London Capital & Finance

London Capital & Finance logo

Link: All our articles on London Capital and Finance

Update 2.1.19 – London Capital & Finance is under investigation by the FCA. Its bank accounts have been frozen while the investigation continues, along with all payments of interest and capital to investors.

Update 16.1.19: An action group has been set up on Facebook for LCF investors wishing to share information and explore possible action. It can be found at

There is a second group for LCF investors which I will not be linking to due to concerns over the way it is being moderated.

We are not in a position to advise investors what to do next, and linking to the action group is not an endorsement of any particular course of action (legal or otherwise) that investors may be invited to follow. Our purpose in linking to the action group is to help investors access information, and reduce the risk of them being targeted by the unscrupulous.

Our original review, which was written on 15 December 2017, follows below. [update ends]

London Capital & Finance offers unregulated corporate bonds paying 3.9%pa for 1 year, 6.5% for 2 years and 8% for 3 years.

Who are London Capital and Finance?

There is no information on the website on who the directors or owners of the company are.

Companies House shows that Michael Thomson is the sole owner and one of the directors.

Other directors are Floris Huisamen, Kevin Maddison and Katherine Simpson at time of writing.

Is London Capital & Finance a safe investment?

This is an unregulated corporate bond and if London Capital and Finance defaults you risk losing 100% of your money.

London Capital & Finance lends your money to UK companies. If these other companies default on their loans from LC&F, LC&F may become unable to pay you your interest and capital.

The London Capital and Finance website confirms that the bond is not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

The London Capital and Finance website says that “Investors’ funds are secured by a charge over the assets of LC&F and over the assets of borrowing companies”. However, if for whatever reason LC&F is unable to sell the assets your bond is secured on for enough money to cover its obligations, investors still risk losing up to 100% of their money.

A company called “Global Security Trustees Limited” is listed as the Security Trustee. Global Security Trustees Limited is according to Companies House a dormant company with no assets.

Should I invest with London Capital and Finance?

As with any unregulated corporate bond, this investment is only suitable for sophisticated and/or high net worth investors who have a substantial existing portfolio and are prepared to risk 100% loss of their money.

 This particular bond is advertised as asset-backed. Before putting any reliance on the security backing the bond, investors should undertake professional due diligence to ensure that a) the security exists b) in the event of default, the security could be easily sold and would raise enough money to cover all investors’ money c) the charge over the security has been properly and legally recorded.

Before investing investors should ask themselves:

  • How would I feel if the investment defaulted and I lost 100% of my money?
  • Do I have a sufficiently large investment portfolio that the loss of 100% of this investment would not damage me financially?
  • Have I conducted sufficient due diligence to ensure the asset-backed security can be relied on?

If you are looking for a “secure” or “guaranteed” investment, you should not invest in unregulated products with a risk of 100% capital loss.

97 thoughts on “London Capital & Finance

  1. LCF are currently undergoing FCA audit and to date are not accepting any new applications – at least for 8% 3yr bonds – FCA HAVE ORDERED THEM TO TAKE DOWN PUBLICITY INFO RELATING TO THIS PRODUCT BUT WILL NOT STATE WHY – NEITHER WILL THE COMPANY

  2. Looks bad. Had no interest payment this quarter and interest due not shown on my account. Once all the festivities over I guess we will learn the horrible truth. Suspect my £46k is gone.

  3. No interest can be expected for the moment as London Capital & Finance’s bank accounts have been frozen and the company has ceased all payments of interest and capital while the FCA investigates.

    Whether money has been lost is unknown at this point. The investigation is likely to take some considerable time.

    New articles: FCA orders London Capital & Finance to remove all its marketing materials (18 December 2018)

    FCA freezes London & Capital Finance’s bank accounts; investors’ interest and capital repayments suspended (31 December 2018)

  4. Nothing can really be done other than to wait for the FCA to conclude its investigation.

    Whatever happens after the FCA investigation, this was by its nature an extremely high risk investment with a risk of up to 100% loss and should not have been offered to you if you were not a high net worth or sophisticated investor. And should not have been used for more than 10% of your investable assets (personally I would say 1%).

  5. What a worry!! the term of my bond is nearly matured! Iv also invested money with LCF for my parents! not sure how I will explain things to them! Ouch!!.. lets all hope things are resolved and we all get our money back!!

  6. How long is “some considerable time” likely to be? What is the likelihood of us all losing our investment completely? As it doesn’t appear the company has gone broke and it’s assets have been frozen there must be some considerable money in their accounts. I think the lack of communication from them and the FCA is very poor. They must be aware there are very many worried people out there who just want some idea on what next!

  7. How long is “some considerable time” likely to be?

    Nobody knows. The wheels of regulators grind slowly. Expect the investigation to take months, at minimum. We will all be happy if I am wrong.

    What is the likelihood of us all losing our investment completely? As it doesn’t appear the company has gone broke and it’s assets have been frozen there must be some considerable money in their accounts.

    Nobody knows how much money is in LCF’s accounts apart from LCF and possibly FCA investigators (if they’ve got that far). Especially as LCF has used a loophole in UK company law to get out of having to file audited accounts in a timely manner. Investors’ money has been used to invest in other companies and pay fundraising costs so how much LCF currently has is not publicly known.

  8. I’m sorry to say Sally that I’d work on the basis that your money is gone. Anything you get back will be a bonus. It looks like the money from bonds was lent to other companies run by the directors of LCF not genuine third party borrowers. They also seem to have worked on a convoluted network of companies lending to each other which makes some of the charges on assets likely to be worthless to bondholders. Not good news and I hope I’m wrong but FCA involvement might be to stop others losing money rather than get money back for existing investors. Really frustrating as some of us had reported them to FCA at least a year ago and been told it wasn’t their problem. Very similar bonds are also being offered by other companies with similar levels of risk.

  9. I was also expecting to withdraw my investment at maturity next month. The lack of information for investors from the FCA and LCF is appalling, and it may turn out that our investments have been lost but I would also like to know where Jimbo has found the information that the Directors have been lending to their own companies and not to genuine third party borrowers? I have yet to find any other source to support this assertion.

  10. Something is obviously seriously amiss. However would the FCA allow correspondence to all bond holders stating borrowing companies are still trading and all securities are in place if there was no evidence of this? There is so much speculation presently. I do feel it is wrong there cannot be more transparency.

  11. John R

    It’s clear that LC&F were lending to a closely associated company called London Power Corporation and through them to London Oil and Gas and AIM listed Independent Oil and Gas. There was also a link through Global Security Trustees Limited. Try researching these companies in CH and also search engine Robert Mannering Sedgwick plus the Law Society to spot where the FCA enquiry came from.

  12. Okay, here we go again. I’m a specialist lawyer, I worked at the Financial Ombudsman Service whilst completing my Master’s and I bring and defend actions by the FCA for businesses, and handle actions for consumers. I qualified as a barrister, but don’t practice as a barrister.

