London Capital and Finance

jimjames

The only reference I've found to LCF on MSE has been these forum threads and a Twitter post from Martin Lewis making clear that LCF is not a savings account and has significant risks attached.

There may have been some ads on Facebook using his name as has happened with bitcoin scams but again I've seen no actual evidence of that although some bondholders have suggested it was where they saw it.

dunstonh

I invested some money in this company as it was top of the list on the MSE website.

LC&F has never appeared on any MSE comparison list. It has only appeared on unregulated sites and copycat sites that try to fool people with similar names but not quite the same.

I would like to know how much is done to check out these companies before they are placed as the top bond investment on the MSE page.

As it never appeared on MSE, then that answer is not applicable. On the sites that did show it, they are dodgy sites and not real and should not be used.

This is not a case of investments not doing well, it seems to be mis selling.

It is only misselling if you used a regulated financial adviser to buy them through.

westv

Or the OP just made it up.

Malthusian

jimjames wrote: »

There may have been some ads on Facebook using his name as has happened with bitcoin scams but again I've seen no actual evidence of that although some bondholders have suggested it was where they saw it.

Don't think that would have been the case. You don't commit that kind of blatant fraud for 20% commission. If that's your game you take 100% of whatever investors are duped into sending you (as is the case with Bitcoin scams).

Sites like top-isa-rates.co.uk are deliberately designed to resembles websites like moneysupermarket.com, but that's a different level from pretending to actually be moneysupermarket.com.

GDB2222

dunstonh wrote: »

Why would he get involved?
Remember that MSE banned members who were critical of LS&E. I don't think anyone supporting LC&F got banned.

MSE actually has a poor record on this front. I know they have to protect themselves from legal action but even this week, I have been contacted by MSE Investigator about another company whose solicitors have written to MSE to get negative posts about them removed.

That is about the 5th time over the years I have had that and in each case, the company in question went on to fail taking consumer money with them.

MSE's approach is not to look into whether these companies are genuinely dirty but instead to scare the hell out of the poster so the posts get deleted.

Defending a libel case is extremely expensive. The forum doesn't generate much money, so MSE is in a difficult position.

dunstonh

GDB2222 wrote: »

Defending a libel case is extremely expensive. The forum doesn't generate much money, so MSE is in a difficult position.

I agree and understand. However, a consumer champion brand should perhaps look at these and consider whether "investigation" is worth it and issuing wording that is not potentially libellous. Is a company going to risk accusing MSE of libel with the media coverage that would generate?

Especially when many of the posts made contain factual data that is in the public domain. The number of complaints a firm has at the FOS is not libel. Linking to a published FOS decision that highlights the unsuitable unregulated investments used is not libel.

Reaper

I've noticed these sorts of threads all follow the same life cycle:

1) Somebody asks if X is a good place to put their money.
2) They are told no.
3) A couple of new posters arrive and tell us we are all wrong. It's a wonderful investment.
4) We stick by our views and add more reasons to avoid it.
5) Somebody mentions the word "scam".
6) Lawyers threaten us. MSE removes or edits some posts.
7) The company goes bust.

GDB2222

Reaper wrote: »

I've noticed these sorts of threads all follow the same life cycle:

1) Somebody asks if X is a good place to put their money.
2) They are told no.
3) A couple of new posters arrive and tell us we are all wrong. It's a wonderful investment.
4) We stick by our views and add more reasons to avoid it.
5) Somebody mentions the word "scam".
6) Lawyers threaten us. MSE removes or edits some posts.
7) The company goes bust.

I'm coming up to retirement in a few years, so my business reputation is less important than it used to be. I could easily set up a con.

The only trouble is that these are real people, and they can't afford to lose the money, and unfortunately I'm not a psychopath, so my conscience won't let me. Perhaps if I went to counselling?

A_T

Reaper wrote: »

I've noticed these sorts of threads all follow the same life cycle:

1) Somebody asks if X is a good place to put their money.
2) They are told no.
3) A couple of new posters arrive and tell us we are all wrong. It's a wonderful investment.
4) We stick by our views and add more reasons to avoid it.
5) Somebody mentions the word "scam".
6) Lawyers threaten us. MSE removes or edits some posts.
7) The company goes bust.

Don't forget

6.5) A number of forum users get banned

masonic

GDB2222 wrote: »

Defending a libel case is extremely expensive. The forum doesn't generate much money, so MSE is in a difficult position.

MSE used to offer to let the posts stand in exchange for passing on the contact details of the poster so that the claimant can threaten them with legal action instead of MSE. I don't know if this is still possible.