Icesave - lobby your MP NOW

mybrainhurts

This is all looking less funny by the hour. Landsbanki is said to have major holdings in UK companies which it is likely to sell in order to repatriate the money. the Iceland PM is openly suggesting that the country may go bankrupt. It is obviously right that all Landsbanki assets if not all Icelandic assets in the UK should be frozen immediately by the UK government until the Iceland government has given express assurances that funds are in place sufficient to compensate all UK depositors in the event of Landsbanki failing. Go to http://www.writetothem.com/ to find out who your MP is and write to him now. Before you go to bed.

nicholbb

mybrainhurts wrote: »

This is all looking less funny by the hour. Landsbanki is said to have major holdings in UK companies which it is likely to sell in order to repatriate the money. the Iceland PM is openly suggesting that the country may go bankrupt. It is obviously right that all Landsbanki assets if not all Icelandic assets in the UK should be frozen immediately by the UK government until the Iceland government has given express assurances that funds are in place sufficient to compensate all UK depositors in the event of Landsbanki failing. Go to http://www.writetothem.com/ to find out who your MP is and write to him now. Before you go to bed.

Wow a crazy person posted! I had written some arguments but as you are obviously a completely clueless person I suggest everyone ignore this post till it disappears.

1echidna

Interesting. My subsidiary question would be what power (if any) does the FSCS have in terms of its hold on Icelandic Bank's assets in the event of danger of/or actual default? It has issued them with a license to operate in the UK, does it have any power over their operations?

mybrainhurts

I don't know. My hope is to create political pressure on the government. I do know that if this were a straightforward legal claim not between government entities the courts would very probably grant an order for seizure on the basis that the finer legalities could be considered at leisure at a later date.

You have nothing to lose by writing to your MP. I have done so and this is what I have said:

am a depositor with Icesave the uk internet branch of Landsbanki the Iceland bank. My funds are in a one year fixed term account so that I cannot withdraw them until june 2009.

I made my deposit with Icesave on the basis of their representation that in the event of the bank's failure I would be compensated for the first Eur 20,887 of the loss out of a prefunded scheme administered by the government of Iceland.

The Prime Minister of Iceland is widely reported today as having said that both Landsbanki, and the nation itself, are seriously at risk of bankruptcy. Even more worryingly it is widely reported that the fund out of which the claim will be met contains about £88m to cover probable claims of the order of £13.6 billion (The Times Oct 7). It is difficult to regard the fund as prefunded in any useful sense of the word.

In the circumstances I consider that I and probably many other UK depositors have been induced to make deposits with the bank on the basis of a fraudulent or at least reckless misstatement on the part of the bank as to the guarantee arrangements in place. It is clearly right that Landsbanki's assets in the UK, reported by the press to be substantial, should be frozen forthwith by the UK government pending clarification as to the protection in place for UK depositors.

Yours sincerely

[My real name]

1echidna

I wish someone with knowledge would comment. Seizing assets is quite a serious step and could perhaps set off a chain reaction regarding the seizure of assets by countries to nobody's benefit. Would the Icelanders retaliate by seizing foreign owned aluminium smelters for example?

Rhymsta

On a similar note... I'm sure it was on the news that although depositors are going to be compensated 100% in the event of an Icelandic bank failure - it would only be Icelandic investors that would be covered. Surely there must be some European law that prevents a bank treating its customers differently based purely on their nationality?

noh

Rhymsta wrote: »

On a similar note... I'm sure it was on the news that although depositors are going to be compensated 100% in the event of an Icelandic bank failure - it would only be Icelandic investors that would be covered. Surely there must be some European law that prevents a bank treating its customers differently based purely on their nationality?

Whenever was Iceland in Europe?

occamsrazor

Rhymsta wrote: »

On a similar note... I'm sure it was on the news that although depositors are going to be compensated 100% in the event of an Icelandic bank failure - it would only be Icelandic investors that would be covered. Surely there must be some European law that prevents a bank treating its customers differently based purely on their nationality?

It's nothing to do with nationality, it's where your account is located. UK savers have accounts located in the UK with the UK subsidiary of the Icelandic bank. Icelandic savers have accounts in Iceland.
If you as a Brit had a bank account with a branch in Iceland you would be covered by the Icelandic 100% guarantee.
The same is true for all British banks' branches in Jersey, Isle of Man etc - you are not covered by the UK compensation scheme even if you are British.

mybrainhurts

1echidna wrote: »

I wish someone with knowledge would comment. Seizing assets is quite a serious step and could perhaps set off a chain reaction regarding the seizure of assets by countries to nobody's benefit. Would the Icelanders retaliate by seizing foreign owned aluminium smelters for example?

I was at one stage a commercial lawyer. If the claim was between non-governmental companies I would say the case for a seizure was pretty strong. But that doesn't matter: it is the government's call, not yours or mine. My intention is that the proposal should be put in the public domain for discussion so that our government can be embarrassed into protecting our interests. No one has anything to lose by writing to their MP.

nicholbb

Wow most people don't seem to understand that a savings account is an investment and what that means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment

I'm sorry but people have to start taking responsibility for their actions and their investments. I assume that you willingly put your money into the bank because it had a high interest rate not because you had a gun to your head? Well higher return = higher risk.

If you read the terms and conditions before you opened the account then you knew the risks were that your savings were protected by the Iceland government, if you didn't then you deserve what you get.

Finally the bank has not gone into liquidation if you are that scared TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT!:mad:

1echidna

mybrainhurts wrote: »

I was at one stage a commercial lawyer. If the claim was between non-governmental companies I would say the case for a seizure was pretty strong. But that doesn't matter: it is the government's call, not yours or mine. My intention is that the proposal should be put in the public domain for discussion so that our government can be embarrassed into protecting our interests. No one has anything to lose by writing to their MP.

I take your point. I feel that although lip service is often paid to the small man (there being many of them and they have the vote as well as, in many cases, most to lose in terms of hardship caused by loss of savings) the larger players have more clout and will always push themselves to the front of the queue. I don't like the sound of the Icelandic government repatriating assets in the UK to Iceland if they are needed to meet their liabilities to UK retail savers. However I can't imagine that the authorities here are unaware of these considerations. I shall sleep on deciding to write to my MP and see what else is said in this forum and elsewhere.