    I also act as an investigator for certain companies that are being investigated by the FCA to represent them and/or defend them on occasion. For the FCA to have frozen the bank account in question means there is a significant risk to the funds in question. It is more normal, if the business has been under review for some while, where it is not considered a ‘flight risk’ to implement a V REQ otherwise known as a voluntary requirement.

    In those circumstances the FCA will normally ASK the business to voluntarily sign an undertaking that the business will not dispose of any assets and/or any other conditions it seeks to impose and register that notification on the FCA register under exclusions.

    In this case there is no such exclusion which means that the FCA has injuncted the business quickly arguably because there is so much risk that it considers, in its inherent jurisdiction, that it MUST do so to prevent new investors getting ‘tainted’ and/or being exposed to unfair and/or unreasonable risk.

    I work with a global insolvency practitioner – in my spare time lol – and I know from experience that IF this business is not already in default i.e. trading insolvently, it will be, whether the FCA petitions to wind up the business on grounds of consumer risk or whether an investor such as yourselves who have a payment due petition to bring them down.

    Brev has very kindly granted me permissions to post here. I am literally swamped with work – around 600 consumers on a finance scandal, another major issue that is already on this site and I THINK I can help here, although you will need to help me.

    The fact that the FCA has frozen the accounts means that there is no risk of future investment but I am speculating that there has been a loss of the other funds i.e. consumer money, whether through Fraud, bad management and/or poor performance. But as this is a low yield bond – and it is from what I’ve read, this is indicative of fraud although I am surmising.

    Should anyone want a chat, let me know or ping me an email to

    Lastly ,to those of you that may have lost everything – everything IS NOT lost. I have been prevalent in this industry for nearly 12 years and have used every tactic in the book and some new ones I’ve written to secure clients millions in restitution. Please do not give up hope.



  13. Hi all. I’m having trouble finding the Facebook page that has been set up for this purpose? Can anybody send me a link, or a pointer in the right direction please.

  14. Hi Carole, I’m sure Brev can give you that info if you hit contact at the top of the page.

  15. Actually, someone kindly posted it a moment ago. It’s called: London and capital bonds

  16. There has been some investigation work done on the accounts of one of the companies that LCF have loaned money to. It looks like they have lent some or all of £5.7 million to a company (CV Resorts) that has never traded and has made no payments to the loans in the last 4 years. Something is seriously amiss which must be part of the reason why the FCA have frozen assets and accounts

  17. London Capital Finance – Linked Companies & Loans Update
    I’ve seen this article as pointed out by others here (well done ) about the web of companies that seem to be connected to LCF. This is some more detailed information focused on some of those companies.

    It was also stated today that the FCA would have to obtain a court order to freeze assets so it’s possible that they have a lot more evidence than has been released so far. Impacting a business without sufficient proof would lead to lots of damage claims so they must be pretty certain something is amiss.

    One company that has a charge outstanding to London Capital Finance is LEISURE & TOURISM DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED. This owns shares in WATERSIDE VILLAGES LIMITED. Both are subsidiaries of LONDON POWER MANAGEMENT LIMITED. See more below about that company.

    According to the latest accounts up to 31/3/2017 it has secured debts of £41million, presumably to London Capital Finance as that is the only charge on it’s books. The accounts mention that this debt was REPAID by Group Companies after the year end. The latest accounts are overdue so we don’t know who/when this was.

    Could this be a way of refinancing the business so that it appears to London Capital Finance that the loan has been paid but in reality it has just been shifted from one company to another? It could mean that the loan is not performing but there has been no default.

    London Capital Finance repeatedly claim that none of their loans have ever defaulted. This seems very unlikely when they are lending to high risk borrowers. By this loan movement they can maintain that statement as being technically correct

    Accounts overdue 30/12/18
    Charge to LCF 17/5/16 Outstanding
    Secured Debts (LCF £41m) – REPAID by Group companies after 31/3/17. Which company has taken on this debt?
    LEISURE & TOURISM DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED loan from London Capital Finance

    Charge to LCF 12/5/17, another charge 2016 to TMF trustee
    Accounts value £6m
    Director – SANDS

    The company that owns LEISURE & TOURISM DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED is LONDON POWER MANAGEMENT LIMITED. According to their last accounts from 2015 they owned 10 other companies many of which LCF have loaned money to.

    Most worryingly LONDON POWER MANAGEMENT LIMITED (previously London Group Limited) has repeatedly used a loophole to avoid filing accounts with Companies House and is now more than 6 months overdue for filing their 2016 accounts after using the loophole 5 TIMES since 2016. LONDON POWER MANAGEMENT LIMITED has a charge on its accounts from LCF so owes money to London Capital Finance. It also has an outstanding charge to London Support Group.

    In addition LONDON POWER MANAGEMENT LIMITED is listed to be struck off by Companies House. This means ownership of all assets moves to the Government.


    List of Companies owned by LONDON POWER MANAGEMENT LIMITED
    List of Companies owned by LONDON POWER MANAGEMENT LIMITED
    List of Companies owned by LONDON POWER MANAGEMENT LIMITED
    Another company CV Resorts Ltd has a charge from LCF on its accounts which appears to relate to a loan of £5.7m from LCF. However between 2015 and 2017 there was absolutely no movement in any figures in the accounts. How is this possible if the loan is being charged 8% interest?

  18. Sally Martin <>

    The correspondence is factually correct. The companies are still trading (eg the Oil exploration one) and the security is still in place as charges on the accounts although it may be worth nothing or worth less than the loan. FCA won’t know any of those details until they have investigated. There are certainly companies loaned money that have never traded though and money was being passed through various subsidiaries which would have the effect of hiding its source

    This thread on MSE has some more analysis on it

  19. Is the company still functioning, i.e. what about those with existing loans are they still paying those loans off while the company is under investigation?
    Who get’s paid off first if the company goes bust the Shareholders or the investors?, the company must have assets even if those assets are in the repayments of the loans
    What are those assets?
    When will the investors be able to make a claim against those assets if the Company is made insolvent?
    When I applied for the bond I was fully aware of the risks involved but having said that, was also fully aware that I would be able to claim my percentage of all sailable goods and assets incurring financial gain from the companies financial activities that would need to be sold off to repay losses. Was I wrong to believe this

  20. Is the company still functioning, i.e. what about those with existing loans are they still paying those loans off while the company is under investigation?

    No. LCF’s bank accounts have been frozen to protect investors and all payments of capital and interest have been suspended.

    Who get’s paid off first if the company goes bust the Shareholders or the investors?

    The insolvency administrator. Then preferred creditors (limited claims by HMRC and employees). Then investors, assuming their security is valid and gives them secured creditor status. Then any other creditors. Shareholders come last.

    the company must have assets even if those assets are in the repayments of the loans
    What are those assets?

    As LCF has not filed accounts in a timely manner, to all intents and purposes nobody knows apart from LCF. Possibly the FCA if their investigation has gone that far.

    Research by others has revealed the identity of some of the companies LCF has loaned money to, with in some cases the amount loaned. But what these loans are worth now is unknown.

