Firms and individuals must be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to carry out regulated financial service activities and offer credit to consumers.
Firms and individuals must be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to carry out regulated financial service activities and offer credit to consumers.
Your assertion was that it is illegal for them to administer those mortgages or collect on them. There is nothing in your very general link that addresses that point.
I was just curious as to what specific piece of legislation you cited when you took these "crooks to court to recover payments made to them". How did you get on?
Firms and individuals must be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to carry out regulated financial service activities and offer credit to consumers.
Your assertion was that it is illegal for them to administer those mortgages or collect on them. There is nothing in your very general link that addresses that point.
I was just curious as to what specific piece of legislation you cited when you took these "crooks to court to recover payments made to them". How did you get on?
You are correct, Skye Loans don't offer credit but the do offer a financial service.
That 'general link' link you seem to dismiss explains the basis of my court action against the FCA, I'm now awaiting their response to my pre action notice.
As I explained previously, I am not going to take Skye Loans Ltd to court as it wasn't financially viable to do so. I believe their latest accounts show a minimal turnover, without profit.
We now seem to be going round in circle,s so I will sign off for the time being. I will keep you updated on my action against the FCA and any further info on Skye Loans Ltd if it comes my way.
As I already said, Skye are using another companies licence. An example of this that I am familiar with is with Ebico who were partnered with SSE to supply energy. Ebico did not have a licence to supply energy so what happened is that I signed up with Ebico. I had bills with an Ebico letterhead that were actually from SSE. I made payments to an Ebico account that was administered by SSE and the money was under the control of SSE. When Ebico switched to Robin Hood energy customers had letters from SSE, letters from SSE with an Ebico letterhead and finally letters that were actually from Ebico. That is part of the reason it was rather chaotic.
Finance licensing works in a very similar way. The initial letter is from Skye. Once payments are agreed and a payment made it is made to a Skye account controlled by a third party. All the regulatory requirements for administering the account are carried out by the third party using letters with a Skye letterhead. As long as the money goes through the third party and not direct to Skye this is perfectly legal.
Ignoring Skye is a mistake, they can legally collect the debt and this needs to be dealt with.
As I already said, Skye are using another companies licence. An example of this that I am familiar with is with Ebico who were partnered with SSE to supply energy. Ebico did not have a licence to supply energy so what happened is that I signed up with Ebico. I had bills with an Ebico letterhead that were actually from SSE. I made payments to an Ebico account that was administered by SSE and the money was under the control of SSE. When Ebico switched to Robin Hood energy customers had letters from SSE, letters from SSE with an Ebico letterhead and finally letters that were actually from Ebico. That is part of the reason it was rather chaotic.
Finance licensing works in a very similar way. The initial letter is from Skye. Once payments are agreed and a payment made it is made to a Skye account controlled by a third party. All the regulatory requirements for administering the account are carried out by the third party using letters with a Skye letterhead. As long as the money goes through the third party and not direct to Skye this is perfectly legal.
Ignoring Skye is a mistake, they can legally collect the debt and this needs to be dealt with.
Darren
Hi, thanks for that.
If your facts are correct, then the two situations differ.
SSE/EBICO were partners, they were one company, so only one license would be required.
Skye Loans Ltd are an individual company and their 'piggybacker' is also an individual company. so a license each would be required.
No. Ebico are a different company. In this context the word 'partnered' is legally meaningless. It was simply the way Ebico presented what was happening to their customers.
The way in which any company piggybacks on another's licence is basically the same. The non licence holder uses the licence of another company to do business. The regulatory restrictions, administration and liabilities of the account sit with the licence holder. Therefore the licence holder controls the accounts of any customers that do business with the non licence holder. Whether the account has the name of one company or the other on it is irrelevant, it's who controls it that counts.
Skye have not said exactly what their relationship with the licence holder is but it certainly looks like what I have outlined above.
I have simplified things quite a lot in my explanation as I'm not a lawyer and I am not qualified to give any definitive opinion on Skye's legal position. I can say that not dealing with Skye is a mistake.
Just make sure you can prove that any payments that go to Skye were actually made in case it does all fall apart later.
