chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on Jul 14, 2020 7:44:23 GMT
Thanks, duck - I’m indeed aware that this is more or less how it went down (as I think we all covered in detail on the forum in the earlier days of this debacle). And, again, in case you’ve misunderstood me, I wasn’t suggesting at any point that Collateral was authorised. Again, the whole point of this nightmare is that they weren’t and I assume this is more than common knowledge to everyone on here by now. To repeat again, my original post above was merely trying to establish a clearer chain of causation between the FCA’s errors and my losses; and my follow-up points were merely to point out the differences between the terms “regulated” and “authorised”/“permission” under the Act.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,242
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 14, 2020 7:54:29 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. Col were ducking and diving. I assume having got to an impasse with the FCA on authorisation, Col abandoned that tack and decided that they had never needed permission anyway because their operation fell outside the regulations (that may have been when the FCA approval disappeared from the site footers etc). And that lead to a whole new set of legal arguments, allowing Col to extract even more money from Lenders.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,589
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Jul 14, 2020 8:56:50 GMT
Getting back to the subject of the update (from the perspective of somebody who is only in property loans):
- 7 properties disposed of prior to the Dec 19 update, with an average return of 106%
- 6 properties disposed of between Dec 19 and July 20, with an average return of 109%
- 5 further properties have had offers accepted
- 3 properties have had enforcement action but no accepted offers
- 1 propert is vacant due to fire regs issues
So overall 18 properties have 'sold', and 4 still requiring action. I know it has taken 2 years, but it does look like we are coming to a conclusion (or are my rose tinted glasses in overdrive again).
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 1,346
|
Post by ptr120 on Jul 14, 2020 12:32:54 GMT
Getting back to the subject of the update (from the perspective of somebody who is only in property loans):
- 7 properties disposed of prior to the Dec 19 update, with an average return of 106%
- 6 properties disposed of between Dec 19 and July 20, with an average return of 109%
- 5 further properties have had offers accepted
- 3 properties have had enforcement action but no accepted offers
- 1 propert is vacant due to fire regs issues
So overall 18 properties have 'sold', and 4 still requiring action. I know it has taken 2 years, but it does look like we are coming to a conclusion (or are my rose tinted glasses in overdrive again).
If you have rose coloured glasses, my glasses are definitely a lot darker as there is a long list of things that have not yet been done: - No tea & biscuits with the directors
No court action to compel the directors to have tea & biscuits No court action against PG's. No court action against professional negligence insurers of valuers No process established for KYC / AML in order to facilitate repayments, or gathering bank account information No confirmation on how the costs of administration will be paid for from loan repayments / recoveries No confirmation if / how / from where client monies will be made good (we already know there is a discrepancy in terms of what is in that account, and what should be in that account)
My current expectation is that we are probably around a year away from any sort of partial repayment, and perhaps two years away from a final settlement. At that stage the FCA will take a look at the complaint. They will drag their heals over that, so I think it'll be 3 years away from a final position on the whole saga.
|
|
tommytaylor
P2P - The new wild west
Posts: 234
Likes: 375
|
Post by tommytaylor on Jul 14, 2020 13:17:40 GMT
Thanks ptr120. You have cheered me up no end there.
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Jul 16, 2020 15:55:41 GMT
Incontrovertibly, prolonging liquidation ensures the JL enrich themselves with the pennies recovered. They are taking advantage of the poor set-up, which provides no incentive to conclude promptly. In their favour is time (no limit to the liquidation) and money (the fees endorsed by the CC). Consequently, the varied excuses used for not making interim distributions is of no surprise. Such conduct cannot be exhibited if their remuneration depended on loan settlements. They would have disposed of the chattels by now and pursued negligence claims against the directors. Will a response from the former directors all of sudden bring our money back? 2 years of waiting with fees still being approved by the CC on a time cost basis has emboldened them. Why not wait longer? Perhaps another year, two or even a decade! Isn't it possible for the CC to switch to a percentage basis like FS going forward ? Better Late than Never !
|
|
|
Post by waryinvestor on Jul 16, 2020 16:54:17 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. Was it a P2P investment or something similar (where the investments are FCA Regulated and Authorised, but not covered by FSCS) ? So, how was the mis-selling established ?
TBH, I didn't know that if the investment itself was not covered by FSCS, FSCS would compensate for anything else like mis-selling.
Or are you saying that since FOS ruled in your/investors' favour asking the Firm to payout and the Firm went bust before paying out that FSCS covered this ?
|
|
squid
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 204
|
Post by squid on Jul 16, 2020 21:26:52 GMT
Was it a P2P investment or something similar (where the investments are FCA Regulated and Authorised, but not covered by FSCS) ? So, how was the mis-selling established ?
TBH, I didn't know that if the investment itself was not covered by FSCS, FSCS would compensate for anything else like mis-selling.