    When I applied for the bond I was fully aware of the risks involved but having said that, was also fully aware that I would be able to claim my percentage of all sailable goods and assets incurring financial gain from the companies financial activities that would need to be sold off to repay losses. Was I wrong to believe this

    No, but it’s clear that you weren’t fully aware of the risks, because there was always a risk that, in the event that LCF ran out of money, it would not have sufficient salable goods and assets to compensate all investors in the event of default. This risk could only have been quantified, putting investors in a sufficiently informed position to know if the return of up to 8% per year was enough for the risk, through a professional due diligence report from experienced corporate finance practitioners. In the same way that before a bank lends you money to buy a house, they will demand a report into the condition of the house and evidence of affordability.

  21. I did some calculations using the figures from the Evening Standard suggesting that LCF were paying Surge Financial up to 25% commission for bonds that they introduced that could mean that up to £50 million of the £200 million money that investors thought was being loaned out never was. It also means that for an investor in a 1 year bond the guaranteed return that LCF would need to obtain would be 41% (33% to get capital back plus 8% interest) in order to be able to return the investor’s capital at the end of the year.

    Even worse the money from investors wasn’t received in one hit, different people paid in over a period of weeks or months so money could not be lent immediately. LCF claimed that one bond sold in 7 months. Even if you assume an optimistic 3 months to collect enough money to be able to lend it out to companies that means the 41% return has to be made in only 9 months. If it actually took 6 months to collect enough money to loan out then they’d need a 82% return to be generated to pay back the investors in the last 6 months. It just doesn’t add up

    How can your money be safe when up to 25% of your cash has been handed out to a company in commission before it even gets to London Capital & Finance to loan out.

  22. You say all bank accounts have been frozen and the company is no longer functioning, so what is happening about the loans LCF have made. Surly those who have taken loans out with LCF must pay back with interest the monies they have borrowed

    The money from these loans are an important asset so who is actually managing this side of the investigation for the FCA?

  23. You say all bank accounts have been frozen and the company is no longer functioning, so what is happening about the loans LCF have made. Surly those who have taken loans out with LCF must pay back with interest the monies they have borrowed

    Correct, the money is still due, and the borrowers should still be making their payments as previously agreed. There’s no indication to the contrary on LCF’s announcement to bondholders and borrowers on its website.

    That said, in at least one case LCF has loaned money to a dormant company linked to LCF directors whose financial results showed no activity over three years. If a company borrowed money from LCF and wasn’t required to make repayments before then it won’t be making repayments now.

    The money from these loans are an important asset so who is actually managing this side of the investigation for the FCA?

    Nobody knows other than those with inside knowledge of the investigation.

  24. I’m not sure that the company is no longer functioning, they’re still taking calls. Their assets are frozen along with bank accounts but it shouldn’t stop any borrowers from paying their interest and repaying loans.

    Having said that, at least one borrower with a loan from LCF appears to have made no interest payments or capital repayments over the last 3 years so there may not be much activity for them to manage especially when they only have 11 borrowers.

  25. I contacted the FCA yesterday who confirmed that the bank accounts had been frozen, I was also told that borrowers were continuing to pay off their loans, so, part of the business is still functioning but LCF are not able to manage the ‘build up of funds’ from the loans.

    It appears from the person I was talking to that the problem LCF have with the FCA is with regards to the advertising and marketing material they use to sell there financial products. FCA would not say more.

    I requested that the FCA give me a reasonable time limit as to when their investigation would come to a close which they refused to do. I pointed out that investors were entitled to monitor their money whoever was managing it for them and the FCA were being unreasonable not to give a reasonable time for investors to be able to evaluate their position with regards to their and LCF’s financial circumstances.

    I then made a formal complaint to the FCA with regards to their attitude towards giving a prompt service and refusal to treat my and the other investors of LCF as a serious concern by not sharing with the investors a date when the investigation would be completed.

    The reason for making the complaint is because the person I was talking to seemed to think it could take a year or maybe more to complete the investigation. I don’t know about you but that is not acceptable to me, I would therefore ask other investors to also call the FCA and make similar complaints otherwise this could drag on for a very long time

  26. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the FCA investigation WILL take a year or so. This is not the only investment that they are looking at that has gone pear shaped and it is also not the case that the only reason the accounts have been frozen is because they have pulled the marketing literature. They have pulled the marketing literature to ensure that nobody else can be brought into this investment on the basis of what they have clearly established as misleading information. In addition, the FCA is not managing anything except an investigation. The money is still IN THEORY under the power of the business EXCEPT they are not allowed to touch the money and that is because the FCA do not trust them to do so.

    I’m an expert in financial services and a specialist lawyer and I’m looking at different ways to take action for investors SHOULD there be an appetite to do so.


    ps there is also an action page I believe

  27. I’m sorry Colin but it sounds like you’re blaming FCA for issues that have been created by London Capital. Seeing comments from people who have put their life savings into a scheme where there is a fair chance they could lose all their money is heartbreaking but this is a deliberate action by LCF to trick people. It’s not the fault of the FCA.

    Have a look at this diagram showing the linked companies that LCF have lent money to and see if you think that’s a genuine business model. Also bear in mind that up to 25% of your investment may have been paid out in commission so they need to earn even more to recoup that. Add all these together and you can see exactly what the FCA are investigating

  28. Jane: I do not pretend to understand the in’s and outs of what is happening to our money, my interest is in the investors (I am an investor). a year is to long in my opinion that is why I am unhappy with the FCA’s ‘wishy washy’ response to the fate of the investor. From my conversation with a representative from the FCA he more or less said the same as you regarding the length of the investigation ”we have other investigations therefore we are unable to give you a date when the investigations will finish”.

    Whether LCF is at fault or not, giving the FCA total freedom to carry out the investigation in it’s own time frame is ludicrous (keeping the investor on tender hooks is absolutely not on as far as I am concerned). In fact not putting the FCA under pressure will simply encourage them to not update us at regular intervals and keep everything hidden, at some stage we are going to have to be told what has happened to our money and whether there is any recourse to scrape some of it back and that should be sooner than later.

    In the mean time I have made a complaint as to the FCA with regards to their refusal to provide me with a reasonable time limit for the investigation to end. By the way Jane, I was told the complaints procedure would take up to two months. So, the FCA are not taking me seriously.

    One last point. I am not in the least worried who is at fault. it is certainly not the investors fault as to the position we find ourselves in,so saying the FCA are the good guy’s is total rubbish, they get payed to do their job lets make sure they do it.

  29. @Colin: If you’ve read Jimbo’s link to the graph of webbed companies, you’ll have some idea of how much the FCA have to investigate.

    And if the FCA’s investigation extends as far as LCF’s linked companies to which investors’ money has been lent, those companies are outside the FCA’s traditional jurisdiction so the investigation may require court applications. The wheels of the court system grind no faster than the FCA’s.

    So any reasonable person can understand why this work is likely to take months no matter how hard the FCA works. So it then becomes a question of whether the FCA should provide more information and more regular updates to investors while the investigation goes on.

