chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 13, 2020 12:22:27 GMT
Surely it must be clear by now that past assurances made by Collateral are worthless. That is not the point. It was not clear at the time of investing that the buy-back - as promoted by what appeared to be a FCA regulated firm - was worthless. This is a little tangential, but I've also been thinking about this the more we've learned of the conduct of the Collateral directors. I don't know enough about the FCA complaints process to know for sure, but I thought it might strengthen the reasoning behind my complaint to follow-up with some more specifics about the sort of conduct the directors appear to have engaged in which, specifically as a firm given interim permission by the FCA, it was reasonable for me to assume they would not engage in. My specific example was their apparent flouting of FCA client money rules, but I suppose this logic could apply to other areas too. In any case, I didn't think it could harm my prospects, so I followed up with the Complaints Team to supplement my existing (much more general, given how little we knew back then) complaint with these more specific chains of causation between the FCA's failures and my losses. I don't know if anyone else has done similar, but I thought it worth mentioning.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 5,678
|
Post by duck on Jul 13, 2020 17:09:46 GMT
That is not the point. It was not clear at the time of investing that the buy-back - as promoted by what appeared to be a FCA regulated firm - was worthless. This is a little tangential, but I've also been thinking about this the more we've learned of the conduct of the Collateral directors. I don't know enough about the FCA complaints process to know for sure, but I thought it might strengthen the reasoning behind my complaint to follow-up with some more specifics about the sort of conduct the directors appear to have engaged in which, specifically as a firm given interim permission by the FCA, it was reasonable for me to assume they would not engage in. My specific example was their apparent flouting of FCA client money rules, but I suppose this logic could apply to other areas too. In any case, I didn't think it could harm my prospects, so I followed up with the Complaints Team to supplement my existing (much more general, given how little we knew back then) complaint with these more specific chains of causation between the FCA's failures and my losses. I don't know if anyone else has done similar, but I thought it worth mentioning. Just wishing to clear up one point (bolded). Collateral was not given IP (part of the less than honest application) and was therefore never regulated. The FCA made this clear in their initial statement where they said. If they had been regulated we would have had due cause to go to the FSCS. Now any reasonable person would argue that since the Directors and their representatives spent the best part of 2 years 'in discussion' with the FCA some form of regulation was taking place but unfortunately this is not the case. FWIW the directors argued for some time that they didn't need regulation (business outside the parameters for regulation) whilst displaying 'FCA regulated' on their site, Emails etc. With all this going on the fact that no warning signs were raised in the FCA beggars belief.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 13, 2020 17:15:40 GMT
This is a little tangential, but I've also been thinking about this the more we've learned of the conduct of the Collateral directors. I don't know enough about the FCA complaints process to know for sure, but I thought it might strengthen the reasoning behind my complaint to follow-up with some more specifics about the sort of conduct the directors appear to have engaged in which, specifically as a firm given interim permission by the FCA, it was reasonable for me to assume they would not engage in. My specific example was their apparent flouting of FCA client money rules, but I suppose this logic could apply to other areas too. In any case, I didn't think it could harm my prospects, so I followed up with the Complaints Team to supplement my existing (much more general, given how little we knew back then) complaint with these more specific chains of causation between the FCA's failures and my losses. I don't know if anyone else has done similar, but I thought it worth mentioning. Just wishing to clear up one point (bolded). Collateral was not given IP (part of the less than honest application) and was therefore never regulated. The FCA made this clear in their initial statement where they said. If they had been regulated we would have had due cause to go to the FSCS. Now any reasonable person would argue that since the Directors and their representatives spent the best part of 2 years 'in discussion' with the FCA some form of regulation was taking place but unfortunately this is not the case. FWIW the directors argued for some time that they didn't need regulation (business outside the parameters for regulation) whilst displaying 'FCA regulated' on their site, Emails etc. With all this going on the fact that no warning signs were raised in the FCA beggars belief. Right - I presumed that we all knew what was going on well enough not to need to spell this out - but clearly (I thought) I was talking about the register making it appear as if Collateral had permission to operate when this was in fact not the case. Obviously I'm aware they in fact did not have permission - this is the main basis of our complaint and the reason for the collapse! What I was trying to do was illustrate a more specific chain of causation between this error in the register and my losses. But also, to be clear also from my end, the issue is not whether Collateral were 'regulated' or not. They were. Any individual or business carrying out such activities is 'regulated'. The question is whether they had permission to be operating under those regulations. Edit: Also, I'm interested to know on what basis we would have been able to go to the FSCS? Do you mean for the uninvested cash that's gone missing, I suppose? But nothing else would be protected, surely, given this is an investment product. It's not like this avenue is available in the Lendy, FundingSecure etc. administrations.
