|
Post by brightspark on Aug 23, 2024 18:53:15 GMT
I would opine it a skilled and unhelpful response couched in terms that vaguely intimate that the reason for their indifference is your fault because you asked for an extrapolation rather than data itself. Your choice is either to drop the issue or rephrase the question asking for the specific data required. Months more of to and fro?
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,714
Likes: 6,256
|
Post by duck on Aug 23, 2024 22:51:35 GMT
I would opine it a skilled and unhelpful response couched in terms that vaguely intimate that the reason for their indifference is your fault because you asked for an extrapolation rather than data itself. Your choice is either to drop the issue or rephrase the question asking for the specific data required. Months more of to and fro? Wouldn't disagree with that. I have had a couple of similar responses in recent times and whilst I have not received an answer perhaps you could say that another part of the Col story is now in the public domain. In this case how internally those directly responsible for the approval of Col did not view Col as P2P from very early days and was in fact a UCIS (illegal to sell to retail) ..... yet the FCA allowed Col to continue to sell to us as P2P. In the FOIA request I directly quoted FCA internal communications which of course the FCA cannot deny. (there are more examples on this subject) So the question remains open, why in their public statements has the FCA referred to Col as P2P when internally they were saying it was not? The FCA do of course have their own carefully crafted narrative about Col and the losses that we have all suffered, this FOI, answered or not, showed that perhaps this narrative is not 100% accurate or misses out important facts.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,507
Likes: 6,292
|
Post by registerme on Aug 24, 2024 9:40:51 GMT
Surely any sane organisation would respond to this "guidance" but simply not retaining any records?
More seriously, are you allowed to ask them (the FCA? the FOI Commissioner?) what records they do hold?
EDIT: And whether they have a record of any records being destroyed, and who signed off on it.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 731
Likes: 849
|
Post by 11025 on Aug 24, 2024 11:51:10 GMT
I would opine it a skilled and unhelpful response couched in terms that vaguely intimate that the reason for their indifference is your fault because you asked for an extrapolation rather than data itself. Your choice is either to drop the issue or rephrase the question asking for the specific data required. Months more of to and fro? Yes , this is another example of the way that the FCA has tried to control the narrative on Collateral since day one. At the trial of the Currie brothers the FCA were doing their best to airbrush out their enablement and causation of this awful and costly situation .
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 1,474
|
Post by bugs4me on Aug 25, 2024 12:36:19 GMT
Appearing on the FCA register continues to be held up as being important. <snip> Use the Financial Conduct Authority’s register to check that a company you’re dealing with is regulated. <snip> Sound advice but and it is a big but from the FCA website - The Disclaimer regarding the FCA Register
'Summary Disclaimer
We try to ensure that the information on this site is correct. However, we cannot guarantee its accuracy and do not accept liability for errors or missing information. Some material is sent to us by other parties who are responsible for supplying us with accurate information.'
So in reality, it is the responsibility of third parties to supply accurate information with no checking by the FCA. They, (the FCA like their predecessors the FSA) are simply not fit for purpose and give folks a deliberate false sense of security!!
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Aug 25, 2024 14:25:05 GMT
Appearing on the FCA register continues to be held up as being important. <snip> Use the Financial Conduct Authority’s register to check that a company you’re dealing with is regulated. <snip> Sound advice but and it is a big but ...
<snip>
Absolutely true and correct, but (and it is an equally big but, imo) ... What was the nature, format and placement of the equivalent wording at the time Collateral was trading and leading up to when the FCA (woefully slowly) stepped in? The FCA has rightfully - if belatedly - revamped the register in recent years but not before the Collateral situation became manifest. At that time, did the register even warn that the information was effectively provided on a 'self-service' basis by the companies themselves with little or no scrutiny by the FCA for completeness / accuracy / integrity? Archived web captures of the relevant / equivalent pages at the time of the Collateral implosion could be telling.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,714
Likes: 6,256
|
Post by duck on Aug 25, 2024 15:19:57 GMT
Sound advice but and it is a big but ...
