taffy
Posts: 148
Likes: 358
|
Post by taffy on Sept 17, 2020 10:55:48 GMT
CP20/11: Complaints against the Regulators Consultation Document.
The current Scheme includes provision for us to offer, if appropriate, a compensatory payment on an ex-gratia basis when we uphold a complaint. (No specific amounts mentioned).
All complaints received after the revised Scheme comes into force will be handled by us under the revised Scheme.
under the revised Scheme, would be broadly consistent with the FCA’s current practice:
Up to £250 where the complainant has experienced a moderate level of distress or inconvenience
£250-£500 where the complainant has experienced a high level of distress or inconvenience; and
£500-£1000 where the complainant has experienced a very high level of distress or inconvenience.
I`m wondering if each mismanaged loan is considered individually, or if the compensation guidelines apply to the investor’s whole investment Portfolio. Not much compensation for someone with several thousands invested if that is the case.
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Sept 17, 2020 11:29:24 GMT
CP20/11: Complaints against the Regulators Consultation Document.
The current Scheme includes provision for us to offer, if appropriate, a compensatory payment on an ex-gratia basis when we uphold a complaint. (No specific amounts mentioned). All complaints received after the revised Scheme comes into force will be handled by us under the revised Scheme. under the revised Scheme, would be broadly consistent with the FCA’s current practice: Up to £250 where the complainant has experienced a moderate level of distress or inconvenience £250-£500 where the complainant has experienced a high level of distress or inconvenience; and £500-£1000 where the complainant has experienced a very high level of distress or inconvenience. I`m wondering if each mismanaged loan is considered individually, or if the compensation guidelines apply to the investor’s whole investment Portfolio. Not much compensation for someone with several thousands invested if that is the case. I'm guessing it follows the Kleenex index - one box of Man Size - £200 smackers tops; two boxes of Ladies Patterned - £500 quid tops; Family Pack - £1000 Spondini, but only if you can prove the wife won't have conjugals with you because of the FU you made investing in FS.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Sept 17, 2020 13:02:58 GMT
<snip>please tell me if I have any errors
<snip>
list below is loan title, loan reference, nature of charge, loan amount and my comments <snip> As you appear to be in the mood for correcting things and have asked, here we go: "Clearly I want FS sued for gross incompetent if nothing else." -> ' incompetence' "whilst FS have completed shafted a load of" -> ' completely' "maybe once or even twice but 9, to date, " -> needs updating "3) Knaresborough several 2°/3° loans £ 750K" -> total loan facility £725k; only ' 2nd loan (3867743062)' for £100k was 100% loss bearing "7) Racing cars 1° loans £ 179.5K" -> total of the five loans £211k "8) Barnoldswick cottage – 3139320212/1079396222 1°/2° loan £ 66K" -> total of the two loans is £64k "9) Burnley Terrace – 1764214549 1° loan £ 66K" -> loan amount is £65k "13) Plot in Carlisle - 5323418941/3187612832" -> omitted that these are effectively " 2°" "end upate 19th May 2020" -> ' update' "15) Development Plot, Liverpool - Renewal 2355178947" -> incorrect ref number (and therefore loan title): ' Development Plot, Liverpool - Additional borrowing (1611528052)' "16) Birmingham Road, Oldbury - Supplemental £110,000" -> omitted loan ref: ' 2170971859' "17) Day Nursery in St Helens - Additional loan" -> omitted loan amount: ' £63,500'; omitted effective nature of charge: " 2°"So quite a few and when it comes making so many errors and omissions, a convenient phrase is at hand: " maybe once or even twice but [14] , to date, simply shows egregious incompetence in my book :"  
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,894 
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 17, 2020 14:10:43 GMT
I am genuinely sorry if you have nothing better to do then read through my typing errors - have you got a life?
You certainly have free time time than I have
However -must do better and will correct them when I get time.
|
|
rogerthat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,048
Likes: 1,994
|
Post by rogerthat on Sept 17, 2020 14:40:39 GMT
As the outcomes to date do not bode well for the majority of what ive got left and with the extended notification date, Ive now decided to make a complaint. Has anybody got factual information regarding complaints to the FCA and when or if they approached FS to scrutinise their modus operandi.