|
|
squid
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 204
|
Post by squid on Jul 13, 2020 17:46:09 GMT
I was among over 1,000 investors who were able to go to the FSCS for a refund of money in an investment promoted by a FCA regulated firm, but the investment itself was not FSCS covered. It was the mis-selling element of the investment (which subsequently failed) by the FCA regulated firm which made it eligible for a FSCS payment which put investors back in the position as if they had not invested.
|
|
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 Jul 13, 2020 18:21:31 GMT
This is a little tangential, but I've also been thinking about this the more we've learned of the conduct of the Collateral directors. I don't know enough about the FCA complaints process to know for sure, but I thought it might strengthen the reasoning behind my complaint to follow-up with some more specifics about the sort of conduct the directors appear to have engaged in which, specifically as a firm given interim permission by the FCA, it was reasonable for me to assume they would not engage in. My specific example was their apparent flouting of FCA client money rules, but I suppose this logic could apply to other areas too. In any case, I didn't think it could harm my prospects, so I followed up with the Complaints Team to supplement my existing (much more general, given how little we knew back then) complaint with these more specific chains of causation between the FCA's failures and my losses. I don't know if anyone else has done similar, but I thought it worth mentioning. Just wishing to clear up one point (bolded). Collateral was not given IP (part of the less than honest application) and was therefore never regulated. The FCA made this clear in their initial statement where they said. If they had been regulated we would have had due cause to go to the FSCS. Unlikely. Being regulated in itself isnt criteria for access to the FSCS, it is he nature of the regulated activity that is the requirement. Operating an electronic platform in relation to lending is not a regulated activity covered by the FSCS. Lendy & FS were both regulated and engaged in FSMA regulated activities, there is no indication that in either case investors will have any recourse to FSCS.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 13, 2020 18:28:00 GMT
Just wishing to clear up one point (bolded). Collateral was not given IP (part of the less than honest application) and was therefore never regulated. The FCA made this clear in their initial statement where they said. If they had been regulated we would have had due cause to go to the FSCS. Unlikely. Being regulated in itself isnt criteria for access to the FSCS, it is he nature of the regulated activity that is the requirement. Operating an electronic platform in relation to lending is not a regulated activity covered by the FSCS. Lendy & FS were both regulated and engaged in FSMA regulated activities, there is no indication that in either case investors will have any recourse to FSCS. Although, as I floated above, would uninvested cash held by Collateral on behalf of investors not potentially fit in? It's been a very long since I knew about all this, alas...
|
|
squid
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 204
|
Post by squid on Jul 13, 2020 18:52:55 GMT
Although off topic, this is an interesting issue. For example, if the FOS upholds 'mis-selling' complaints against a FCA regulated P2P platform and instructs the platform to repay investors - then can investors go to the FSCS for payment if the P2P platform goes out of business before making the repayments? I believe this is yet to be tested. The claim of mis-selling is regardless of the specific nature of the investment, and I know from experience that the FSCS has compensated investors in a very similar (but non-P2P) case.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 5,678
|
Post by duck on Jul 13, 2020 18:57:25 GMT
Unlikely. Being regulated in itself isnt criteria for access to the FSCS,...... agreed the point that I was trying to make (badly) was that since Col was not regulated you cannot even get started in heading to the FSCS. There were / would have been other hurdles to overcome but without the regulation in the first place all efforts would have been a waste of time. This point is covered in this requirement FWIW there was a decent case that we put together behind the scenes for 'willful negligence' ....... but we could find no way around the requirement above so it was wasted effort.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 13, 2020 19:08:07 GMT
Unlikely. Being regulated in itself isnt criteria for access to the FSCS,...... agreed the point that I was trying to make (badly) was that since Col was not regulated you cannot even get started in heading to the FSCS. There were / would have been other hurdles to overcome but without the regulation in the first place all efforts would have been a waste of time. This point is covered in this requirement FWIW there was a decent case that we put together behind the scenes for 'willful negligence' ....... but we could find no way around the requirement above so it was wasted effort. Although, to repeat my point above, this isn't about firms being 'regulated' or not. It's to do with them being authorised. If Collateral weren't 'regulated', that would mean the FCA would have been powerless to step in. There is no 'without the regulation'. I know this is nit-picky, but I understand from many of your posts that you're apparently trying to pursue various things in the background, and it's obviously important to get this sort of stuff right.