    I can understand why investors want that to happen but it’s not practical. Imagine if the FCA said “February update: Everything looks fine so far but our investigation continues”, and then it turned out the money was gone. Investors would be livid. And imagine if the FCA said “February update: It looks awfully like the money has been disappeared into a web of very suspicious looking linked companies, but our investigation continues”, and then it turned out LCF had legitimate reasons for using this corporate structure and investors’ money was safe. Investors would be livid, and LCF would be livid, and after some political intervention senior heads at the FCA would probably roll.

    That’s on top of the risk of compromising the investigation by releasing information to the people they are investigating.

    The FCA are not being wishy washy, they’re being tight-lipped.

  30. I have received acknowledgement of my complaint to the FCA but unfortunately have been warned off of showing it to you. Meanwhile the months and the investors money goes out of the window without anyone challenging what they are doing. Emmmmmmm ! what a sensible idea to say nothing?
    Perhaps they will prosecute me for letting you know their address

    This communication and any attachments may contain personal information. For more information about how and why we use personal information and who to contact with any queries about this, please see our privacy notices: FCA Privacy Notice ( and PSR Privacy Notice (

    This communication and any attachments contain information which is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. It is for intended recipients only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, distribute, publish, rely on or otherwise use it without our consent. Some of our communications may contain confidential information which it could be a criminal offence for you to disclose or use without authority. If you have received this email in error please notify

    12 Endeavour Square


    E20 1JN

    Tel: +44 (0)20 7066 9870

  31. The latest up date from FCA

    Home / News / Information for London Capital and Finance PLC investors

    Information for London Capital and Finance PLC investors
    News stories Published: 28/12/2018 Last updated: 28/01/2019

    Share page
    London Capital & Finance PLC (LCF) is the issuer of mini-bonds which it states it uses to make loans to corporate borrowers to provide capital for further investment. The FCA believes there are approximately 14,000 customers invested in its bonds.
    Issuing mini-bonds is not a regulated activity, so firms issuing mini-bonds do not need to be authorised by the FCA. However, when an authorised firm approves a promotion for mini-bonds, they must ensure that it is in line with FCA rules that the financial promotion is fair, clear and not misleading. This means, for example, that risks are appropriately communicated. We are investigating LCF on whether there has been a breach of our requirements.
    In addition to its investigation into LCF, the FCA has imposed certain requirements on LCF, which LCF agreed to, including:
    not (without the prior consent of the FCA) dealing in any way with its assets, including the money held in its banks accounts
    ceasing all regulated activity
    On 13 December 2018, the FCA announced that it had directed LCF to withdraw all of its existing marketing materials in relation to its Fixed Rate ISA or Bond.
    On 17 January 2019, the FCA imposed a Second Supervisory Notice on LCF. LCF is still required to have a prominent statement on its website that the FCA has directed it to withdraw all its existing marketing materials.
    The FCA considers that it is appropriate to publicise the fact of its investigation into LCF now, as a result of other public actions taken by the FCA and in anticipation of legitimate queries from investors regarding the firm.
    Will I get my investment back?
    The FCA’s work in relation to the firm is ongoing, but it is aware that investors are keen to receive details on the progress of this work and the status of the firm. The FCA will publish updates on its website when it is appropriate to do so.
    Investors should check the terms of their investments for information about capital repayments.
    What action is the FCA taking against LCF?
    The FCA directed LCF to withdraw all of its existing marketing materials in relation to its Fixed Rate ISA or Bond.
    Following supervisory intervention, the FCA required LCF to cease all regulated activities and not to dispose of any of its assets without prior consent of the FCA.
    The FCA is conducting further investigations and continues to work with the firm and relevant external stakeholders to take all appropriate steps.
    Why has the FCA taken action against LCF?
    We issued a direction to LCF to remove all communications relating to its ‘Fixed Rate ISA or Bond’ because it appeared that its promotions may be misleading for the following reasons:
    the LCF Bonds should not have been advertised as investments that could be held in an Innovative Finance ISA because the bonds did not satisfy the relevant conditions for crowdfunding debentures (a qualifying investment) under the Individual Savings Account Regulations 1998. For example, the bonds were not transferable.
    there was undue prominence given to the firm’s FCA authorisation despite the bonds not being regulated or having FSCS protection
    their past performance warning, which explains that any reference to this should not be considered a guide to future performance of an investment, was insufficiently prominent
    there was an unbalanced comparison with cash savings
    What is a mini-bond?
    A mini-bond is an unlisted debt security, typically issued by small businesses to raise funds.
    Mini-bonds can be attractive to investors because of the interest rates on offer. However, prospective investors need to understand the associated risks. Mini-bonds are usually illiquid as they are not easily traded, unlike listed retail bonds, which they are often compared to. They can also be high risk, as the failure rate of small businesses can be high. Additionally, as with other corporate bonds, there is no Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) protection if the issuer fails.
    Does LCF need to be authorised?
    Firms are required to be authorised by the FCA if they undertake any of the regulated activities listed in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (the Order). Authorised firms are subject to a set of overarching principles and rules issued by the FCA. These principles and rules have to be followed when an authorised firm is carrying on regulated activities in the UK. The Order excludes certain activities from its scope.
    Issuing mini-bonds does not normally involve the carrying on of a regulated activity. Therefore, LCF did not need to be authorised to issue the mini bonds but did need to be authorised to issue the promotion of the mini bonds.
    Will investors be able to get compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme?
    Issuing mini bonds is not a regulated activity, just as is typically the case with other corporate bonds. This means investors are unlikely to have access to the FSCS in the event the firm is declared in default, but this would be a matter for the FSCS to determine.
    Will investors have a tax liability as the products are not ISA eligible?
    Investors holding ISAs with LCF do not need to take any action at this time with respect to their tax position.
    ISA managers must administer the ISA scheme in accordance with the ISA legislation. HMRC has a range of powers to tackle non-compliance with the rules, including withdrawing permission to act as an ISA manager, and reclaiming any incorrectly paid tax relief.
    Investors can contact HMRC by email at

    Company no. 01920623

  32. I find it astonishing that nobody has picked up on these bonds being sold as part of the 2016 government initiative to help SME’s and small businesses. The IFISA – Innovative Finance ISA was meant to fill the gap left by unwilling banks to help startups and small businesses, and were launched a in 2016 – a little over 2 years ago.

    In November 2016 George Osborne announced government plans to extend their original purpose – P2P lending – to include- quote: “other debt-based securities in IFISAs, in particular bonds and debentures – hoping to make capital more readily available to UK SMEs” unquote.

    The matter of added risk was included in these announcements, nevertheless, coming from government made IFISAs all the more credible and attractive with possibility of higher interest rates than the miserly offerings from banks and building societies. It was made clear that they would lose the FSCS safety net, but in the eyes of many looking for interest that at least bettered inflation and had government approval, that loss didn’t seem too much to worry about.

    In my view the FCA or relevant watchdog, bears a huge responsibility for allowing such a marked departure from government safety regulation of savings schemes to go without scrutiny, allowing the obvious outcome of ruthless predators to unlawfully describe themselves as IFISA or ISA providers, something that LC&F is now alleged to have done.