If they did, then would one presume that (in the eyes of the FCA) no major transgressions to their "licence to operate" were found ? or possibly they didnt look hard enough..whatever.
Any info or dates please would be helpful..thanks
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Sept 17, 2020 15:57:22 GMT
I am genuinely sorry if you have nothing better to do then read through my typing errors - have you got a life? You certainly have free time time than I have However -must do better and will correct them when I get time.
1) I wouldn't normally bother with typo's and the like - lordy knows I make enough of 'em, so that would definitely be 'glass houses' territory - but what I took exception to was your highlighting / correcting a fellow forumite's post for mixing 'criterion' and 'criteria' when your own posts are chock-full of so many spelling mistakes and other assorted errors. 2) Putting typo's to one side, the sheer number of factual errors in that post was staggering. You asked for errors to be pointed out to you, and then get hacked off when someone does so. Don't you actually want accurate information? Don't your followers deserve it? (Rhetorical question.) 3) Definitely 'got a life', thank you. Right now I'm engaged on some iterative testing which requires approx. 1hr for each pass to complete, so a bit of 'downtime' in between which has variously been used to a) catch up on some general system maintenance tasks that have sat on the 'to do' list for way too long and b) tweak some data and associated info that I'm in discussion with the FSAG about (hopefully, more on this soon). So, please, do not feel sorry ... in a roundabout way, I got paid to correct all those mistakes of yours. 
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 17, 2020 15:57:58 GMT
The outcomes to date certainly don't bode well - the barge was a big shock to me and that was before the 5% of the loan total rip-off!
Given FS went into administration nearly a year ago now I really can't see any of the outstanding loans paying 100% of the interest
Be grateful if you could share any complaint information you get - of all the appallingly handed loans - is there one which stands out so we can all complain about it?
I am thinking the farce in Whitehaven where we were told there was a building frame and the Tower Block where FS seem to have suppressed the fact there was a problem with the roof?
It is true I have made a couple of errors in my 100% losses list - e.g. typed "upate" instead of "update" (outrageous!) and been a tiny bit out on my (unconfirmed) figures but the fact remains we have had 17 projects which have (subject to confirmation) had loans that lost 100% - this is totally ridiculous regardless of whether they were primary loans or not.
What is even more worrying is that it is very likely we have not seen the last of such total write-offs and some of them are for very large sums of money e.g Tower Block, Art, Speed and Endurance boat. To be honest I will be suprised if the speed boat loans return a single damn penny.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Sept 17, 2020 16:49:17 GMT
As the outcomes to date do not bode well for the majority of what ive got left and with the extended notification date, Ive now decided to make a complaint. Has anybody got factual information regarding complaints to the FCA and when or if they approached FS to scrutinise their modus operandi. If they did, then would one presume that (in the eyes of the FCA) no major transgressions to their "licence to operate" were found ? or possibly they didnt look hard enough..whatever. Any info or dates please would be helpful..thanks If I were embarking on this trail, I think one of my starting points would be to review the fine works undertaken by duck (and his 'lings) over the CollateralUK fiasco and the FCA's involvement there. eg: from this post it would appear a number of FOI requests have been sent into the FCA (querying what was done when and by whom, I should imagine) and some responses received. You might ask if the FCA have received any complaints specifically relating to FS prior to Administration. The FCA's own publicly viewable register doesn't appear to show any such information, but it only lists firms where over 500 complaints are received - which in itself is, I think, indicative of the FCA's view on how a 'tiddler' like FS might rank in their scheme of things. Given the FS situation is still 'in flight', I think another course of action you can take is to get your 'placeholder' in. In that respect, another forumite's online submission to the FCA with regard to COL, can be seen here. Obviously it would need to be adapted to make it relevant to your situation re: FS, but it's a starter for ten. I wish you both luck and patience - I think you are going to need oodles of both.