|
|
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 Jul 13, 2020 20:10:21 GMT
Although off topic, this is an interesting issue. For example, if the FOS upholds 'mis-selling' complaints against a FCA regulated P2P platform and instructs the platform to repay investors - then can investors go to the FSCS for payment if the P2P platform goes out of business before making the repayments? I believe this is yet to be tested. The claim of mis-selling is regardless of the specific nature of the investment, and I know from experience that the FSCS has compensated investors in a very similar (but non-P2P) case. I dont believe so. Was the case you reference specifically mis-selling or covered by financial advice in some way? I think you can probably identify the case as its presumably in the public domain.
|
|
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 Jul 13, 2020 20:15:13 GMT
agreed the point that I was trying to make (badly) was that since Col was not regulated you cannot even get started in heading to the FSCS. There were / would have been other hurdles to overcome but without the regulation in the first place all efforts would have been a waste of time. This point is covered in this requirement FWIW there was a decent case that we put together behind the scenes for 'willful negligence' ....... but we could find no way around the requirement above so it was wasted effort. Although, to repeat my point above, this isn't about firms being 'regulated' or not. It's to do with them being authorised. If Collateral weren't 'regulated', that would mean the FCA would have been powerless to step in. There is no 'without the regulation'. I know this is nit-picky, but I understand from many of your posts that you're apparently trying to pursue various things in the background, and it's obviously important to get this sort of stuff right. Collateral were not regulated and it is perfectly possible for a firm not to be regulated if they are carrying out an unregulated activity. The FCA could step in because Collateral were claiming to carry out a regulated activity under FSMA ie P2P lending. From the FCA register If you deal with a firm (or individual) that is not regulated you may not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service or Financial Services Compensation Scheme if things go wrong.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 13, 2020 20:34:22 GMT
Although, to repeat my point above, this isn't about firms being 'regulated' or not. It's to do with them being authorised. If Collateral weren't 'regulated', that would mean the FCA would have been powerless to step in. There is no 'without the regulation'. I know this is nit-picky, but I understand from many of your posts that you're apparently trying to pursue various things in the background, and it's obviously important to get this sort of stuff right. Collateral were not regulated and it is perfectly possible for a firm not to be regulated if they are carrying out an unregulated activity. The FCA could step in because Collateral were claiming to carry out a regulated activity under FSMA ie P2P lending. From the FCA register If you deal with a firm (or individual) that is not regulated you may not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service or Financial Services Compensation Scheme if things go wrong. Sorry but this isn't quite correct. As you say, it is the activity that is regulated. Any firm that engages in such activities, according to the regulations, must be authorised to do so. Collateral were regulated (as they were carrying out regulated activities), they were not authorised (under those regulations). FSMA - like any other law - applies to any legal person that falls within its remit automatically. If I started carrying on a regulated activity tomorrow, I would be in breach of FSMA as I would not be authorised. In this way, as I said, there is no 'without the regulation'. I should add that I understand that, in normal conversation, it is perfectly common for people to use the terminology in the way you describe, and I wouldn't normally call anyone up on it if something as important as a legal claim wasn't at stake. Even professionals do this; but it is not the wording of the Act. It isn't especially important in the grand schemes of things though! Edit: I've just realised the second line in your message is probably a quote from the FCA, isn't it? As in my second para, it doesn't surprise me that even the FCA gets this wrong but this is not FSMA wording! This was drilled into me when we studied FSMA on our Professional Conduct & Regulation course at law school. But if even the FCA is being lax with its vocab, then I suppose I should calm down and let it go.