<snip>
Absolutely true and correct, but (and it is an equally big but, imo) ... What was the nature, format and placement of the equivalent wording at the time Collateral was trading and leading up to when the FCA (woefully slowly) stepped in? The FCA has rightfully - if belatedly - revamped the register in recent years but not before the Collateral situation became manifest. At that time, did the register even warn that the information was effectively provided on a 'self-service' basis by the companies themselves with little or no scrutiny by the FCA for completeness / accuracy / integrity? Archived web captures of the relevant / equivalent pages at the time of the Collateral implosion could be telling. The disclaimer appeared after Col and has had several forms. Archived ...... Companies have for as long as I can remember been responsible for their own entries on the register, there is/was a flagging system but as was shown at the trial this was turned off to save work. Back in June 2019 I asked the following FOI (6557) This followed AB suggesting to Parliament that there was more than one register wrt Col You will note that even at that early stage not all the questions were answered. Note also that there is no mention of the FCA's log that shows every change made including PC changing Regal to Col and then reversing it and then coming back later and changing the register again to show Col. This evidence has been available to the FCA from day 1 (before the platform went live) which has always made me wonder why AB said in 2019 'how the register got changed without authorisation' as though he didn't know link
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 731
Likes: 849
|
Post by 11025 on Aug 25, 2024 16:49:56 GMT
Absolutely true and correct, but (and it is an equally big but, imo) ... What was the nature, format and placement of the equivalent wording at the time Collateral was trading and leading up to when the FCA (woefully slowly) stepped in? The FCA has rightfully - if belatedly - revamped the register in recent years but not before the Collateral situation became manifest. At that time, did the register even warn that the information was effectively provided on a 'self-service' basis by the companies themselves with little or no scrutiny by the FCA for completeness / accuracy / integrity? Archived web captures of the relevant / equivalent pages at the time of the Collateral implosion could be telling. The disclaimer appeared after Col and has had several forms. Archived ...... Companies have for as long as I can remember been responsible for their own entries on the register, there is/was a flagging system but as was shown at the trial this was turned off to save work. Back in June 2019 I asked the following FOI (6557) This followed AB suggesting to Parliament that there was more than one register wrt Col You will note that even at that early stage not all the questions were answered. Note also that there is no mention of the FCA's log that shows every change made including PC changing Regal to Col and then reversing it and then coming back later and changing the register again to show Col. This evidence has been available to the FCA from day 1 (before the platform went live) which has always made me wonder why AB said in 2019 'how the register got changed without authorisation' as though he didn't know link Bailey must have stated that for the same reason that Rathi did not contradict Harriet Baldwin when she spoke with him about the "sophisticated hack" Someone may have the video , I can't find atm.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 660
Likes: 550
|
Post by micky on Aug 25, 2024 17:50:13 GMT
Absolutely true and correct, but (and it is an equally big but, imo) ... What was the nature, format and placement of the equivalent wording at the time Collateral was trading and leading up to when the FCA (woefully slowly) stepped in? The FCA has rightfully - if belatedly - revamped the register in recent years but not before the Collateral situation became manifest. At that time, did the register even warn that the information was effectively provided on a 'self-service' basis by the companies themselves with little or no scrutiny by the FCA for completeness / accuracy / integrity? Archived web captures of the relevant / equivalent pages at the time of the Collateral implosion could be telling. The disclaimer appeared after Col and has had several forms. Archived ...... Companies have for as long as I can remember been responsible for their own entries on the register, there is/was a flagging system but as was shown at the trial this was turned off to save work. Back in June 2019 I asked the following FOI (6557) This followed AB suggesting to Parliament that there was more than one register wrt Col You will note that even at that early stage not all the questions were answered. Note also that there is no mention of the FCA's log that shows every change made including PC changing Regal to Col and then reversing it and then coming back later and changing the register again to show Col. This evidence has been available to the FCA from day 1 (before the platform went live) which has always made me wonder why AB said in 2019 'how the register got changed without authorisation' as though he didn't know link Watching each others back
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,714
Likes: 6,256
|
Post by duck on Aug 26, 2024 9:14:21 GMT
Bailey must have stated that for the same reason that Rathi did not contradict Harriet Baldwin when she spoke with him about the "sophisticated hack" Someone may have the video , I can't find atm.