|
|
bingo21
New Member
Posts: 2
Likes: 3
|
Post by bingo21 on Sept 17, 2020 17:43:12 GMT
As you appear to be in the mood for correcting things and have asked, here we go: "Clearly I want FS sued for gross incompetent if nothing else." -> ' incompetence' "whilst FS have completed shafted a load of" -> ' completely' "maybe once or even twice but 9, to date, " -> needs updating "3) Knaresborough several 2°/3° loans £ 750K" -> total loan facility £725k; only ' 2nd loan (3867743062)' for £100k was 100% loss bearing "7) Racing cars 1° loans £ 179.5K" -> total of the five loans £211k "8) Barnoldswick cottage – 3139320212/1079396222 1°/2° loan £ 66K" -> total of the two loans is £64k "9) Burnley Terrace – 1764214549 1° loan £ 66K" -> loan amount is £65k "13) Plot in Carlisle - 5323418941/3187612832" -> omitted that these are effectively " 2°" "end upate 19th May 2020" -> ' update' "15) Development Plot, Liverpool - Renewal 2355178947" -> incorrect ref number (and therefore loan title): ' Development Plot, Liverpool - Additional borrowing (1611528052)' "16) Birmingham Road, Oldbury - Supplemental £110,000" -> omitted loan ref: ' 2170971859' "17) Day Nursery in St Helens - Additional loan" -> omitted loan amount: ' £63,500'; omitted effective nature of charge: " 2°"So quite a few and when it comes making so many errors and omissions, a convenient phrase is at hand: " maybe once or even twice but [14] , to date, simply shows egregious incompetence in my book :" How pathetic;
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,568
Likes: 5,628
|
Post by duck on Sept 18, 2020 4:20:18 GMT
If I were embarking on this trail, I think one of my starting points would be to review the fine works undertaken by duck (and his 'lings) over the CollateralUK fiasco and the FCA's involvement there. eg: from this post it would appear a number of FOI requests have been sent into the FCA (querying what was done when and by whom, I should imagine) and some responses received. ..... A total of 32 FOIs have been sent, some covering multiple issues. Many remain unanswered pending 'the investigation' most quoting 'section 31 law enforcement'. star dust has collated the answered FOI's that the FCA have published, these give an idea of what has been asked. Others have been closed but not published, the FCA use 'public interest' to decide what to publish on the Disclosure Log. I'm not holding my breath anticipating that the FCA will publish any more Col related FOI's. The disclosure log was updated recently after a long break (7th Sept) and whilst I read through the new additions there were no Col or FS FOI's present.
|
|
taffy
Posts: 148
Likes: 358
|
Post by taffy on Sept 18, 2020 8:43:45 GMT
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 18, 2020 16:31:43 GMT
sure is - as I said my 100% losses are to be confirmed but if I have missed any then please let me know.
As to whether FS have committed fraud I could not possibly comment as this is a highly technical legal area - what I can say and again as a layman I don't think they have acted in our best interests and I hope we can sue them for this 5% fee if nothing else. The loanbook was about £80m - if 75% is foreclosed (may well be higher I know) that is
£60m which at 5% is £3m - assuming my logic is correct. One reason I am doing my list is that any soliticitor acting against them can use it as a starting point for proving gross incompetence. Looks to me as it we are going to hit at least 25 projects that will return a loan or loans with a 100% loss. I am really sorry about such bad news but it is not my fault as I am only the messenger so please don't shoot me!