    I would like to see how others see this perspective and how it should shape the investigation and its outcomes.

    I think also there needs a much more transparent method for members of the public to access the kind of knowledge they need when making decisions about investment. There should be a register of some kind setting out who is authorised to do what. Companies have a register, so have charities, VAT members, and even trades have bodies with registers of those qualified to claim membership.

    For good example, the Charity Commission website carries a large range of verified data about each charity, its trustees, structure, objectives, financial reports, and much more, open to ready public scrutiny. Surely, for such a vast and hugely important sphere of finance as public savings are, this too should have a resource for the public to go to, secure in the knowledge that its subjects are being policed, regularly and thoroughly.

  33. Okay, The register does exist: it’s just that ordinary consumers do not know about it. The FCA did regulate their conduct but not in the context of obligations to you. And THAT is the biggest problem here.

    The action page is dedicated to pulling all affected consumers together with a view to ensuring all discussions are provided with answers and options for action.

    This is a tragedy and should have been avoided – now let’s hope we can orchestrates some returns for investors

  34. I assume everyone has received this?

    [BrevEdit: Letter to LCF investors re the administration snipped. See here for the full text.]

  35. Well, that’s comforting news Jane – there IS a register but unknown to the needfully uninformed!

    Will appreciate your respected advice as to how we affected consumers can ‘get together’ to rescue what crumbs may be left over after the those with higher priorities have taken their share.

  36. join the facebook page – London Capital and Finance Action Group. There are about 300 people there. Brev will warn you, as will I – DO NOT pay any company that says they can claim on your behalf anything. Liquidators are warning against it, the FCA are and so am I. BUT there will come a point that I will be in a position to take an instruction and that is ONLY if i can find access to potential money

  37. The fact that the FCA has intervened, but too late for 14,000 investors, in spite of warnings – many warnings, from a variety of professional sources, some going back years, indicates the FCA aught to be held responsible for a huge number of avoidable losses by their inactivity.

    There is a term used by the investment world – ‘quantifiable risk’ – that was apparent about LC&F to those in the know, long, long ago. It should therefore have been even more so to the FCA when involving a government initiative aimed specifically to attract private funding. It should not be left to a largely uninitiated public to assess quantifiable risk when the means is there to provide such critical information.

    The FCA’s inertia is little less than shameful. How can they allow organisations to repeatedly defer presenting their accounts by using a simple loophole, not once but several times in succession, without suspicion of something being amiss? But it’s reported they did. How could they allow any organisation to illegally claim ISA status for so long. But they did.

    And where does the ASA – Advertising Standards Authority – stand in this awful mess that’s about to ruin countless lives and livelihoods? Not a government body but their work does extend to financial areas, including misrepresentation of facts.

    The more one looks at this situation the clearer it becomes that the PBP – the poor bloody people – are yet again being let down by those they depend on to safeguard them.

  38. Now you will understand why I stepped straight into this on here weeks ago because the FCA only act in this manner under certain circumstance. And NOW we have an administrator picked by the directors whose first public statement which backs the business process and seeks to blame the FCA. Sorry! No way! FCA might be slow but they have acted ON EVIDENCE of misdeed at YOUR expense. So to have an administrator that is supposed to be protecting the interests of creditors who has gone ON RECORD to say you were sophisticated etc… they have just detailed my efforts to protect your position to gain entry to the FSCS. As a lawyer I knew this would happen and eh voila. I’m incensed so now I’m going to counter that position publicly and with the press!

  39. I am not sticking up for LCF but from yesterdays radio 4 broad cast with the administrators it seems that the actual running of the company had some order and the broadcast put an optimistic view on returns to the investor being possible

    ”this is the first week we will no more after we interview the borrowers next week, all 12 of the companies borrowing money from LCF are solvent and we are considering the other assets of LCF we should know more by next week”

    Lets not panic

  40. I am very concerned about investors claiming they were not asked to sign a declaration as to what type of investor they are because LCF would not allow me access to the bond unless I did. I put myself down as a restricted investor, I took photo copies of everything I did to purchase my bond because I was awear of the risks. Perhaps people should look back at their paperwork and actually read what they signed up for.

    You put to much faith in the FCA Jane. Do you really think the big banks are going to stand by while a little impersonator pays a massive 8% and they only want to give you 1,2% dream on Jane.

    To the FCA we are collateral damage no more. The FCA have done their Job but they are not our friends

    Who makes the most out of insolvency? the investor or financial and legal professions? I wonder how much the administers fees will claw out of any chance we have of a settlement.

  41. The IP makes the most out of the insolvency and I’ve just been called a leech for insisting that you have the right to have your own representation. As for the FCA they are nearly always too late. I put no extraordinary faith in the FCA nor do I hold out any hope that they will assist per de. But I am, with the support of the group of members I speak to going to continue to challenge any statements made AND I will know in 8 weeks whether they have even considered the strategy I propose to run. If NOT then you guys get a vote

  42. Like Colin, my application (in my case for 6.5% 2-year IFISA Bonds) was subject to signing LC&F Form which was very comprehensive including a statenent by the investor of his/her financial status.

    My decision was based on the risks set out in the form, coupled with the fact that IFISA Bonds had not long previously been introduced by George Osborn (Nov 16) to extend IFISAs from P2P to include loans to SMEs that would be in the form of debenture based bonds and associated risk. That these investments would not be covered by FSCS was made clear.

    A copy of the document can be found here, and if a sign-in box appears you should be able to close it top right:

    Whether or not these or similar terms apply to other LC&F investors is for them to determine.

    So far, many fingers have been pointing to misuse of the funds, which is not helping matters or the feelings of those affected. My criticisms about FCA are based on allegations that serious or potentially serious problems with LC&F were known months, even years ago and that IF SO, the FCA could have and should have acted much sooner, at least avoiding a lot of would-be investors getting burned fingers.

  43. In this respect you are unequivocally right! Same scenario for the Connaught Income Fund. CEO whistle blew; FCA fail to respond and then when it did, months later, another massive chunk of money had gone into the fund! I rest my case. My biggest concern now is what is or is not going to be investigated. Your thoughts?

  44. This is problematic. LC&F’s Memorandum of Information/Application is pretty watertight. No case for misrepresentation, except for marketing an ISA that was invalid as such, being non-transferable – one reason taken up – very belatedly – by FCA. Otherwise it demonstrated – on paper but very convincingly – what cautious investors look for – managed risk.

    That’s a whole world away from allegations of misuse of the funds invested, also allegations that their strategy for raising funds from borrowers enough to pay their bond interest was seriously flawed, meaning – if proven – either poor management or worse – fraud.

    The administrators must first assess overall liquid assets, then deduct fees/costs to leave net assets for distribution to bondholders after higher ranking creditors are first paid their due amounts. Only then will bondholders know their situation eg be repaid x pence per Pound of their investment – if any.

