HJ Collection / Hunter Jones: FCA Court Action Update

Update, October 2026: The FCA has filed High Court proceedings against Osborne Baldwin Limited, trading as Hunter Jones and its owner, Reece Mennie, alleging the six HJ Collection SPVs and the loan notes they have issued are a Ponzi scheme. It wants the HJ Collection companies to repay investors immediately or be placed into liquidation, and a restitution order to compensate investors if the investors are not repaid in full through the redemption of the loan notes. Below we pull out the key findings from the FCA's court filing and what investors should do now.

The claim is at an early stage. Everything below is an FCA allegation that the defendants can contest and the court has not yet decided.

What this means for investors in short

It is very unlikely that things have got to this stage unless the FCA felt it had a strong case. Prior to this action, we’ve been contacted by a number of investors who were not being paid their expected returns. We’ve had success giving free support to investors in taking debt recovery action. When pressed, we’ve seen the Hunter Jones entities pay our clients the returns they were owed. 

However, this is a much bigger problem and that former approach is very unlikely to succeed going forwards. Our view is that eligible investors need to now pursue Authorised Push Payment (APP) claims through their bank - something that Refundee specialises in. We have recovered over £150m for investors via this process and it is generally the best option people have to get their money back in a case like this. Legal proceedings, at this point, are very unlikely to yield results due to the higher upfront costs and uncertainty around success. Should this go into an insolvency process, the insolvency practitioner will have rights to many of these legal actions. 

We understand that many investor agreements have not yet matured; however, you need to take action now to avoid missing very important deadlines to make APP scam claims which are ruling out investors from reimbursement every day now. To discuss this in more detail, please get in touch in the first instance by filling out our online form or giving us a call on 0204 525 4600. 

Who the FCA is suing and what it alleges

The FCA has brought a High Court claim against two defendants:

1. Osborne Baldwin Limited, trading as Hunter Jones (company no. 08744562) – the firm that sold the investments.
2. Mr Reece Mennie – sole director and shareholder of Hunter Jones since 21 December 2018, and sole director and controller of every HJ Collection SPV.

The loan notes were issued to investors by six special purpose vehicles (SPVs): HJ Collection Ltd (HJC1) through to HJ Collection 6 Limited (HJC6), Mr Mennie sits at the top of all of them.

The FCA's core allegations are that Hunter Jones, without authorisation:

• Arranged deals in the loan notes. It sent contracts, took payments, ran anti-money-laundering checks and agreed bespoke rates and terms.
• Gave investment advice – Excerpts from the FCA action show that brokers told investors the notes were the best option and steered them away from alternatives.
• Made unlawful financial promotions – via Google ads, social media, YouTube and in-person events open to the general public. Refundee attended investor pitches including one at the Bristol Landlord Investment show on 1 October 2025

The most serious allegation is that the FCA alleges that money from newer loan note rounds has been used to repay earlier investors rather than fund the advertised property projects. In its own words: "This is a Ponzi Scheme." Naturally, if the FCA allegations are true, there will not be money to repay investors as investor money was not used for revenue generating activities. 

The key part of the FCAs court submission - how investor money appears to have been used

The allegations go way beyond the fact that HJ Collection was only operating without authorisation. While that is a serious allegation in itself, what is more alarming are the numbers underneath.

The FCA has openly alleged that this is a Ponzi scheme and has some figures that support these allegations.

How investor money was supposed to be used

In short, property development. Allegations made suggest that property was largely bought through finance and bridging lenders rather than using investor money. If correct, it would be impossible for HJ to generate the returns it purported to be offering given the highly leveraged property. It is also impossible to see how HJ senior management wouldn’t have known this, especially as allegations include suggestions that properties were often unfinished, in disrepair or had no signs of construction at all. 

How investor money was allegedly used

The allegations go through each of the six HJ Collections SPV’s HJ  and explain that investor money was being used to refinance the old schemes (pay off previous investors).

If correct, this is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme which would make this an Authorised Push Payment fraud. 

Of course, a Ponzi scheme is rarely a Ponzi scheme without self-enrichment. The FCA's analysis suggests Mr Mennie received about £9.77m net. A very serious allegation. 

What this means for investors

If the FCA's figures are right, investors still holding HJ Collection loan notes are very unlikely to be repaid at all from the property assets given the extent of the refinancing of assets and the lack of work on many properties. Three points stand out from the filing:

• The "security" may be worth far less than promised. Investors were told notes were secured by a debenture over each SPV's assets. But the properties appear to sit in subsidiaries, other companies or Mr Mennie's own name, and bridging lenders hold first charges over them. Those lenders are paid first, and some are already enforcing.
• Rollovers deepened the exposure. Brokers were paid more for persuading investors to roll over rather than take their capital back. This essentially increased the overall indebtedness of the group of companies. 
• A liquidation would mean shared losses. If the court orders liquidation, assets would be divided equally among noteholders after secured lenders. Recoveries are likely to be negligible in comparison to the losses. Naturally, if a Ponzi scheme has been undertaken, money is spent, laundered or used to repay previous investors leaving little left. So there is almost inevitably a lack of funds to pay investor losses. 

Our view is that all of this means your best option is to go down the APP scam reimbursement route through your bank and the Financial Ombudsman Service

Banks will almost always reject Ponzi cases as "civil disputes" with a genuine business, or say that they cannot make a decision until the court case is finished. This is something Refundee has seen time and time again. In reality, banks are supposed to conduct a review and make a balance of probabilities decision. Historically, we have seen that regardless of the weight of evidence, banks generally refuse reimbursement. This means that your rights may need to be enforced by going to the Financial Ombudsman Service. You can either do this yourself for free, or join other investors who are using Refundee. For this case we charge a reduced fee of 15% + VAT subject to a cap of £10,000 on a no-win no-fee basis. However, some investors need to act very fast even if your loan has not yet matured to avoid missing important reporting deadlines. 

What investors should do now

1. Check your bank-claim deadline first. For payments made on or after 7 October 2024, you must report to your bank within 13 months of your last payment. If you made payments to HJ Collection 5 or HJ Collection 6 in late 2025, that deadline may fall in late 2026. Payments before 7 October 2024 fall under different rules without that tight limit. If you paid after 7 October 2024 you shouldn’t take any chances and should report this as an APP case to your bank ASAP. Refundee can also do this for you if you get in touch. 
2. Gather your evidence. Keep loan note certificates, Information Memoranda, bank statements showing each payment, and every email, WhatsApp, voice note or call log with your broker. Note the dates of any rollover or reinvestment.
3. Write down what you were told. Note any promises that the investment was "safe", "secured" or "guaranteed", and any pressure to invest quickly. These echo examples the FCA cites in court.
4. Watch out for recovery scams. Fraudsters often target victims of collapsed schemes with offers to buy notes or recover money for an upfront fee. Check any firm on the FCA register before engaging.
5. Take action: You can go alone by complaining to your bank and the Financial Ombudsman Service yourself for free. Or, Refundee can do this for you on a no-win, no-fee basis. We charge 15% + VAT subject to a cap of £10,000 + VAT and you only pay once you have your money back.