duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 5,726
|
Post by duck on Aug 6, 2023 15:22:16 GMT
The FCA has as a remit of overseeing the financial services industry. It regulates rather than enforces. Perhaps there is need for change. From ' The Enforcement Guide' (FCA) As always the subjective term 'an appropriate degree of protection for consumers' appears. It should be noted that the FCA levied fines of £567m in 2021 and £215m in 2022.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Aug 6, 2023 21:10:42 GMT
From memory I put a grand into that "first charge" sham property owned by Luxmore's wife.
How does this work legally? I mean I know my money is long gone but was it Funding Secure that perpetrated the fraud or was it Luxmore? If the latter can I go to the police or start a private prosecution ?
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Aug 6, 2023 21:57:02 GMT
Let everyone on here, particularly The Apologists, now be under no misunderstandings whatsoever, and note very, very clearly, exactly what the FCA ultimately thinks of you, where the FCA thinks its responsibilities lie, and how the FCA subsequently "regulates" P2P and treats Lender Investors.
Rather a criminal shocker innit (to say the VERY least) for a Quasi-Government Body whose Raison De'tre is to "Protect Financial Consumers."
The saga does not end here.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Aug 7, 2023 9:31:54 GMT
The FCA approach to enforcement has allowed and continues to allow peer to peer platform operators to drive a coach and horses through any protection of consumers. Platforms have collapsed taking lenders, money with them, frauds have been committed by both borrowers and platform operatives and the integrity of the peer to peer industry has been utterly compromised. The law itself is at fault because there is very little real redress for lenders when things are amiss. Statutory enforcement bodies do not have the resources to police peer to peer minnows in the world of high finance and should be honest enough to say so instead of inferring that they are all-seeing consumer champions. Their bluff has been well and truly called in particular by devious and dishonest platform operatives who have over the previous 7-8 years made hay whilst the sun has shone. It is a great pity because within the wreckage of the peer to peer industry were to be found people of integrity.
|
|
merlin99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126
Likes: 269
|
Post by merlin99 on Aug 7, 2023 10:59:57 GMT
The FCA approach to enforcement has allowed and continues to allow peer to peer platform operators to drive a coach and horses through any protection of consumers. Platforms have collapsed taking lenders, money with them, frauds have been committed by both borrowers and platform operatives and the integrity of the peer to peer industry has been utterly compromised. The law itself is at fault because there is very little real redress for lenders when things are amiss. Statutory enforcement bodies do not have the resources to police peer to peer minnows in the world of high finance and should be honest enough to say so instead of inferring that they are all-seeing consumer champions. Their bluff has been well and truly called in particular by devious and dishonest platform operatives who have over the previous 7-8 years made hay whilst the sun has shone. It is a great pity because within the wreckage of the peer to peer industry were to be found people of integrity. And so say most of us. However the major question that needs answering how do we change it. IMHO it is a waste of time trying to go through your MP as they will just point you to the FCA or the Finance Ombudsman. Both of which aren't worth a dogs dinner. Change if it is going to happen has to come from and be backed by the likes of Rushie.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Aug 7, 2023 14:08:55 GMT
The FCA approach to enforcement has allowed and continues to allow peer to peer platform operators to drive a coach and horses through any protection of consumers. Platforms have collapsed taking lenders, money with them, frauds have been committed by both borrowers and platform operatives and the integrity of the peer to peer industry has been utterly compromised. The law itself is at fault because there is very little real redress for lenders when things are amiss. Statutory enforcement bodies do not have the resources to police peer to peer minnows in the world of high finance and should be honest enough to say so instead of inferring that they are all-seeing consumer champions. Their bluff has been well and truly called in particular by devious and dishonest platform operatives who have over the previous 7-8 years made hay whilst the sun has shone. It is a great pity because within the wreckage of the peer to peer industry were to be found people of integrity. And so say most of us. However the major question that needs answering how do we change it. IMHO it is a waste of time trying to go through your MP as they will just point you to the FCA or the Finance Ombudsman. Both of which aren't worth a dogs dinner. Change if it is going to happen has to come from and be backed by the likes of Rushie. I would suggest a good starting point would be the removal of the Immunity clause. It is patently obvious that the FCA are not fit for purpose and whilst they are ultra keen to take fees due to them they are not legally liable. It's a total injustice.
Not of much help to many a lender in the past but may just get the FCA to take it's responsibilities more seriously in the future. Doubt it will happen though - old boys club and all that.
|
|
|
Post by longnight21 on Aug 7, 2023 20:20:03 GMT
Is that it for investors, nothing left for us.and no compensation.
|
|
aj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 452
|
Post by aj on Aug 8, 2023 15:29:21 GMT
Is that it for investors, nothing left for us.and no compensation. There's plenty of cash left for investors. Unfortunately, the borrowers, administrators and one particularly necky FS creditor are all working to grab as much of it for themselves as possible. The FCAs lax oversight of FS has put us in this situation and as far as they're concerned, their job is done and we're on our own with trying to get our funds retuned to us.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,878
Likes: 1,597
|
Post by benaj on Aug 16, 2023 11:50:20 GMT
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 830
|
Post by 11025 on Aug 16, 2023 20:24:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Aug 17, 2023 7:12:15 GMT
An example I posted in another thread is a property where there is insufficient money in the property to pay the investors despite being a first charge?
If so how can that be. If the borrower lied about it being a first charge then he should face legal action as he committed fraud and will need to repay the lenders.
Funding Secure failed to check it was a first charge , despite this being a simple process linked to the land registry.
FCA failed to check anything that Funding Secure did and approved this company despite not having the knowledge and understanding of how lending against assests work.
So the FCA should be liable for negligence, Funding Secure managers should be liable for either fraud or being negligent, the borrower should be liable for fraud and the lenders liable for allowing them to be conned out of there life savings and trusting the FCA
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Aug 17, 2023 7:28:39 GMT
I'm quite emotional, I wouldn't be able to resist showing my feelings......... Dont worry, youll get over the cricket soon And the football
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 365
|
Post by mah on Aug 19, 2023 12:34:52 GMT
Copying here the post from MoneyThing thread (https://p2pindependentforum.com/thread/18115/administration-moneything?page=20) :
Interestingly, FCA actually said that given the resources they had at that time and the sudden flood of all the inheritance from its predecessors, it had no other option but to ditch us !
"During the relevant period, the FCA regulated about 58,000 firms – so it had to take a proportionate approach to the supervision of firms. In 2014, we had taken on responsibility for approximately an additional 50,000 consumer credit firms regulated by the OFT. The FCA had limited information about these firms, and so had to make difficult decisions on where to prioritise resources. The FCA chose to prioritise high-cost consumer credit, which led to significant consumer benefit. However, the FCA does not have the resources to supervise all firms to the extent that they are constantly monitored to ensure compliance with the Principles."
WoW, who would have thought that it was an optional extra and they could 'pick n choose' !
It also said that MoneyThing carried out P2P Activity without proper authorisation ! Another Collateral like situation ?
|
|
|
Post by bodroll on Aug 22, 2023 12:58:27 GMT
I’ve received email from FCA today re ‘your complaint about the FCA - Funding Secure Ltd’. Still investigating. Is this now all a waste of time?
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Aug 22, 2023 16:23:37 GMT
I’ve received email from FCA today re ‘your complaint about the FCA - Funding Secure Ltd’. Still investigating. Is this now all a waste of time? I think it was always a waste of time. Just made me feel a bit better to put in a complaint. I wonder how many years they'll keep it going?
|
|