duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 6,270
|
Post by duck on Aug 16, 2024 9:19:44 GMT
The Chattels loans FOI was due yesterday, a response was posted today (the customary 1 day late). Unsurprisingly the FOI remains unanswered with the FCA asking for 'clarification' which means the 20 working days starts all over again when they deem that I have suitably clarfied. This of course means that questions 1, 2, 3, 4 & 7 remain unanswered. Apparently is not sufficiently clear. Find the full response here.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 6,270
|
Post by duck on Aug 16, 2024 11:31:59 GMT
WRT my last post you have to ask the question why did the FCA wait for the full 20 days (+1) to ask for 'clarification'. A suspicious person might suspect that their aim was to delay the start of the next 20 days for as long as possible .....
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 6,270
|
Post by duck on Aug 16, 2024 12:36:14 GMT
Clarification submitted. The FOI is now due to answered by 16th September. The other questions due to be answered are 1. Did the FCA obtain information on the chattel loans independently from that supplied to the FCA by BDO? 2. Did the FCA obtain and review the information regarding the chattel loans supplied to BDO by investors? 3. What action(s) were taken by the FCA with regards to the information supplied by BDO? 4. Did the FCA interview the brothers specifically with respect to these loans? 7. What action has the FCA taken with respect to these fraudulent ‘loans’? There is a fair bit of background infomation in my FOI that is not shown above, t he full text can be read here (scroll to the top to avoid all the FCA standard text)
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Aug 16, 2024 17:43:29 GMT
Given the number of times it has been essentially the identical response, part of me feels I should be complaining about the length of time being taken. Would raising another complaint about the delay be the only option or is there an alternative channel? Am thinking of writing to my new MP but as they’re all on holiday at the moment I don’t suppose there’s any hurry. Pretty sure they are still supposed to be dealing with constituents problems when not actually 'sitting', but I guess they all interpret the break differently. It is becoming increasingly obvious that apart from avoiding answering Duck's freedom of information requests, the only action currently is deciding who's turn it is to send the email this month. Like many others I suspect I used to think the FCA was the gold standard of reassurance regarding financial businesses. It turns out with regards to P2P they were the exact opposite. Collateral is the most blatant example where crooks were allowed to effectively steal money under their watch and it seems with their full knowledge. Lendy is another example where dishonesty is clearly involved. Ablrate Moneything and Funding secure have pretty big question marks hanging over them. Apologies to any of the same ilk I have not mentioned. I suspect with each month that ticks by they breathe a little easier that it will all just 'go away on its own'. The question is are we going to allow that to happen?
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Aug 17, 2024 10:35:58 GMT
You are not going to stop them. The contaminated blood scandal has been rumbling on for 40 years with procrastination having the effect that many if not most of those affected are now dead. Similarly with Collateral. Many if not most of the investors affected are elderly so dilly dally for another 10 years and the problem all but disappears.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,390
Likes: 2,887
|
Post by michaelc on Aug 17, 2024 11:56:59 GMT
Am thinking of writing to my new MP but as they’re all on holiday at the moment I don’t suppose there’s any hurry. Pretty sure they are still supposed to be dealing with constituents problems when not actually 'sitting', but I guess they all interpret the break differently. It is becoming increasingly obvious that apart from avoiding answering Duck's freedom of information requests, the only action currently is deciding who's turn it is to send the email this month. Like many others I suspect I used to think the FCA was the gold standard of reassurance regarding financial businesses. It turns out with regards to P2P they were the exact opposite. Collateral is the most blatant example where crooks were allowed to effectively steal money under their watch and it seems with their full knowledge. Lendy is another example where dishonesty is clearly involved. Ablrate Moneything a nd Funding secure have pretty big question marks hanging over them. Apologies to any of the same ilk I have not mentioned. I suspect with each month that ticks by they breathe a little easier that it will all just 'go away on its own'. The question is are we going to allow that to happen? Yeah the one that I always think about was the Reading loan which was "secured" on a house whose details were checkable (land-registry, zoopla) etc however my grand investment didn't seem to merit me checking the owners of the place. Turned out to be the wife of a FundingSecure director which made it fraud but zero I can realistically do about it. There were many others at Funding "Secure".
