polonius and myself had the offer to go along to one of the secure units. On questioning about security we came to the conclusion that we would not be allowed through to the deposit boxes in order to check.
We did see bling being physically valued on the visit.
We had no evidence to suggest that the items were not held, if the contract was for it to be so, in Collaterals possession.
Some contracts allowed for customers to keep possession of their item but this is stated in the loan particulars I believe.
Vehicles in possession were held in a facility in Preston. Bling in 2 depositories in Manchester.
Sorry I can not shed total assurance but I would still trust the platform if they say the item is in their possession.
At the time of the visit Collateral were just moving into the property side. We registered the desire for them to keep the bling coming as well but, it seems, to no avail.
Business finance reasons and the push for profitability may have driven them down this route inho.
Stuart
Anything to add
polonius ?
I confirm that we could have visited the safe deposits but we chose not to. Three reasons for me; it would have taken up much of our time, it would mean little to me as I don't know a bag of rubies from a bag of broken glass, and finally seeing an item in store does not guarantee that the owner intends to sell it and give you the proceeds. Perhaps with hindsight we should have asked to examine the insurances held by Collateral and of the qualifications and experience in jewellery appraisal held by their staff, these might have been useful. But I agree with others that if these issues keep you awake at night then p2p lending might not be for you
