Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,242
Likes: 2,686
|
Post by Greenwood2 on May 15, 2021 8:11:12 GMT
I've got a couple of grand in Col and am hoping to get some of it back, but I don't buy into the 'it's all the FCA's fault' narrative. Bottom line is that Col was an accident waiting to happen long before the FCA expedited their demise. The FCA had nothing to do with overvalued chattel loans, which resulted in the adminstrator being unable to redeem them, or a multi-million pound development loan in Bolton that had more unfilled tranches than I've had hot dinners.
There may have been a limited number of investors who were swayed by the FCA authorisation, but I suspect that most couldn't see past the 10 - 15% interest rates being offered. It's easy to persue the FCA, as they are the only ones with any money, but I suspect that the chances of success are slim
Everybody is of course entitled to their opinions I will try to put over my point of view True and the chattels are but the tip of the iceberg regarding what went on inside Col. I cannot and do not blame the FCA for these things. However that misses the point. Col should never have been allowed to offer these loans. These were FCA regulated loans offered with no FCA authorisation. Take this point further. Col should never have been allowed to trade, this is a fact. They didn't have Interim Permissions and due to the date of incorporation they were never eligible. Investors should never have seen the website and should not have been able to invest a single 1p. The fact that investors saw the website and were able to invest £m was entirely down to the FCA, they allowed it and knew it was happening. How did the FCA allow this to happen? Lets use a scenario here. You run a franchise business and a man off the street approaches you and wants to use your name. The person says I've got £1m in the bank, a good name and what's more here is my name on your (insecure) database. Do you - Instantly say come on in, use my name and you can start making money off it.
- Take on trust what the person says without knowing anything about the person.
- Do some checks on the person and his bank balance.
The FCA took the first 2 options. They didn't check anything, they took Part 4A applications 'on trust'. Everything after that point is secondary but lets look at one of the FCAs principal remits 'protecting consumers'. The FCA had multiple chances to protect consumers but missed/chose not to at every opportunity. - The FCA comprehensively broke the law, this cost consumers many £m.
- When the FCA eventually discovered 'the problem' they decided to quietly cover their tracks, this cost consumers £3.8m.
- The FCA had the powers to protect client money and didn't use them, money went missing.
- The FCA had the powers to protect the data they didn't use them preferring the word of those who had led them a merry dance for 2+ years, this has cost consumers probably £1m (only BDO know the figure)
So do I think that the FCA are to blame for consumers losses ..... Yes.
not actually true. The FCA is funded by levies on the financial industry, they have no money of their own, a point they continually make. Where the FCA levies fines this money is ring fenced for investigations into regulated companies (which is why Col investors are almost certainly having to pay for the investigation) anything left over is paid to the Treasury.
What I never quite understood was, if they had a company with the correct permissions (Regal Pawnbrokers?), why didn't they either use that company name, or use Collateral as a trading name, or rename the existing company legally on companies house. Why illegally change the name on the FCA register? Was that just stupidity?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 5,658
|
Post by duck on May 15, 2021 9:20:04 GMT
Greenwood2 It's not quite that simple (and I'm leaving Fitzwilliam Black out here) Regal Pawnbrokers didn't have the correct permissions to run a P2P business. When a Part 4A application is sent in it obviously states what the applicant wants to do .... in Cols case run an electronic platform (and to hold client money as necessary). When that application was lodged Col claimed to have interim approval via 656714. The name Collateral (UK) Ltd appeared (falsely) with that number on the IP register. So the FCA accepted the Part 4A application without checks which instantly gave Col the right to trade. The interim permission should have meant Col was already trading, a requirement, which is why Regal was 'useful'. So the crux of the matter was that new permissions were needed no matter what the name was. Regal Pawnbrokers interim permissions would have expired but with a new name and a Part 4A application in place Col was fit to roll ..... in fact the business had to be operating in order for the 4A to progress. Remember most P2P businesses were up and running before the Part 4A process was required. The FCA became bogged down in legal arguments with the Col directors/advisors and instead of calling a halt, as they were legally required to do, they went on with the discussions. The FCA didn't even get round to checking the Col business in all that time.