    It should not take that long to determine, except that some vital aspects of their financial structure are overseas in Malta and may either be inaccessible or take a long time to access via judicial routes. Malta is in the EU which may help (or not – Brexit??).

    The FCA and administrators owe it to the 14,000 investors to make this a priority situation. The credibility of ISAs and IFISAs in particular will be – already is for me and other like-minded investors – to weaken what the government hoped would give much needed support to SMEs and startups. These form a large part of the country’s economy and this investigation couldn’t have come at a worse time, needing a rapid solution, bad as that may be.

  45. Well said Will, I totally agree with you, although my concerns about the FCA extend further than yours. I have decided to call the FCA and the Administrators on a monthly basis to seek a progress report on what is happening. I have also made a formal complaint regarding the FCA.

    It is my view that we should not be worrying who is at fault. Like you Will I am trying to look at the reality of the matter and that reality depends on the actual state of the company today along with its material worth. We should disregard the constant reports of doom that are appearing on a daily basis and wait for the administrators report. Having said that, that does not mean we should leave the FCA or Administers to get on with it without hounding them and making them earn their money. Remember you are paying for them to do their job. I am doing my part it is up to others to do theirs.

  46. Like you Colin, I thought the FCA was another government quango, but it is not. It is an independent body paid for by fees taken from financial organisations, but nevertheless has wide-sweeping powers of investigation and enforcement, also of prosecution.

    They will now be awaiting the outcome of what they had imposed, from the Administrators, and for what it’s worth, here’s a proposed timescale for such events called the 7 Key Stages:
    On the face of it our situation appears to be at Stage 6, and the Administratrors should produce their assessment in 11 days. I really don’t think this is likely for LC&F’s web of complex assets and their access rights, for them to be realised in such a short timeframe, and then to decide if it should be wound down, followed by distribution arrangements. The above link is just a guideline but even so, that allows up to a year. As noted in my earlier post, the Connaught situation is exceeding 3 years.

    The point is, FCA can do nothing until (as I see it) the Administrators are able to set out the situation. I applaud your efforts but unless FCA has any influence in this respect, the ball is in another court – at least for the time being. Perhaps you can change tack to try to extract a timeframe from them and see what their reaction is? Don’t be surprised if they fail to engage though.

    I am no expert in these matters, just learning as I go from Google searches. I am obviously concerned, but thankfully will not be in desperate straits if all goes pear-shaped. I do feel for those more seriousy affected. My time is also taken up with admin work for an overseas charity so not able to take a leading role in this situation, but will be closely watching it.

  47. Sorry, I fundamentally do not agree. It is misleading as we have a regulator who has confirmed this. The loans are not transferable. The prominence of the disclosure is not sufficient for regulatory purposes and neither is it acceptable to identify the right clients by reference to retail clients treated as anything else. It was abjectly misleading for those reasons NOT TO MENTION the fact that there could be additional risk given a small pool of lenders who might have conflicts with the loaning company, who held consumer funds ON TRUST.

    PS on behalf of the Connaught Campaign I advised Guto Bebb of the APPG on the fund and gave him the questions that were used to raise a vote of no confidence against the FCA in Commons. The shenanigans there would leave you reeling as well. And that is WITHOUT reference to the fact that I put a strategy to Duff and Phelps in 2014 that would have kept egg off the faces of the then FSA and the administrators and it was buried amidst furies efforts to discredit me. How strange eh?

  48. Colin, my earlier response has not appeared – subject to moderator approval apparently. In brief I said that while I commend your activity, the FCA can’t move on until the Administrators have done their job.

    According to one ‘expert’ website I visited on the general subject of calling in administrators, they should be able to do an assessment of assets in 11 days. With LC&F’s complex financial structure extending to Malta I’m not sure if this kind of timeline can be achieved. However it was further noted that once assets are assessed it could still take up to a year to resolve who gets paid what.

    The Connaught crash and its 3 year+ timescale to resolve gives a good example of how long it can take, although the FCA was criticized for its delay in bringing the issue (of suspected fraud) to light in the first place. No explanation of why it took (is still taking) to resolve.

    Perhaps you can change your stance with the FCA to try to establish if they have a timeline? And by the way, they are not paid by us, but by fees they take from financial organisations who form the core of work they cover.

  49. Sorry. But again why it’s taking so long is simple math. If they issue findings now that indicate fraud they are implicating themselves for failing to act. If they say there was no fraud they make themselves look even worse because they imposed a fine of £55M on Capita after my colleague and I Campaigned for 5 years!

    Regarding this situation if you sit back and watch I can predict the outcome but it won’t be welcome which is why I am working with Brev here, journalists and Damn lies and statistics to ensure that you know that we are approaching a situation where you have a vote for a team of your choice.

  50. Q1: If insufficient assets to repay bondholders, could FCA/FSCS be made to redress for shortfall if bonds deemed as sufficiently misleading in terms of security?

    Q2: Will all bondholders be treated equally or might it depend on individual circumstances – type of bond, when bought, how marketed?

    Q3: This scenario is potentially more than double the losses of Connaught’s 1,200 investors. That’s taken 6 years to resolve. How can this be speeded up – what options do bondholders have to get quicker results eg with ‘team of choice’? How?

  51. Will and Jane: Like you Will I am learning as I go, in my opinion you seem to be falling into the same trap as Jane as far as the FCA is concerned:

    FCA on the ropes: your chance to land a punch
    Posted on January 24, 2016

    Connaught victims may have seen the House of Commons Adjournment Debate on 12 January. The Chairman of the Connaught All-Party Parliamentary Group, Guto Bebb, and MPs who’ve been following the case made some highly pertinent points and raised crucial questions about this long-running case.
    The Minister looked distinctly uncomfortable delivering a response that was clearly drafted by Capita’s pals at the Financial Conduct Authority, which we understand has taken the additional precaution of placing two of its employees on long-term secondment into the Minister’s office in a bid to shield her from any correspondence from the public that might contradict the regulator’s spin.
    Guto and Treasury Select Committee member John Mann have delivered another decisive blow this week by calling for a House of Commons debate into whether the FCA is fit for purpose, which will take place on Monday, 1 February.
    Scheduled for three hours in the afternoon rather than half an hour in the evening, it is likely to attract a lot more MPs and massively more media coverage. It will focus on three main regulatory failures

  52. Will: Good questions Will, for me neither the FCA or the administers have mentioned fraud, miss selling or anything else at this stage (that may change along the way). If it stays that way the company has amassed £236 million pounds from its clients so, the company and it’s assets needs to amount to over £236 million in order to pay back the clients the money they invested into the company.I believe that getting our money back in full is highly unlikely and the longer the case goes on the less we will get back especially since the financial services are taking out their share for administration first. The question is (as you say) priority of any payout? I think there will be a payout however small.

    As far as the FCA/FSCS paying out, I think that is unlikely, you might like to look up items 8 and 9 of the declaration you filled out to obtain the bond which ”indemnified LCF against loss”.

