Dozens bank account?

sendu

Brown_Bear wrote: »

From the 'Dozens' website:

''We’re aged 18-58 and 75% women, and certainly not the usual group you’d expect to be starting a banking alternative.''

So these are the people drafted in on minimum wage 'zero hour' contracts to answer the phone?

Was this supposed to inspire confidence in this company? Together with all the photos of happy people at some kind of festival it made me suspicious straight away.

And any genuine company that has some kind of online ''community'' instead of a proper customer services dept is usually rubbish (eg most mobile phone companies).

By the way, what on earth was this comment meant to mean or imply?

Dozens started out doing market research with the community. The community is not answering the phones!

Their hiring practices are quite commendable. Of the 26 people they mention (mostly senior management types, none of which are down at the level of call centre staff), 18 are female. So that's 70% just with the higher-ups.

Zanderman

sendu wrote: »

By the way, what on earth was this comment meant to mean or imply?

Dozens started out doing market research with the community. The community is not answering the phones!

Their hiring practices are quite commendable. Of the 26 people they mention (mostly senior management types, none of which are down at the level of call centre staff), 18 are female. So that's 70% just with the higher-ups.

Sendu - your posts are increasingly detailed about Dozens' organisation - it's almost as it you work there....

Which could explain why you fight their corner so well in this thread (though it would be breaking forum rules). But maybe you just like detailed research!

Is your name Rob by any chance?

sendu

Zanderman wrote: »

Sendu - your posts are increasingly detailed about Dozens' organisation - it's almost as it you work there....

Which could explain why you fight their corner so well in this thread (though it would be breaking forum rules). But maybe you just like detailed research!

I don't work there, and my name is correct.

Before becoming a customer and investing my money, you can bet that I tried to find out everything about them, and continue to keep myself informed (especially as I am taking part in the crowd funding).

So in that sense, sure, you can say I like detailed research.

But more to the point, I hate the spread of lies and misinformation. When it comes to letting other people handle your money, everyone should have a healthy dose of cynicism. And helping keep the gullible safe is a valuable function of this forum. But when your cynicism leads you to lazy, uninformed speculation, you are doing other readers a disservice.

Since no one else was correcting the nonsense in this thread, I stepped in.

ozaz

sendu wrote: »

Dozens are, with absolute certainty, authorised and regulated by the FCA. Again with absolute certainty, you get FSCS protection, but only in the case of Dozen's misselling or default, and only up to a value of £50k.

What is the definition of misselling?

In particular, if either accidentally or fraudulently Dozens don’t protect your money in the way they say they will do (trustee account, etc) does it count as misselling?

sendu

ozaz wrote: »

What is the definition of misselling?

In particular, if either accidentally or fraudulently Dozens don’t protect your money in the way they say they will do (trustee account, etc) does it count as misselling?

I am not a lawyer, and hopefully someone else with more knowledge will step in, but based purely on the definitions I could find online, such as this one, I would think that if you are sold a product where they say they will do one thing, but do another, you'll be eligible for compensation.

antrobus

sendu wrote: »

Dozens are, with absolute certainty, authorised and regulated by the FCA. Again with absolute certainty, you get FSCS protection, but only in the case of Dozen's misselling or default, and only up to a value of £50k.

Project Imagine Ltd t/a as Dozens is an Authorised Electronic Money Institution, FSCS protection does not apply.

FSCS protection only applies to Project Imagine Ltd's business in selling and managing investments

londoninvestor wrote: »

...

This sentence is narrowly true when 'we' is interpreted to mean Project Imagine Ltd, the operator of the dozens platform. But the bonds aren't issued by Project Imagine Ltd, they're issued by a subsidiary, Dozens Savings plc. If that entity defaults, you have no FSCS protection.

Basically yes.

And what's the betting that Project Imagine Ltd will sell these bonds on a non-advised basis with suitable risk warnings?

sendu

antrobus wrote: »

Project Imagine Ltd t/a as Dozens is an Authorised Electronic Money Institution, FSCS protection does not apply.

