“
They have said that they had expensive legal advice that the authorisation was sufficient
Originally posted by shoi
”
The authorisation would have been sufficient if they had it. They didn't. The authorisation of a different, dissolved company was fraudulently altered to make it look like it belonged to Collateral.
Much like valuation reports, legal advice is dependent on the quality of the information upon which it is based.
It has been discussed at length over in the P2P Independent Forum. Collateral was not authorised to facilitate
P2P agreements. As such, these could not have been P2P loans as defined in
Article 36H of the FSMA 2000 regulated activities order . HMRC
further clarifies its definition of a P2P loan is "based on the definition used to define peer to peer lending as an activity that is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority" and "A platform that arranges article 36H agreements will be carrying on the regulated activity of 'operating an electronic system in relation to lending' and will need to be authorised by the FCA".
In short, I wouldn't try to claim income tax relief on your Collateral losses if I were you.