    My official complaint with regards to the LCA is about the time scale. I’m afraid others in our situation are not supporting my efforts so, the reply from the CFA is likely to be ;wishy washy’. Still ‘first blood’,

  53. With respect you seem to be ignoring what precipitated their fall: a Vreq. Connaught didn’t even get one, despite the investigation, and the only time they freeze assets is when they have direct experience of very serious misconduct ….

  54. Let’s try to put this complex scenario into perspectve – no holds barred, there’s an awful lot at stake and many, many vulnlerable people likely to be seriously hurt. It may well make the Connaught case look small by comparison – their 1,200 clients against our 14,000. £236m against £110m.

    Complaining to or about FCA is all very well but is in itself a long-winded process and end up, months/years later as no more than an upheld complaint with criticisms and recommendations. With due respect, complaints from individuals will be like using a pea-shooter against a sub-automatic, but 14,000 pea-shooters could do a lot of damage, changing peas for ball bearings.

    Jane is pointing to a campaign involving herself and others with prior experience of this kind of high profile dog-fighting, and to be effective nothing less, maybe a lot more, will be needed to make any headway. None of us want this dragged out, and expertise with clout has its costs, but more likely to help reimburse more xx pence per pound than letting matters take their own snail-like course.

    I will be looking in the direction that Jane – backed by her considerable experience – is pointing.

    I’d like to propose another suggestion that nobody has yet come up with but has huge potential – 14,000 potentials in fact, but needs coordinating to get as many of those to do so, and ideally ‘someone’ (sorry, not me) to compose the carefully worded and hard-hitting message needed.

    Each to send it to their MP, with strong reference to the painfully long-winded and unacceptable example of the Connaught case. That case eventually went to the Commons Select Committee for grilling – we can’t wait that long and need to get as many MPs not only in the know, but pressed by their constituent(s) for their input. It’s reasonable to suggest that potentially EVERY MP will be contacted.


  55. I can’t put the info here, but we in brief we are going to petition, apply to all MP’s and request an APPG on this scenario. I have to warn tho: we NEED the FCA. They have to sanction what I propose and I propose RSM: I have worked alongside the company for nearly 5 years and whilst they are a business the individual concerned has a lateral brain and welcomes unusual strategies. I did the same thing I always do: tried to get through to the admistrators and got fobbed off SO I am going public . I am going to show you their responses and then at the creditors meeting invite you to vote. That meeting should – if the press managed to raise awareness of this campaign – see members flood to this page so YOUR VOTE DOES COUNT. This is NOT an easy fix. I will work with Smith and Williamson BUT I am going to propose that RSM take joint appointment SO WE KNOW I HAVE ACCESS TO WHAT IS GOING ON. Otherwise you are going to be left in the dark WITH YOUR MONEY AT STAKE! Yes I will be paid BUT if I get paid it’s because the legal argument I bring to the table gets you additional recoveries. PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD! And beware any sites that are disparaging me. I am never going to be popular and the only thing they have to throw at this is that I’m in this for the money and I’m a leech etc… and I’m unregistered. I am indeed an unregistered barrister and I am NOT asking anyone for anything. Just support!

  56. Waste of time writing to MPs at this early stage because at the heart of this, as Jane says, is a fraud investigation and due process will need to be well and truly exhausted first. Better to contact Mr Lee and Mr Friedlander, the current owners and directors of Global Security Trustees Limited. A quick glance at Companies House suggests these guys are here to do a Winston Wolf on the alleged crime scene left behind by integrity challenged solicitor Richard Sedgwick and an opaque packet of Maltesers, so best engage with them early. Another much better influencer than your MP to contact are Andrew Hockey and David Peattie of Independent Oil and Gas and London Power Corporation. Get on to them to put pressure on their companies to prepare to return funds received from LC&F that may be the proceeds of crime. They have solid reputations to protect, no least with Mitsubishi and the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, unlike the Right Honourable Mr Hendry and Mr Hume Kendal, not to mention Mr Thomson himself and Mr Sedgwick, whose reputations appear to me to be beyond repair or worth protecting.

  57. Thanks Jane, for opening up and adding neccessary flesh to present bare bones. You are well informed and your advice should be respected.

    I beg to differ with NWOGaction regarding contacting MPs, if only from experience of my MP many years ago. When caring for my wife I claimed the higher Carer Rate but was ignored by DWP. My MP took copy of my letter to the Pensions Minister and within weeks got the higher rate. I have written to his successor on other matters and always got a reply to say (if case warranted) that it had been passed on. MPs ARE paid by us and NEED OUR VOTES so I firmly believe by contacting them personally, with a well-structured message but personalised according to the sender situation, it will have considerable impact. A lot to gain, nothing to lose. Publicity – almost certainly, and widely, once news of it gets out – and that shouldn’t be difficut to leak.

    I agree that fraud investigation is a due process and that’s my point, to help reduce the lengthy process it will likely take without ministerial and public pressure combined.

    What needs to be aimed for is weight of pressure from as many LC&F victims as possible, and that takes a coordinated and well organised approach. There are two Fb groups, but I have reservations about that organisation’s reputation for security, with members of the public perhaps unwittingly revealing more about themselves than is wise. It still might be the best means for gathering the troops together though.

    Also, there are petition organisaions such as Avaaz and Avaaz has a vast database of contacts.

    There is an army out there, 14,000 or so, that needs mobilising – with an experienced leader to guide them.
    So far a relative few are exchanging views and seeking strategies. With all that’s been contributed so far, perhaps some of the wiser heads can collaborate and come up with a strategy that best fits this situation.

  58. It needs to be pointed out that, parallel to our exchanges here there are those of victims who have registed with Facebook (not the Action Group).

    You need to be a bondholder to join (id needed of your bond type). There is now a discussion for setting up a Creditors Rights Committee, who “…ensure creditors have a ‘voice’ during the liquidation process. Creditors of an insolvent company often feel ignored in these circumstances, and that they have little influence on the proceedings or outcome.

    Forming a committee can address this issue, and help to ensure proper consideration is given to their interests and financial recompense. It brings increased transparency to a potentially complex situation, and its members can provide invaluable help to the liquidator by acting as a ‘sounding board’ for future decisions.”

    See this link for explanation:

    Unless Jane is a bondholder that rules her out, but doesn’t exclude what she is also suggesting by way of action.

    While not all bondholders may have a Facebook account, there are currently 856 members – quite sizeable and likely to grow. They are debating who should be on this committee, which doesn’t have to be made up of those with the largest bond holdings, although often the case.

    If any bondholder reading this has a fb account but has not yet registered, I recommend they do so. If no fb account It might be worth asking if they the group allows a family member with a fb account to act on behalf of their nominated relative by providing the same id needed to join.

  59. I meant to also recommend joining the fb Action Group where there is the opportunity to follow/support Jane’s plan. These two fb resources seem the best means at this point in time to ensure that we all get the best start possible in what’s likely to be a long and complex battle.