FSCS protection only applies to Project Imagine Ltd's business in selling and managing investments

Yes, sorry, I was only considering the 5% bonds. This blog post gives an overview of the protections relevant to different parts of the app.

And what's the betting that Project Imagine Ltd will sell these bonds on a non-advised basis with suitable risk warnings?

They say "dozens does not give financial advice, you should speak to an expert if you are unsure about investing.", so yes, this is non-advised.

sendu

londoninvestor wrote: »

Now, the website says "for both the fixed interest bonds or our strategies you are covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme for up to £50,000 for our misselling or default". That "our" is pretty misleading. The FSCS would indeed cover misselling or default by the operator of the dozens platform (i.e. Project Imagine Ltd, trading as dozens). It does not cover default by the special purpose vehicle entity that is the issuer of the bond (Dozens Savings plc).

I asked them about this, but did not get a direct public response. I did get a private message saying "The bonds are issued by Dozens Savings plc, and distributed by Project Imagine Ltd - which is FCA authorised for eMoney and MiFID investments. In any case, DS plc is a 100% owned subsidiary of PI as you note, so yes if we missold investments to you, you are covered." Does being 100% owned make the relevant difference here?

This ended up being their official public response. Basically, for the bonds, rather than try and explain the fine details or risk confusing anyone, they are now just not mentioning FSCS protection. Instead they're showing evidence that the money is going to the trustee.

londoninvestor

sendu wrote: »

I asked them about this, but did not get a direct public response. I did get a private message saying "The bonds are issued by Dozens Savings plc, and distributed by Project Imagine Ltd - which is FCA authorised for eMoney and MiFID investments. In any case, DS plc is a 100% owned subsidiary of PI as you note, so yes if we missold investments to you, you are covered." Does being 100% owned make the relevant difference here?

Thanks for chasing up and feeding back.

As far as misselling is concerned, it's Project Imagine Ltd which is the marketer, and is the FCA registered firm - so DS plc isn't really relevant. So you are protected for anything that comes into the scope of misselling - albeit that's limited when they offer the product on a non-advised basis.

As far as default is concerned, the FSCS doesn't cover a default by the bond issuer. As you say, dozens have changed the language on the website:
https://www.dozens.com/the-app/

dozens wrote:

Separately your cash savings of up to £85,000 held in the Save section of the app are covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). This protection does not cover the money used to invest into bonds.
...
The bonds are not FCA regulated products, and FSCS protection does not cover the bonds themselves.
.... Because of this, and to help build your trust in us we will place all of your money to be invested plus the full 12-months interest, in a separate trustee-controlled account on your behalf. This would be used to pay you in the event of any default on our part.

This is (finally ) clear and no longer misleading IMO.

---


Also, reflecting a bit on what I initially said here, it's actually not so much the legal entity structure that determines whether a bond default is FSCS-protected, it's more the role that dozens has. i.e. even if Project Imagine Ltd was the bond issuer, the FSCS still wouldn't cover a default on the bond.

To take an example that might be clearer...let's say I open a dealing account with Barclays, and I use it to hold various shares and bonds. One bond I happen to buy is a Barclays-issued corporate bond.

Let's say Barclays later goes bust. But everyone's dealing accounts are transferred in an orderly way to a different dealing platform, with all their holdings intact. Therefore I haven't lost anything that the FSCS investment protection needs to cover.

When I log into the new platform and look at my holdings, of course I see that my Barclays corporate bond is now worthless.

Clearly that doesn't entitle me to FSCS compensation. Because the FSCS investment protection covered Barclays in the role of investment platform operator, not Barclays in the role of bond issuer, even if both roles were performed by the same legal entity.

The same with Project Imagine here.

sendu

londoninvestor wrote: »

To take an example that might be clearer....

Thanks, that was really useful.