You wrote, 'Therefore the licence holder controls the accounts of any customers that do business with the non licence holder.
This is what I have been trying to say, Skye do not have a license, so are getting their 'piggybacker' to service the loan for them. I believe Skye are servicing their own loans without the license to do so. They (Skye) are administrating and collecting on their loans.
We have now secured our 'Discharge of Security' from Skye Loans Ltd. The discharge has no signature of authority on it, the document is illegal, this tells me Link Mortgage Services, who are servicing the loans on Skye Loans Ltd's behalf, do not have 'Power of Attorney'
The discharge also omits the identity of the company acting on Skye Loans behalf (Link Mortgage Services) on the documentation . This seems to suggest Link Mortgage Services do not have a 'Service Agreement' in place with Skye Loans Ltd, this would be another illegal act
I would not pay any of those companies another penny.
"Facism arrives as your friend. It will restore your honour, make you feel proud, protect your house, give you a job, clean up the neighbourhood, remind you of how great you once were, clear out the venal and the corrupt, remove anything you feel is unlike you... [it] doesn't walk in saying, "our programme means militias, mass imprisonments, transportations, war and persecution."
Replies
Fines and penalties
You can be imprisoned and fined if you carry out regulated activities without being authorised.
But Skye Loans don't 'offer credit'.
Your assertion was that it is illegal for them to administer those mortgages or collect on them. There is nothing in your very general link that addresses that point.
I was just curious as to what specific piece of legislation you cited when you took these "crooks to court to recover payments made to them". How did you get on?
Fines and penalties
You can be imprisoned and fined if you carry out regulated activities without being authorised.
You are correct, Skye Loans don't offer credit but the do offer a financial service.
That 'general link' link you seem to dismiss explains the basis of my court action against the FCA, I'm now awaiting their response to my pre action notice.
As I explained previously, I am not going to take Skye Loans Ltd to court as it wasn't financially viable to do so. I believe their latest accounts show a minimal turnover, without profit.
We now seem to be going round in circle,s so I will sign off for the time being. I will keep you updated on my action against the FCA and any further info on Skye Loans Ltd if it comes my way.
Finance licensing works in a very similar way. The initial letter is from Skye. Once payments are agreed and a payment made it is made to a Skye account controlled by a third party. All the regulatory requirements for administering the account are carried out by the third party using letters with a Skye letterhead. As long as the money goes through the third party and not direct to Skye this is perfectly legal.
Ignoring Skye is a mistake, they can legally collect the debt and this needs to be dealt with.
Darren
Eat properly
Sleep properly
Save some money
Hi, thanks for that.
If your facts are correct, then the two situations differ.
SSE/EBICO were partners, they were one company, so only one license would be required.
Skye Loans Ltd are an individual company and their 'piggybacker' is also an individual company. so a license each would be required.
Cheers, Jimuck
The way in which any company piggybacks on another's licence is basically the same. The non licence holder uses the licence of another company to do business. The regulatory restrictions, administration and liabilities of the account sit with the licence holder. Therefore the licence holder controls the accounts of any customers that do business with the non licence holder. Whether the account has the name of one company or the other on it is irrelevant, it's who controls it that counts.
Skye have not said exactly what their relationship with the licence holder is but it certainly looks like what I have outlined above.
I have simplified things quite a lot in my explanation as I'm not a lawyer and I am not qualified to give any definitive opinion on Skye's legal position. I can say that not dealing with Skye is a mistake.
Just make sure you can prove that any payments that go to Skye were actually made in case it does all fall apart later.
Darren
Eat properly
Sleep properly
Save some money
You wrote, 'Therefore the licence holder controls the accounts of any customers that do business with the non licence holder.
This is what I have been trying to say, Skye do not have a license, so are getting their 'piggybacker' to service the loan for them. I believe Skye are servicing their own loans without the license to do so. They (Skye) are administrating and collecting on their loans.
Cheers, Jimuck
The discharge also omits the identity of the company acting on Skye Loans behalf (Link Mortgage Services) on the documentation . This seems to suggest Link Mortgage Services do not have a 'Service Agreement' in place with Skye Loans Ltd, this would be another illegal act
I would not pay any of those companies another penny.
All info now with the FCA