  60. I have a serious concern. Another one. The committee to which you refer is often a name only. And I am perfectly acceptable as consumer representatives as an agent by virtue of a proxy. This is my point: by telling you a position those of you without relevant knowledge simply accept what you are told. Instead I intend to ensure that what you are told is RIGHT! Not fallacy, half truth, blurred lines but the whole truth and nothing BUT the truth. It is this stance that makes me unpalatable. HOWEVER what anyone also had to bear in mind is that if I didn’t take my duties seriously – those of professional confidence I would not still be in business.

    In short I cannot agree that in the vast majority of cases the committee does you, the lay consumers, any good because relatively small breaches can see you excluded and you have no powers to influence the administrators. Ergo, your own appointed representative should go in and I propose RSM for joint position who will give me the ability to run the argument that I think will lead to additional recoveries for you all

  61. Thank you, once again, Jane, for putting the harsh realities of such situations bluntly from your personal experience. It must seem obvious, as it does to me at least, that independent and fully qualified representatives are better placed and equipped to cope with such high profile and complex finance/legal matters.

    We were not to know that you can act by proxy, just one example of how experience pays its own dividends. I hope that others are now, like me, feeling better informed, and be willing to follow this sound advice.

  62. Having said I support Jane, I have now consideraby bettered that judgement by watching her video on the Facebook Action Group page. Around 30 mins long, it is a MUST to see, explaining as she does just about everything you may have wanted to know, and certainly everything you should know, including much more that you didn’t know – and some matters you may wish you would rather not have known – but it’s all there.

    If you don’t have a Facebook account DO find someone you can confide in who does have Fb and watch her honest, straight-from-the-horse’s-mouth (sorry Jane) video. It is truly eye-opening.

    The link is here but you will need Facebook login AND Action Group acceptance to access it

  63. I have received interest from my bond over the last year with tax deducted by LCF. is anyone else in a similar position?. I wonder if there is any chance of reclaiming that tax since the tax we have paid now reverts back to capital with a loss.

  64. @ Colin Adams: Interest from a loan note whose issuer then goes into administration is still taxable as interest.

    If the loan is written off you can claim that as a capital loss if the loan is not a “qualifying corporate bond”. Capital losses can generally only be used to offset capital gains, not income. I can’t say for certain whether LCF bonds are “qualifying corporate bonds”, however either way, you definitely can’t offset any capital loss that arises against income tax.

  65. Should we not be keeping an track of the costs of the administrator’s activities and all other outgoings while our money is under administration? Is it not reasonable to request from the auditors a monthly account of every penny spent out of the kitty to employees of LCF, tax and so forth that will have to be paid before even considering offering a payout to the bond holders? I think that is an entirely reasonable request.

  66. Reasonable and mandatory. An account of the administrators’ costs will be included in the initial proposal and every six-monthly update thereafter.

  67. Sorry, who is Jane Sanders? I am a bit confused. I’m not an investor in LCF but have been reading posts elsewhere (can’t remember where) which also referred to Jane or Ms Sanders.

  68. I’m Jane Sanders and that’s very old news.

    Secondly, I’ve had a page running SINCE 2018 where that was disclosed TO a Bondholder that hasn’t tried to issue me with death threats BEFORE I met with Simon Hume Kendall.

    Thirdly the reason I met with Simon Hume Kendall is because I’m not afraid to tread where others tread simply because there is likely to be a threat to my safety – and there was. I met to find out some facts.

    Fourthly, thanks to the efforts of some good people on the page I set up, we have collated a good deal of information about the costs that Smith and Williamson – Bondholders’ non elected insolvency practitioner – have drummed up ( I, of course, have not been paid by Bondholders).

    Fifthly – no charges have been laid against these people so I wanted to know why.

    Sixthly – I was given permission, BECAUSE I had a page where there were Bondholders who were querying the activities of SW AND the defendants, to access the actual evidence upon which SW have levied MILLIONS of fees in Bondholders money, to draw a view on whether their allegations were exactly as presented and on the evidence, I disagree on various fronts.

    Seventh – I INFORMED the FCA of exactly what I was doing. And gave an undertaking that I would never take an instruction from a Bondholder OR take any fees at all from Bondholders and/ or any company running any claims for such matters which is relevant because I created a relationship with a law firm when it was apparent that the FSCS was NOT going to offer compensation — AND IT WAS NOT — to create pressure on the FSCS (and it worked) and give those who want help, legal help.

    Eighth it became apparent on reviewing the evidence that the actions that SW were taking on Bondholder behalf were astronomical in terms of costs. So I advised an insolvency practitioner to advise SHK on whether the company’s that SW were throwing money at i court could even sustain those fees. A professional opinion was given, and they could not. So the insolvency practitioner took an instruction to stop the fees going up and costing Bondholders more money and placed the companies into insolvency, where they should have been many moons ago AND MY COMPANY took a professional instruction to advise him on the evidence I had seen that was relevant to the two companies he was acting over. That was designed to SAVE Bondholders money as there is NO ASSETS within the companies and within the bank accounts NO MONEY. So again, I have a professional instruction to advise the IP on facts pertaining to a very complex matter, which has little hope of payment at the very least on facts as they stood and which I could only do because I was trusted to read evidence which I SHARED with a Bondholder AND the FCA.

    Lastly, JANE SANDERS was not given permission to TOUT for business. My company HELD regulatory permission to create a page to offer advice and, if I saw fit, services which could attract a fee. THAT was all disclosed ON the page , TO the FCA and TO the press. It was later removed as I needed to manage a conflict so I gave the undertaking to NOT charge or receive fees for Bondholders to the FCA and the Bondholders on my page, and simply continued giving legal advice for which I have legal permission as an unregistered barrister.

    In addition, Bondholders are DISGUSTED with the fees charged by SW.

    They are mounting an action to challenge as it has appeared at times that they have not been given all material information about their interests from SW, particularly on the content of millions in fees.

    And the press went to town because the lead lawyer acting for SW and Bondholders interests was accused IN COURT of forwarding a 1m bribe to the Met Police on another case, for which he escaped sanction thereafter, BUT SWAPPED SIDES AND WAS PRESUMABLY PAID – and SW are BEING INVESTIGATED on THIS CASE.

    Funnily enough, I answer questions directly and here, WITHOUT PAY OR HOPE OF PAY – but the whole team at Mishcon De Reya and SW who answer get paid when they do, apparently from BONDHOLDER MONEY. And yet the conflict of interest which I disclosed is apparently a danger to people whose data I do not hold, when I give PRO BONO advice and to PROVE my position I have given back my FCA permissions for my company to undertake FCA regulated claims activity.

    And yet I have been right about everything ; extortionate fees, unnecessary action in my view apparently costing unnecessary money, FSCS has begun paying compensation to many more people as I said HAD to be the case in 2018!

    Whilst i understand your issues, I
    Would have greater fear of the parties getting paid from my pot of money, when I have had 2.5% of the money I was promised, than a lawyer who has, as far as possible, amidst threats to her health, her family and her home, tried to be as transparent with all parties as time as progressed to push Bondholders towards their compensation at the FCA AND given free insolvency advice so they know what rights they have.

    Good evening ??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.