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 713
Likes: 575
|
Post by keystone on May 15, 2021 10:30:52 GMT
The FCA have to try to cover up their responsibility in this mess because that's the point of their existence, to protect consumers. If the body set up to protect consumers doesn't carry out any checks then there is no protection for consumers and they are in effect a Financial Criminals Agency there to protect their criminal buddies.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on May 15, 2021 10:43:03 GMT
I've got a couple of grand in Col and am hoping to get some of it back, but I don't buy into the 'it's all the FCA's fault' narrative. Bottom line is that Col was an accident waiting to happen long before the FCA expedited their demise. The FCA had nothing to do with overvalued chattel loans, which resulted in the adminstrator being unable to redeem them, or a multi-million pound development loan in Bolton that had more unfilled tranches than I've had hot dinners.
There may have been a limited number of investors who were swayed by the FCA authorisation, but I suspect that most couldn't see past the 10 - 15% interest rates being offered. It's easy to persue the FCA, as they are the only ones with any money, but I suspect that the chances of success are slim
Everybody is of course entitled to their opinions I will try to put over my point of view True and the chattels are but the tip of the iceberg regarding what went on inside Col. I cannot and do not blame the FCA for these things. However that misses the point. Col should never have been allowed to offer these loans. These were FCA regulated loans offered with no FCA authorisation. Take this point further. Col should never have been allowed to trade, this is a fact. They didn't have Interim Permissions and due to the date of incorporation they were never eligible. Investors should never have seen the website and should not have been able to invest a single 1p. The fact that investors saw the website and were able to invest £m was entirely down to the FCA, they allowed it and knew it was happening. How did the FCA allow this to happen? Lets use a scenario here. You run a franchise business and a man off the street approaches you and wants to use your name. The person says I've got £1m in the bank, a good name and what's more here is my name on your (insecure) database. Do you - Instantly say come on in, use my name and you can start making money off it.
- Take on trust what the person says without knowing anything about the person.
- Do some checks on the person and his bank balance.
The FCA took the first 2 options. They didn't check anything, they took Part 4A applications 'on trust'. Everything after that point is secondary but lets look at one of the FCAs principal remits 'protecting consumers'. The FCA had multiple chances to protect consumers but missed/chose not to at every opportunity. - The FCA comprehensively broke the law, this cost consumers many £m.
- When the FCA eventually discovered 'the problem' they decided to quietly cover their tracks, this cost consumers £3.8m.
- The FCA had the powers to protect client money and didn't use them, money went missing.
- The FCA had the powers to protect the data they didn't use them preferring the word of those who had led them a merry dance for 2+ years, this has cost consumers probably £1m (only BDO know the figure)
So do I think that the FCA are to blame for consumers losses ..... Yes.
not actually true. The FCA is funded by levies on the financial industry, they have no money of their own, a point they continually make. Where the FCA levies fines this money is ring fenced for investigations into regulated companies (which is why Col investors are almost certainly having to pay for the investigation) anything left over is paid to the Treasury.
I couldn't have put it better myself Duck .
|
|
littonowl
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 355
|
Post by littonowl on May 15, 2021 13:45:24 GMT
Thanks, duck Received and duly sent to my MP. Keep up the great work, it’s much appreciated...!
|
|
jd
New Member
Enter your message here...