Or are you saying that since FOS ruled in your/investors' favour asking the Firm to payout and the Firm went bust before paying out that FSCS covered this ? Broadly, If you receive advice from a regulated firm that a certain investment is suitable for your personal situation then the claim for compensation is from the advisor or the FCA. It matters not what the actual investment is. No financial advice was offered or received. A FCA authorised and regulated firm (not P2P) promoted an unregulated investment which had no FSCS protection. The investment subsequently failed, but it was then discovered that the promotion of the investment had been misleading - as the funds invested had mostly not been used for the advertised purpose, and certain advertised security was not in place. As the misleading promotion had been carried out by a FCA authorised and regulated firm, complaints were made to the firm, and then to the FOS. The FOS found in favour of investors - as they ruled that the promotion failed the FCA's 'clear, fair and not misleading' communication requirements, and consequently awarded compensation to investors. The firm went bust before making any compensation payments, so the FSCS paid out instead, to generally put investors in the position as if they had not invested. Several millions of pounds was involved, and the issue is recent and is in the public domain. There would seem to be certain similarities with P2P where FCA authorised and regulated firms promote investments which have no FSCS cover. The question remains whether in the case of P2P the FSCS would pay out FOS upheld complaints if the P2P company goes bust before paying out.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,843
Likes: 11,069
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 16, 2020 23:15:35 GMT
The key points from the case in question. Unregulated high risk investment not suitable to be promoted to restricted investors was presented as a lower risk investment suitable for restricted investors ... misleading so restitution required.
P2P regulated investment that at the time was suitable to be promoted to restricted investors ... less likely to be misleading so harder to argue for restitution.
Question is always going to be is it what it says on the tin? An unsecured high risk mini-bond presented as a secured & therefore lower risk mini-bond clearly isnt what it says on the tin. A high risk secured/unsecured P2P loan presented as a high risk secured/unsecured P2P loan clearly is what it says on the tin so then you are into nuances of what level of risk was promoted, under what circumstances did that risk apply, who assessed it, on what criteria & with what caveats, timescale, was the reward reflective of the risk etc etc
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,242
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 17, 2020 5:13:24 GMT
The key points from the case in question. Unregulated high risk investment not suitable to be promoted to restricted investors was presented as a lower risk investment suitable for restricted investors ... misleading so restitution required. P2P regulated investment that at the time was suitable to be promoted to restricted investors ... less likely to be misleading so harder to argue for restitution. Question is always going to be is it what it says on the tin? An unsecured high risk mini-bond presented as a secured & therefore lower risk mini-bond clearly isnt what it says on the tin. A high risk secured/unsecured P2P loan presented as a high risk secured/unsecured P2P loan clearly is what it says on the tin so then you are into nuances of what level of risk was promoted, under what circumstances did that risk apply, who assessed it, on what criteria & with what caveats, timescale, was the reward reflective of the risk etc etc If it's the case I'm thinking of, wasn't it also that the company used to promote the investment was also specifically authorised to give financial advice and the (over enthusiastic) marketing tipped over into being construed as advise. Because they were authorised to give advise they were obliged to pay compensation which was then covered by the FSCS. If you invested in P2P after advise from a financial advisor and it wasn't suitable for you, you could sue them and get FSCS protection (if you won and they couldn't pay) but I doubt many people are in that position.
|
|
squid
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 204
|
Post by squid on Jul 17, 2020 10:15:54 GMT
There has been cases of FOS upheld complaints against a P2P platform where the promotion of certain individual loans was found to be inconsistent with the FCA requirement of being 'clear, fair and not misleading'. In the case of Collateral, complaints could not be made to the FOS unfortunately.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 5,658
|
Post by duck on Jul 19, 2020 16:00:40 GMT
I must be getting bored trawling through FCA / TC documentation today so I've had another look at the BDO report. I note at Section 3 Professional Costs Now I have no idea what the costs were for but the name rang a bell from a long time ago. According to what appears to be a partially built web page White Feather were heavily involved in the building and running of the website. and Make your own minds up on the significance or otherwise of this information. Right, back to the FCA, I'm trying to avoid the liquidation.......
|
|
neeps
Posts: 79
Likes: 118
|
Post by neeps on Oct 8, 2020 15:24:55 GMT
3 months on, does anyone know if these 'queries/excuses' have been resolved, i.e. is a bit of distribution any closer?
|
|
tommytaylor
P2P - The new wild west
Posts: 234
Likes: 375
|
Post by tommytaylor on Oct 9, 2020 7:42:56 GMT
3 months on, does anyone know if these 'queries/excuses' have been resolved, i.e. is a bit of distribution any closer? Yes i echo this. How long do we think it will be before BDO finally resolves all this including the chalets issue. The soon er this is done and we learn how much we have had robbed from us the sooner we can get our claws into the FCA. I am sure Duck might have something to say Regards all Tony
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 5,658
|
Post by duck on Oct 9, 2020 9:50:00 GMT
3 months on, does anyone know if these 'queries/excuses' have been resolved, i.e. is a bit of distribution any closer? ..... I am sure Duck might have something to say .... Not really, I have no inside line to the liquidation, all I can see is what anybody can see, sales on right move, changes at companies house etc etc. FWIW I note the 'low hanging fruit' have been sold off and there is some movement on the more 'problematic' loans. As for a distribution, no idea ............. but I do have a couple of observations. Money taken in less costs so far declared = not much. The question that BDO have never categorically answered is if they will be paying back on a loan by loan basis or if they will raid the pot of 'cash in' for their costs on the loans that might not raise much (thinking chattels here). Until that question is answered we cannot even roughly calculate money to be returned/lost. Either way, pressing for interim payments now will lead to a lower overall return to investors. A money transfer system will have to be set up and tested. KYC/AML checks made and then a series of small payments made. All costs that will be borne by investors. Not a happy state of affairs.
|
|