P was flourishing, Col would not have been allowed to go live, nobody would have seen the site, nobody would have lost 1p. So I don't feel the request is unreasonable. How can somebody be entitled to interest in full on an investment that you say they should never have been allowed to make? That realy does sound like wanting your cake and eat it. If they said they had been deprived of the opportunity to invest their money elsewhere, it would make a certain amount of sense. However, you would then have to look at where they might have put their money instead (Ly, FS, TC ?). Ulitmately it is possible that if Col had never existed people could have put it all in one of the other failed platforms and lost more than they will in Col.
I have money in Col and would love to get it back, but I don't understand what the end game is here:
- cause the FCA sufficient embarassment to get everyone compensated
- raise a load of money to start legal proceedings against FCA
- throw your arms in the air and say 'we tried our best but got shafted by the system'
Ultimately there is an enourmous difference between saying somebody has an obligation to do something, and proving that you are entitled to be compensated because they didn't do it.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Sept 19, 2021 9:59:22 GMT
I have money in Col and would love to get it back
Might I suggest an end game you should consider not best served by a pointless public debate with the person most likely to achieve that? Some thoughts are best kept to yourself........
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,077
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 19, 2021 10:41:33 GMT
Not an unreasonable request when the whole picture is considered. If the FCA had checked the Part 4A application against information they already held or Companies House they would have spotted the Company number didn't tie up (investors could not see this since the IP register didn't show the Company No.) The FCA took applications 'on trust', no checks. The FCA are required by law to maintain a secure and accurate register, they didn't ........... and to make it worse there were no 'flags' when changes were made. All you needed was an authorisation and you could make the changes that were made in changing Regal Pawnbroker to Collateral (UK) Ltd. I could go on about what wasn't done but you see the picture .... If the FCA had performed the most basic checks, the stuff most of us did when P2P was flourishing, Col would not have been allowed to go live, nobody would have seen the site, nobody would have lost 1p. So I don't feel the request is unreasonable. How can somebody be entitled to interest in full on an investment that you say they should never have been allowed to make? That realy does sound like wanting your cake and eat it. If they said they had been deprived of the opportunity to invest their money elsewhere, it would make a certain amount of sense. However, you would then have to look at where they might have put their money instead (Ly, FS, TC ?). Ulitmately it is possible that if Col had never existed people could have put it all in one of the other failed platforms and lost more than they will in Col.
I have money in Col and would love to get it back, but I don't understand what the end game is here:
- cause the FCA sufficient embarassment to get everyone compensated
- raise a load of money to start legal proceedings against FCA
- throw your arms in the air and say 'we tried our best but got shafted by the system'
Ultimately there is an enourmous difference between saying somebody has an obligation to do something, and proving that you are entitled to be compensated because they didn't do it.
The endgame will be the best possible outcome achievable and so what if it is three? ... not even an option if you havent tried as its hard to throw your arms up in the air if you are sitting on your hands. There are a few people across various platforms trying their best for the wider lender community. You might have noticed that so far they have had some success.
|
|
|
Post by minionbob on Sept 19, 2021 14:58:03 GMT
Not an unreasonable request when the whole picture is considered. If the FCA had checked the Part 4A application against information they already held or Companies House they would have spotted the Company number didn't tie up (investors could not see this since the IP register didn't show the Company No.) The FCA took applications 'on trust', no checks. The FCA are required by law to maintain a secure and accurate register, they didn't ........... and to make it worse there were no 'flags' when changes were made. All you needed was an authorisation and you could make the changes that were made in changing Regal Pawnbroker to Collateral (UK) Ltd. I could go on about what wasn't done but you see the picture .... If the FCA had performed the most basic checks, the stuff most of us did when P2P was flourishing, Col would not have been allowed to go live, nobody would have seen the site, nobody would have lost 1p. So I don't feel the request is unreasonable. How can somebody be entitled to interest in full on an investment that you say they should never have been allowed to make? That realy does sound like wanting your cake and eat it. If they said they had been deprived of the opportunity to invest their money elsewhere, it would make a certain amount of sense. However, you would then have to look at where they might have put their money instead (Ly, FS, TC ?). Ulitmately it is possible that if Col had never existed people could have put it all in one of the other failed platforms and lost more than they will in Col.
I have money in Col and would love to get it back, but I don't understand what the end game is here:
- cause the FCA sufficient embarassment to get everyone compensated
- raise a load of money to start legal proceedings against FCA
- throw your arms in the air and say 'we tried our best but got shafted by the system'
Ultimately there is an enourmous difference between saying somebody has an obligation to do something, and proving that you are entitled to be compensated because they didn't do it.
Objectively as an investor in coll then I would say that full interest is a negotiating position, if reimbursed capital then a logical outcome would be return of interest at an fscs savings account rate, as the risk would eventually have been removed. There were fundamental failings with Coll that don't apply to other p2p platforms - the regulatory failings were far more significant than say for london capital and finance whose lenders are now being refunded in full.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,742
Likes: 3,136
|
Post by jonno on Sept 19, 2021 15:23:15 GMT
Not an unreasonable request when the whole picture is considered. If the FCA had checked the Part 4A application against information they already held or Companies House they would have spotted the Company number didn't tie up (investors could not see this since the IP register didn't show the Company No.) The FCA took applications 'on trust', no checks. The FCA are required by law to maintain a secure and accurate register, they didn't ........... and to make it worse there were no 'flags' when changes were made. All you needed was an authorisation and you could make the changes that were made in changing Regal Pawnbroker to Collateral (UK) Ltd. I could go on about what wasn't done but you see the picture .... If the FCA had performed the most basic checks, the stuff most of us did when P2P was flourishing, Col would not have been allowed to go live, nobody would have seen the site, nobody would have lost 1p. So I don't feel the request is unreasonable. How can somebody be entitled to interest in full on an investment that you say they should never have been allowed to make? That realy does sound like wanting your cake and eat it. If they said they had been deprived of the opportunity to invest their money elsewhere, it would make a certain amount of sense. However, you would then have to look at where they might have put their money instead (Ly, FS, TC ?). Ulitmately it is possible that if Col had never existed people could have put it all in one of the other failed platforms and lost more than they will in Col.
I have money in Col and would love to get it back, but I don't understand what the end game is here:
- cause the FCA sufficient embarassment to get everyone compensated
- raise a load of money to start legal proceedings against FCA
- throw your arms in the air and say 'we tried our best but got shafted by the system'
Ultimately there is an enourmous difference between saying somebody has an obligation to do something, and proving that you are entitled to be compensated because they didn't do it.
Erm...................are you Mr Bailey in undercover mode? For God's sake.
|
|