|
Post by cpaken on Feb 25, 2024 12:04:44 GMT
Anyone know what happened to the "HMP Ltd" COLBL00079 loan?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 25, 2024 12:46:56 GMT
Anyone know what happened to the "HMP Ltd" COLBL00079 loan? Well, it was not drawn down at time of administration (therefore no security) and we have had no indication of what happened to the cash. Sadly I am expecting nothing or virtually nothing back on the not inconsiderable sum I had in it (and the other similarly no drawn down loans, eg . COLBL00087/COLBL00088). Very happy to be corrected by others on this.
|
|
|
Post by cpaken on Feb 25, 2024 12:54:27 GMT
If the cash was not used then surely it should be in company's bank account, which means no different to the uninvested cash in our accounts
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Feb 25, 2024 13:09:34 GMT
If the cash was not used then surely it should be in company's bank account, which means no different to the uninvested cash in our accounts "should" But remember a lot of cash went "missing" These loans are listed in the details the administrators sent (and have so far had no repayment) rather than the cash being included in the client account (where there was a ca 93% recovery). Maybe duck has more info?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 5,791
|
Post by duck on Feb 26, 2024 13:55:43 GMT
If the cash was not used then surely it should be in company's bank account, which means no different to the uninvested cash in our accounts "should" But remember a lot of cash went "missing" These loans are listed in the details the administrators sent (and have so far had no repayment) rather than the cash being included in the client account (where there was a ca 93% recovery). Maybe duck has more info? Sorry for slightly late reply have been away for a couple of days. The client account was raided hence the freezing order so the loans that were not drawn down cannot just be repaid. But that is the tip of the financial shenannigans that went on, the issues and irregularities are not just limited to the chattel loans. As I have said before, the FCA has held the evidence for 6 years now but chose not to charge, why I have no idea...... well I do and I can surmise why, since a lot of dirty washing would have found its way into the Court hearing. The charges covered the basics only, very easy to prove which is why I'm at a bit of loss as to how the investigation took 9532.24 hours and has cost in excess of £247,309, the FCA's log shows how the register was changed, by whom and when and bank statements would show the cash transactions ........... I know the FCA have these. The FCA's blustering at the Treasury committee (Bailey and Rathi) about how they didn't know how the register was changed and 'sophisticated hacks' was shall we say BS, you can see it on one short piece of paper. Again I can only surmise that the FCA have looked at the other issues that I have been documenting here for the last 6 years and this has burnt many of the 9532 hours. The FCA knows what really went on and unfortunately for them so do the lings and I.
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Feb 27, 2024 0:27:10 GMT
Happy 6yr Anniversary of Collateral going down, to all those that celebrate
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,889
Likes: 1,604
|
Post by benaj on Feb 27, 2024 9:06:47 GMT
😔 I’m in no mood celebrating this 6th year anniversary with the administrators. Better save my bottles for something else for a different cause . 😅
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 5,791
|
Post by duck on Feb 27, 2024 10:09:11 GMT
As I posted recently above, a letter has been worked on for some time specifically for Collateral lenders, which I will be able to release shortly .
May I suggest that Collateral lenders hold back from writing to their Members of Parliament until then.
There is substantial new information on Collateral that we think should be sent to MPs. As I hope most Collateral lenders are aware after 6 years, Collateral is a different situation from the wider failure of P2P platforms.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 5,791
|
Post by duck on Mar 2, 2024 10:34:33 GMT
Regular readers may well remember I submitted a FOI to have Andrew Bailey's and Jonathan Davidsons emails regarding Col released. The FCA aggregated this with another FOI I submitted for Court Documents used by the FCA at the Trial. (these should be 'public documents' so there should have been no problem releasing them to me.)
The FCA excluded the now joined requests under section 12 (cost).
I went to 'internal review' and the reviewer agreed with me on the points I had raised regarding 'cost' but then slapped me with 'vexatious' and of 'limited to no public interest' with regards to releasing the Bailey Davidson emails.
This is now with the Information Commissioner, case accepted but after 3 months a case officer is still to be appointed.
The FCA internal reviewer also stated
The second request was
This ruling was made (sent to me) on 20th November.
Since then zilch, nothing, no emails, no notification of delay just total silence.
Looks like I will have to be putting finger to keyboard again ..................
On another subject, the next monthly 'update' on the complaints is due on Tuesday. I would love to be proved wrong but even if the FCA send out another "Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to provide you with a response to your complaint, however we confirm our investigation is still progressing." that would be an improvement in their performance of the last few months.[/quote]
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 5,791
|
Post by duck on Mar 2, 2024 14:47:04 GMT
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 5,791
|
Post by duck on Mar 4, 2024 13:25:27 GMT
The FCA have rejected the FOI request Questions 1 and 2 We can confirm that we hold the information you have requested. However, some of this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 30 (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) of FOIA. Section 30 is a qualified exemption, and therefore in assessing where the balance of the public interest lies in relation to making this information public at this time. We consider that any information within the scope of this part of your request which is not exempt as above, is exempt under section 31 (Law enforcement) of FOIA, as disclosure would be likely to prejudice the exercise by the FCA of its regulatory functions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). In respect of both exemptions, we have considered the arguments for and against disclosure, as detailed in Annex A below. Question 3 We hold the information you have requested but cannot disclose it because the exemption under section 44 (Prohibitions on Disclosure) of FOIA applies. This is because it constitutes or contains ‘confidential information’ for the purposes of section 348 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), which the FCA has received in the discharge of its public functions. Additionally, we consider that sections 30 (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities) and 31 (Law enforcement) of FOIA apply to parts of this information; and in withholding this information, we have considered the public interest arguments in Annex A.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 5,791
|
Post by duck on Mar 4, 2024 15:17:28 GMT
The whole farce of this FOI request shows just how far the integration of the FOI into the Press/Comm's team has had a negative effect. Reputation management is now the order of the day (as highlighted in several press articles)
First the Bailey Davidson FOI was aggregated with the Court Docs FOI request so that the now single FOI could be rejected on costs grounds. On appeal the 2 FOI requests were again split. The Bailey Davidson FOI was rejected as 'vexatious' and of 'limited to no public interest' The second FOI rejected for reasons that were appropriate before the Trial but not now.
The requested Court documents show FCA indecision and failures, any guesses why they were not released?
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 4, 2024 15:33:03 GMT
Perhaps a BBC expose a la Post Office is needed?
|
|
min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 604
Likes: 170
|
Post by min on Mar 5, 2024 7:09:24 GMT
Perhaps a BBC expose a la Post Office is needed? Think you’ll find that was ITV. I don’t think the BBC would go near it given their Government stooges at the top.
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Mar 5, 2024 12:03:17 GMT
The FCA is run by Russian corporations and mafioso
|
|