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,331
Likes: 2,750
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 17, 2024 13:00:27 GMT
Given the number of times it has been essentially the identical response, part of me feels I should be complaining about the length of time being taken. Would raising another complaint about the delay be the only option or is there an alternative channel? Am thinking of writing to my new MP but as they’re all on holiday at the moment I don’t suppose there’s any hurry. And I rather doubt new, mainly labour MPs are going to have much time to look at, or sympathy to deal with people who lost money due to a risky investment, and are assumed to be generally reasonably well off. I guess they might want to have a dig at the way the FCA was run under the previous government, but probably bigger fish to fry.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 6,270
|
Post by duck on Aug 17, 2024 13:39:42 GMT
There is a far bigger picture here than having sympathy for investors, the FCA broke the law multiple times wrt the authorisation process of Col. If the FCA had stuck to the law about 80% of the money 'invested' would never have been sent in the Curries direction. It is this question in the 'Stakeholders' FOI that probably caused the FCA to delay answering this FOI this week Col sat at the preliminary stages for the best part of 23 months. Then of course when the illegality of the Col platform was discovered what did the FCA do? They consulted 'internal stakeholders' while another £3.8m was 'invested' and plundered. Hey Ho it was not the FCAs money, as internal FCA documents say they were more concerned about what they would say when Col hit the press ............... Yes the Curies committed Fraud but without the FCAs multiple failures including failure to comply with the law most of the fraud could not have taken place.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,331
Likes: 2,750
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Aug 17, 2024 14:53:39 GMT
There is a far bigger picture here than having sympathy for investors, the FCA broke the law multiple times wrt the authorisation process of Col. If the FCA had stuck to the law about 80% of the money 'invested' would never have been sent in the Curries direction. It is this question in the 'Stakeholders' FOI that probably caused the FCA to delay answering this FOI this week Col sat at the preliminary stages for the best part of 23 months. Then of course when the illegality of the Col platform was discovered what did the FCA do? They consulted 'internal stakeholders' while another £3.8m was 'invested' and plundered. Hey Ho it was not the FCAs money, as internal FCA documents say they were more concerned about what they would say when Col hit the press ............... Yes the Curies committed Fraud but without the FCAs multiple failures including failure to comply with the law most of the fraud could not have taken place. Wasn't there a bit of a trick to the interim to full permission, I seem to remember there was a queue to start the process, perhaps the 12 month clock started ticking when you got to the top of the queue? I don't know if that was the case or if it was legal but many platforms seemed to be sat on interim permission for more than a year as I recall. Not that Col had interim permission of course.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 731
Likes: 849
|
Post by 11025 on Aug 17, 2024 16:15:12 GMT
FSMA doesn't work like that.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 6,270
|
Post by duck on Aug 17, 2024 16:17:23 GMT
Wasn't there a bit of a trick to the interim to full permission, I seem to remember there was a queue to start the process, perhaps the 12 month clock started ticking when you got to the top of the queue? I don't know if that was the case or if it was legal but many platforms seemed to be sat on interim permission for more than a year as I recall. Not that Col had interim permission of course. There was a lot going on at that time, quite a bit that probably didn't comply with regulations eg MT didn't have the appropriate Consumer Credit authorisations but the FCA took on the case based on MT's level of cooperation. Not that Col had interim permission of course. which of course the Curries declared on their 4A application form - they said 'No' to the question if the applicant does not currently have a Consumer Credit Interim permission reference number, did the applicant previously hold a licence for credit activities with the OFT prior to 1 April 2014 but the FCA didn't spot this declaration or the date of incorporation which was too late to have been eligable for interim permissions. So the evidence was held by the FCA from day 1 (well before the site opened) Col on the other hand started to argue within a few months of putting in their 4A application that they were not P2P and didn't require regulation, this is the 'protracted argument' referred to in one of the BDO reports. Internal FCA docs show that the case officer, one of several, agreed that Col was not P2P and tried to pass the case on. This is where the FCA went wrong, they didn't use their powers or the 6/12 months statutory cut offs to stop Col. The FCA didn't know what (if any) permissions were needed but allowed Col to keep trading as P2P although the FCA asked Col to remove P2P from their website more than once (Oct 2016 deleted FCA picked up it was back May 2017). So the FCA ignored all the red flags (except those on the register since they had turned them off!) and ploughed on even though it was raised internally that consumers were at danger of or actually being harmed. Is it a wonder that the FCA want to control the narrative?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,204