|
|
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 Jul 13, 2020 21:27:39 GMT
Collateral were not regulated and it is perfectly possible for a firm not to be regulated if they are carrying out an unregulated activity. The FCA could step in because Collateral were claiming to carry out a regulated activity under FSMA ie P2P lending. From the FCA register If you deal with a firm (or individual) that is not regulated you may not be covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service or Financial Services Compensation Scheme if things go wrong. Sorry but this isn't quite correct. As you say, it is the activity that is regulated. Any firm that engages in such activities, according to the regulations, must be authorised to do so. Collateral were regulated (as they were carrying out regulated activities), they were not authorised (under those regulations). FSMA - like any other law - applies to any legal person that falls within its remit automatically. If I started carrying on a regulated activity tomorrow, I would be in breach of FSMA as I would not be authorised. In this way, as I said, there is no 'without the regulation'. I should add that I understand that, in normal conversation, it is perfectly common for people to use the terminology in the way you describe, and I wouldn't normally call anyone up on it if something as important as a legal claim wasn't at stake. Even professionals do this; but it is not the wording of the Act. It isn't especially important in the grand schemes of things though! Edit: I've just realised the second line in your message is probably a quote from the FCA, isn't it? As in my second para, it doesn't surprise me that even the FCA gets this wrong but this is not FSMA wording! This was drilled into me when we studied FSMA on our Professional Conduct & Regulation course at law school. But if even the FCA is being lax with its vocab, then I suppose I should calm down and let it go. Yep, statement on the register home page (lets see if it reappears on the super duper new version in a fortnight) Im sure they have actually said Collateral were not regulated but could be misremembering the phasing. However, I agree with your argument on correct terminology, so henceforth reference to having permissions, though should add that if Collateral did actually do the regulating bit on Collateral then they would have been shut down immediately.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 13, 2020 21:41:51 GMT
Sorry but this isn't quite correct. As you say, it is the activity that is regulated. Any firm that engages in such activities, according to the regulations, must be authorised to do so. Collateral were regulated (as they were carrying out regulated activities), they were not authorised (under those regulations). FSMA - like any other law - applies to any legal person that falls within its remit automatically. If I started carrying on a regulated activity tomorrow, I would be in breach of FSMA as I would not be authorised. In this way, as I said, there is no 'without the regulation'. I should add that I understand that, in normal conversation, it is perfectly common for people to use the terminology in the way you describe, and I wouldn't normally call anyone up on it if something as important as a legal claim wasn't at stake. Even professionals do this; but it is not the wording of the Act. It isn't especially important in the grand schemes of things though! Edit: I've just realised the second line in your message is probably a quote from the FCA, isn't it? As in my second para, it doesn't surprise me that even the FCA gets this wrong but this is not FSMA wording! This was drilled into me when we studied FSMA on our Professional Conduct & Regulation course at law school. But if even the FCA is being lax with its vocab, then I suppose I should calm down and let it go. Yep, statement on the register home page (lets see if it reappears on the super duper new version in a fortnight) Im sure they have actually said Collateral were not regulated but could be misremembering the phasing. However, I agree with your argument on correct terminology, so henceforth reference to having permissions, though should add that if Collateral did actually do the regulating bit on Collateral then they would have been shut down immediately. I just had a look on that part of the website and they seem to switch between “regulated” and “authorised” completely at random... Oh well!! And yes quite - the “regulating” (such that it was) going on here was lax in the extreme...!
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 5,678
|
Post by duck on Jul 14, 2020 3:33:04 GMT
Although, to repeat my point above, this isn't about firms being 'regulated' or not. It's to do with them being authorised. If Collateral weren't 'regulated', that would mean the FCA would have been powerless to step in. There is no 'without the regulation'. I know this is nit-picky, but I understand from many of your posts that you're apparently trying to pursue various things in the background, and it's obviously important to get this sort of stuff right. I like nit-picky and I see the point you are making. The situation with Col is as you can imagine 'complicated'. Trying to keep it brief. Regal PB was granted IP. A director of Regal PB (a director of Col) changed the IP register from Regal to Col, the FCA systems allowed this. Col directors applied for Part 4A approval (full permissions). This application was not checked by the FCA (date of incorporation / company number would have shown the claimed IP to be invalid) Col launched to the public view claiming IP, this was backed up by the IP register with its changed entry. Col was not eligible for IP. A period of approx 2 years passed where Col/FCA 'progressed' the Part 4A / Col argued that they were not carrying on regulated activities. Understandably the FCA will not disclose details of discussions held, my sources are other official paperwork. So at no time was Col authorised. There is no doubt in my mind that permissions were required by Col even though Col directors/representatives argued the opposite ...... hence the FCAs statement FWIW the FCA 'requested' Col to cease activity which they did approx 10 days after the request was made. If the FCA had been confident in their position/actions they would have taken action 3 months earlier when they discovered the changed IP register entry. If they had taken action then it would have prevented another £3m being invested.
|
|