As I said the recent barge was an incredibly poor result as was the medal collection just sold - just how many more such atrocious results are we going to get ?
|
|
woodie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 120
Likes: 78
|
Post by woodie on Sept 19, 2020 23:56:16 GMT
As you appear to be in the mood for correcting things and have asked, here we go: "Clearly I want FS sued for gross incompetent if nothing else." -> ' incompetence' "whilst FS have completed shafted a load of" -> ' completely' "maybe once or even twice but 9, to date, " -> needs updating "3) Knaresborough several 2°/3° loans £ 750K" -> total loan facility £725k; only ' 2nd loan (3867743062)' for £100k was 100% loss bearing "7) Racing cars 1° loans £ 179.5K" -> total of the five loans £211k "8) Barnoldswick cottage – 3139320212/1079396222 1°/2° loan £ 66K" -> total of the two loans is £64k "9) Burnley Terrace – 1764214549 1° loan £ 66K" -> loan amount is £65k "13) Plot in Carlisle - 5323418941/3187612832" -> omitted that these are effectively " 2°" "end upate 19th May 2020" -> ' update' "15) Development Plot, Liverpool - Renewal 2355178947" -> incorrect ref number (and therefore loan title): ' Development Plot, Liverpool - Additional borrowing (1611528052)' "16) Birmingham Road, Oldbury - Supplemental £110,000" -> omitted loan ref: ' 2170971859' "17) Day Nursery in St Helens - Additional loan" -> omitted loan amount: ' £63,500'; omitted effective nature of charge: " 2°"So quite a few and when it comes making so many errors and omissions, a convenient phrase is at hand: " maybe once or even twice but [14] , to date, simply shows egregious incompetence in my book :" Unfair and unkind.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 20, 2020 9:47:32 GMT
couse it is - we all know what the underlying motivation is...
I have corrected most of my minor errors (always said my post was subject to confirmation)
Personally I am more concerned such loans (I am in some of them) returning a 100% loss rather then wittering on about typing "udate" instead of "update"!
As always pleased to have constructive and polite criticism of my posts - here is one I have had :
When referring to suing FS for return of this 5% fee I should have said suing the FS directors as I don't think we can sue a company in administration - not sure where the CC are with contesting the priority of this fee but I have confidence they are doing what they can and will update us when they have any news.
As I said I invested too hastily in FS after I closed my investments with *unding circle. However I read posts from Sir Ozboy etc OBE and allied with my experience of property development closed my FS investments as quickly as possible - I am only going to lose a tiny bit of money if my zombie loan book returns a 100% loss. BUT I really care for the pensioners etc who have been shafted by these muppets. My top 40 has clearly proved just how useless FS were and were even worse than I predicted and my 100% loss list is hopefully ammunition to sue the directors. Some of my building labourers are enormous, heavily tattoed and over 6' 4" - I sacked one when I found out he had done time for gangland violence - point is I am not going to shut-up no matter how much a tiny proportion of forum members try and discredit me...no regrets!
|
|
pfffill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 206
|
Post by pfffill on Sept 20, 2020 11:34:27 GMT
couse it is - we all know what the underlying motivation is... I have corrected most of my minor errors (always said my post was subject to confirmation) Personally I am more concerned such loans (I am in some of them) returning a 100% loss rather then wittering on about typing "udate" instead of "update"! As always pleased to have constructive and polite criticism of my posts - here is one I have had : When referring to suing FS for return of this 5% fee I should have said suing the FS directors as I don't think we can sue a company in administration - not sure where the CC are with contesting the priority of this fee but I have confidence they are doing what they can and will update us when they have any news. As I said I invested too hastily in FS after I closed my investments with *unding circle. However I read posts from Sir Ozboy etc OBE and allied with my experience of property development closed my FS investments as quickly as possible - I am only going to lose a tiny bit of money if my zombie loan book returns a 100% loss. BUT I really care for the pensioners etc who have been shafted by these muppets. My top 40 has clearly proved just how useless FS were and were even worse than I predicted and my 100% loss list is hopefully ammunition to sue the directors. Some of my building labourers are enormous, heavily tattoed and over 6' 4" - I sacked one when I found out he had done time for gangland violence - point is I am not going to shut-up no matter how much a tiny proportion of forum members try and discredit me...no regrets! Since we have all to a greater or lesser extent been shafted by FS, it seems that what unites us is of far more importance than typos, occasional errors and minor tiffs, and for that reason differences, when they arise, should be dealt with mildly and without rancour, the better to remain united.
|
|