Likes: 11,395
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 17, 2024 17:18:24 GMT
There is a far bigger picture here than having sympathy for investors, the FCA broke the law multiple times wrt the authorisation process of Col. If the FCA had stuck to the law about 80% of the money 'invested' would never have been sent in the Curries direction. It is this question in the 'Stakeholders' FOI that probably caused the FCA to delay answering this FOI this week Col sat at the preliminary stages for the best part of 23 months. Then of course when the illegality of the Col platform was discovered what did the FCA do? They consulted 'internal stakeholders' while another £3.8m was 'invested' and plundered. Hey Ho it was not the FCAs money, as internal FCA documents say they were more concerned about what they would say when Col hit the press ............... Yes the Curies committed Fraud but without the FCAs multiple failures including failure to comply with the law most of the fraud could not have taken place. Wasn't there a bit of a trick to the interim to full permission, I seem to remember there was a queue to start the process, perhaps the 12 month clock started ticking when you got to the top of the queue? I don't know if that was the case or if it was legal but many platforms seemed to be sat on interim permission for more than a year as I recall. Not that Col had interim permission of course. Yes ... applicants with interim permission were given a window in which to apply for full permission. Once the application was made within the window then the clock started. This meant that platforms could operate with interim for more than 3 years...most obvious example being Lendy who, IIRC has a window in H1 2016 so would have had 2 years on IP before they applied then another year for FCA to determine the application, then of course the FCA prolonged it for a further period until finally granting permission. In Collateral's case it should even have got beyond the application point, a simple check that the company that had applied for IP was the same as that applying for full would have killed it dead before it even got going.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 731
Likes: 849
|
Post by 11025 on Aug 17, 2024 18:32:37 GMT
From FCA Guide Once you are ready to apply, what do you need to do? You will need to complete your application on our online system, Connect.28 We will assess your application to see if you meet the standards we require and will make a decision within: • six months of receiving your complete application • 12 months of receiving an incomplete application (or six months from when an incomplete application becomes complete) If your application is incomplete or needs further explanation, we will ask you to clarify it or to provide further information or documentation, as appropriate. For example, where there are inconsistent or missing answers. If you need to apply for full permission you will need to give us more details about your business than if you apply for limited permission. 28 Our online application system, Connect:
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 6,270
|
Post by duck on Aug 17, 2024 22:39:51 GMT
Wasn't there a bit of a trick to the interim to full permission, I seem to remember there was a queue to start the process, perhaps the 12 month clock started ticking when you got to the top of the queue? I don't know if that was the case or if it was legal but many platforms seemed to be sat on interim permission for more than a year as I recall. Not that Col had interim permission of course. Yes ... applicants with interim permission were given a window in which to apply for full permission. Once the application was made within the window then the clock started. This meant that platforms could operate with interim for more than 3 years...most obvious example being Lendy who, IIRC has a window in H1 2016 so would have had 2 years on IP before they applied then another year for FCA to determine the application, then of course the FCA prolonged it for a further period until finally granting permission. In Collateral's case it should even have got beyond the application point, a simple check that the company that had applied for IP was the same as that applying for full would have killed it dead before it even got going. That is the key point The application was still being 'considered' in January 2018.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 731
Likes: 849
|
Post by 11025 on Aug 18, 2024 11:18:53 GMT
Yes ... applicants with interim permission were given a window in which to apply for full permission. Once the application was made within the window then the clock started. This meant that platforms could operate with interim for more than 3 years...most obvious example being Lendy who, IIRC has a window in H1 2016 so would have had 2 years on IP before they applied then another year for FCA to determine the application, then of course the FCA prolonged it for a further period until finally granting permission. In Collateral's case it should even have got beyond the application point, a simple check that the company that had applied for IP was the same as that applying for full would have killed it dead before it even got going. That is the key point The application was still being 'considered' in January 2018. Now that is not allowed in any rules or regulations and certainly not in FSMA.
|
|