London Capital and Finance

Sledger

What is the odds of having 2 different {Text removed by MSE Forum Team} One South African Born Aug 1957 as LCF Trustee Global Security Trustees 09846126 Director appointed 1 Sept 2018 and the other British one born Oct 1954 in a company with {Text removed by MSE Forum Team}, {Text removed by MSE Forum Team} and LCF Directors of International Resorts Management Limited 08335648.

jimjames

Malthusian wrote: »

Which the LCF network probably acquired for a few Cape Verde centavos from the liquidator of a collapsed pension liberation scam. Assuming of course that they've acquired anything at all.

There seems to be one company that suddenly revalued its assets from zero to £23 million one year. Subsequently borrowed from LCF but most recent accounts show that there is an "impairment" to the valuation which directors will quantify. Sounds to me like it might be a loss coming out.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=73985005&postcount=220
After seeing the LCF thread above having details removed I've put the full info elsewhere to protect from deletion. It appears that {Text removed by MSE Forum Team} isn't keen to have his name associated with LCF despite it being public record

https://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.com/2019/01/london-capital-finance-scam-tangled-web.html

Linton

Also Waterside Villages Limited. A lot of well known names listed as resigned as directors.
Global Advance Distributions ditto. It is now owned by Prime Resort Development, which oddly enough has some directors we have seen before and is the lucky recipient of yet another loan from LCF. This loan seems to have been taken over from Global SecurityTrustees.


PS London Group LLP who took over some of the other companies has an LCF charge in its own right. Again directors we have met before. The company's accounts are overdue.

jimjames

Linton wrote: »

PS London Group LLP who took over some of the other companies has an LCF charge in its own right. Again directors we have met before. The company's accounts are overdue.

Ultimate holding company London Group are in breach and listed to be struck off at Companies House.

verybigchris

HappyHarry wrote: »

MSE says that "Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code."

It would be nice to think that the MSE forum team reflected on the LC&F situation, the warnings that experienced posters gave against it, and their treatment of such posters.

Who knows, we might then be able to save even more people from losing money in unregulated investments in the future.

You'd expect a consumer finance website like MSE to seize this opportunity to write a news story about the specific issues surrounding LCF and the general risks of unregulated investments. I'm not holding my breath though.

eskbanker

verybigchris wrote: »

You'd expect a consumer finance website like MSE to seize this opportunity to write a news story about the specific issues surrounding LCF and the general risks of unregulated investments. I'm not holding my breath though.

To be honest I can see why they'd hesitate to get involved in that but I would have expected them to have written a cautionary tale much earlier on about investments masquerading as savings, as there have been numerous posters (even after discounting the shills) who have fallen for the 8% interest promises over the past few years, as a result of the questionable marketing techniques discussed in this thread and others.

It's relatively straightforward for MSE to publish simple guides to the importance of FSCS protection for savings accounts but the nature of investment regulation and the limitations of the associated FSCS protection are significantly more nuanced and therefore less suited to the house style IMHO. I actually think that there's an argument that MSE should steer clear of investment matters altogether rather than dabbling - the inclusion of a hotch-potch of vaguely relevant but very high level investment-related articles within the banking & savings area, without any real insight into how, when and why to go about investing, could lull the unwary into a false sense of security....

DuckyMallard

energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/189548/independent-says-funds-still-available-despite-london-probe

Not sure what anyone makes of this, however it does seem some of the money may have been lended out to a genuine company...

Reaper

Sledger wrote: »

* Can somebody please clarify if this part of the "No loans ever Defaulted"

I think it's a dubious claim. If you look back at the linked posts 323, 327, 331 you will see what looks to me like a defaulted loan.

Linton

DuckyMallard wrote: »

energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/189548/independent-says-funds-still-available-despite-london-probe

Not sure what anyone makes of this, however it does seem some of the money may have been lended out to a genuine company...

Looking at the company data..


IOG is a genuine AIM listed company (Market Cap £18M) who borrowed money from London Oil & Gas. LOG has the usual people on its board and a charge from LCF. It is owned by London Power Corporation which in turn is owned by London Group. So perhaps LCF is contracting out its lending to its specialist associated companies. Why the hierarchy of lending companies?

jimjames

DuckyMallard wrote: »

Not sure what anyone makes of this, however it does seem some of the money may have been lended out to a genuine company...

It depends what you mean by genuine company, London Oil certainly exists. It appears that LCF has not loaned the company Independent Oil anything but some of the same LCF directors appear for London Oil.

It looks like LCF have loaned one of their linked companies some money and that has then been loaned out to someone else. LCF has a charge over the assets of London Oil & Gas but not Independent Oil.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09734575/charges

The accounts of London Oil show a loan of £14m but doesn't say who it is to.

Curiously it states the interest rate is "1.75% plus rate agreed with those who provided the funding"

Linton wrote: »

LOG has the usual people on its board and a charge from LCF. It is owned by London Power Corporation which in turn is owned by London Group. So perhaps LCF is contracting out its lending to its specialist associated companies. Why the hierarchy of lending companies?

We obviously looked at the same info! Could the hierarchy be a way to confuse investigations and stop the charge on assets being enforceable if the loan has been passed on?