Posts: 5
Likes: 8
|
Post by jd on May 16, 2021 11:58:21 GMT
Hi duck Please add me to your list and PM me I will do what ever I can to help PM has been sent. Email sent today. Thanks for all your hard work, it is very much appreciated
|
|
|
Post by deliciousb on May 16, 2021 12:42:54 GMT
I don't quite understand why someone who lost money in Collateral would be trying to point the finger of blame at us, the investors? Or have I missed something here?
|
|
tommytaylor
P2P - The new wild west
Posts: 234
Likes: 375
|
Post by tommytaylor on May 16, 2021 12:55:39 GMT
I don't quite understand why someone who lost money in Collateral would be trying to point the finger of blame at us, the investors? Or have I missed something here? Indeed. It was a very strange post to say the least. Must have money to burn
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 536
|
Post by micky on May 16, 2021 13:55:41 GMT
In the past agent69 has made some questionable posts, I fear he could one of the bro's, related or a colleague of. Or at the least sympathetic to their situation but i do not have proof, just a gut feeling from memory of pasts post, one in particular about the Curry's driving around in a new black Mercedes in no time.
|
|
|
Post by jakebullet on May 16, 2021 23:15:54 GMT
Could I join the letter writing campaign please?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 5,658
|
Post by duck on May 17, 2021 2:50:12 GMT
Could I join the letter writing campaign please? Certainly can, PM has been sent.
|
|
|
Post by deliciousb on May 20, 2021 15:07:16 GMT
Hello Duck (and fellow investors) just received the email below, looks like there is some pressure being applied. How much and it's efficacy remains to be seen....
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Collateral and the FCA. I apologise for my delay in responding to your email.
I can confirm that we have raised this matter with the Treasury Committee and we have requested an independent investigation into Collateral and the failings of the FCA. I will contact you as soon as I receive a response.
In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me again if you have any further queries or concerns.
Best wishes,
Office of xxxxx xxxxx Member of Parliament for xxxxxx
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 1,167
|
Post by travolta on May 20, 2021 17:17:28 GMT
Yes, my MP responded (and praised ) Duck's 'thorough draft' , instead of kicking it into the reeds. I expect 'The Treasury' is working from home, under the Covid Blanket ,but you never know until the Fat Lady Sings.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 5,658
|
Post by duck on May 21, 2021 4:56:28 GMT
I'm probably a little late with this update but as you can probably imagine the 'lings' and I have been kept busy. Firstly may I say thank you to all who have sent me feedback, every word of it has been valuable, please keep it flowing. Many MPs have understood the position Col investors are in through no fault of their own and have as requested taken action on behalf of their constituent(s). Others have perhaps been skeptical that what has happened has really happened (I can't blame them). Where I have been given such feedback I have been able to supply further information that has in general convinced MPs..... so if you find yourself in that position, let me know and I will see what I can do. Unfortunately some MPs seem to have used some form of App/forum/DB response that is meaningless as a response to the letter that you sent, a suitable response has been written so if you find yourself in this position just let me know. Unsurprisingly some MPs haven't responded, probably all you will have received is an automated reply. Please do not give up at this stage. MPs are busy people and their postbags are large. A couple of things you can do. - Check your MP here members.parliament.uk/members/Commons many have constituency and Westminster Email addresses. If you sent your letter to the Westminster address forward your original Email to the constituency office with a few words asking for the matter to be looked into. The office manager can often act as a 'gatekeeper' so getting their buy in is important.
- If you haven't let me know who your MP is please do. In the last couple of weeks there have been several instances where I have been given an MPs name which instantly rings a bell either because they are an 'MP of interest' or because there is another Col investor in the constituency. Knowing that there is more than one Col investor in a constituency is very useful to you, a MP can 'ignore' one letter as an isolated incidence, if you know the MP has received more than one it certainly gives you and your letter more weight.
Finally a simple request. If you receive a response from your MP please do not post it up word for word or include the MPs name on this open forum. Never forget your MP has offered to help you, we do not want to offer any reason to MPs why they would not want to help their constituents. Obviously I would still like to see the exact feedback by PM. There is a simple solution, provided by travolta in the previous post. When you have a 'success' post it, it is good for everybody to see that the letter is getting through to MPs, having to work by PM is rather isolating but unfortunately with the investigation drawing to a close (q147) we cannot risk anything at present.
|
|
tony
Posts: 136
Likes: 91
|
Post by tony on May 24, 2021 9:18:58 GMT
Thanks for all your efforts Duck. Please add me to the letter writing campaign and send me a PM. I have loans in C, L, FS and MT.
|
|