I don't have the video of that snipped and unfortunately the hearing doesn't appear to have been archived by Parliament TVBear in mind that this hearing took place in May 2021, 3.25 years ago, Rathi's timescales for the conclusion of 'the investigation' appear to be carefully worded and do not include anything about the separate investigation into the complaints as shown in the FCAs email of 31/07/2023 That said the transcript shows that more went on in that exchange than the 'sophisticated hack'. I have bolded a couple of sentences if you don't want to read the full exchanges. and
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 731
Likes: 849
|
Post by 11025 on Aug 26, 2024 13:28:26 GMT
Bailey must have stated that for the same reason that Rathi did not contradict Harriet Baldwin when she spoke with him about the "sophisticated hack" Someone may have the video , I can't find atm.
I don't have the video of that snipped and unfortunately the hearing doesn't appear to have been archived by Parliament TVBear in mind that this hearing took place in May 2021, 3.25 years ago, Rathi's timescales for the conclusion of 'the investigation' appear to be carefully worded and do not include anything about the separate investigation into the complaints as shown in the FCAs email of 31/07/2023 That said the transcript shows that more went on in that exchange than the 'sophisticated hack'. I have bolded a couple of sentences if you don't want to read the full exchanges. and parliamentlive.tv/event/index/c4162ebc-2892-4fd8-9fa1-83bcf60b480b?in=15:58:38Video of the relevant section.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,714
Likes: 6,256
|
Post by duck on Aug 28, 2024 4:41:44 GMT
Another FOI was published yesterday. This FOI centred around the money 'missing' from the client account and 3 loans in particular The second question related to the £750K that the FCA have gone after Whilst the wording is typical FCA what you can take from the response is that the FCA have not gone after the amounts relating to the loans given above (why not?) and that these sums were not included in the £750K. As I have maintained all along a lot more went on than the simple FCA line "‘ Peter Currie fraudulently amended the Register to entice investors in, and together with Andrew, stole client money once they knew the game was up." Perhaps (as quoted in the FOIA request) the FCAs view is summed up by the comment by Steve Smart Joint Executive Director of Enforcement & Market Oversight in the FCAs press release " Unfortunately, the investors will now be left to pick up the tab for the loans that have turned bad."
|
|
jcb208
Member of DD Central
Posts: 829
Likes: 614
|
Post by jcb208 on Aug 28, 2024 7:48:44 GMT
Are we due any more payments any time soon, seems ages since the last pay-out ,surely the approx. 15% interim payout is not the last
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,714
Likes: 6,256
|
Post by duck on Aug 28, 2024 9:14:40 GMT
Are we due any more payments any time soon, seems ages since the last pay-out ,surely the approx. 15% interim payout is not the last That is all down to BDO. I anticipate that they will be closing down matters soon and at that time they will be making a final payment. How much will be paid out, well that depends on what loans you were invested in but in general with what information I have managed to put together it suggests the final payment will be smaller than the first (probably a fair bit smaller). Why have the payments been so small? (I am ignoring BDO fees below) Well as I have tried to outline either by my posts here or via information included in my FOIs a lot of money appears to have been misappropriated with the chattels being the worst case - effectively zero recovery. In this FOIBut the chattels were not alone in the misappropriation of funds, as I outlined i n my post earlier a lot of money went from the propery loans (best not mention the Bolton student development). Whilst the 'lings' and I have put the story together over the last six and a half years piece by piece, BDO and the FCA have had the full picture since early 2018. I still do not know why the FCA/BDO took no action regarding the chattels or the obvious issues regarding several large property loans. I still do not know why the FCA did not take any action regarding Auri Developments or its director (AC's girlfriend) or PC's dormant company Mattanie. The FCA decided that they would be the prosecuting authority wrt Col, understandably due to the register change and wrt the removeal of funds from the client account but I have to wonder why the police have never been involved wrt the other 'issues' if the FCA didn't want to progress them. In many of my FOIs (a lot unpublished) I have continually asked the FCA if they have involved outside agencies and yet the only positive answer that I have received was in response to FOI10211 (08/06/2023) see below If the 'lings' and I can find these issues out by dogged determination just think what the FCA and BDO must have found out during the last six and a half years and their extensive investigation which stood at 9,532.75 hours and £247,309.00 before completion. Far be it from me to sugest that the corner of the carpet has been lifted and that a broom has been employed wrt the identified issues ..... FOI10211
|
|
observer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 779
Likes: 1,261
|
Post by observer on Aug 28, 2024 10:45:01 GMT
|
|