IceSave

nicholbb

It was a claim but applications weren't needed because of the way it was done.
B&B was put into liquidation by the FSA and FSCS (and probably government) which triggered the ability to access the FSCS funds. The compensation cash was put into the bank which was then sold on to the spanish (which is why they only paid 600 million for the bank - which came with 200 million opperating costs and 18 billion of deposits).

Because people didn't lose their cash they didn't have to apply.

bit more info:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...Bradford-and-Bingley-main-points-of-governments-move-to-nationalise-the-bank.html

Gareth56

renard wrote: »

This present unpleasantness is the first time the compensation scheme has had to be invoked, but if ever a UK bank does go bust, we may find him doing the same again.

Do you honestly think that if a UK bank or two goes bust then the depositors of those banks will get ALL their back!!!!! So why does the government and the FSA say that you'll only get £50K back or are they just pulling our legs!! Which is it £50K or ALL our money? If the government were going to guarantee ALL depositors' money if a UK bank went bust why haven't they have said that and wouldn't that be stated on the FSA's website?

Your statement "we may find him doing the same again." says it all

Cheers...mate!!

magicdogsbrain

Gareth56 wrote: »

Do you honestly think that if a UK bank or two goes bust then the depositors of those banks will get ALL their back!!!!! So why does the government and the FSA say that you'll only get £50K back or are they just pulling our legs!! Which is it £50K or ALL our money? If the government were going to guarantee ALL depositors' money if a UK bank went bust why haven't they have said that and wouldn't that be stated on the FSA's website?

Your statement "we may find him doing the same again." says it all

Cheers...mate!!

If he said "ok we will guarantee all depositors", the press would ask him how this was going to be funded if all the banks go down. He would not be able to answer the question (because it simply is not possible).

During this crisis - I think he will bail depositors out completely (unless many banks go down) - so my advice is to put as much as you can into the highest rate - dont split it up into lower interest accounds for protection.

I think the icesave bailout for depositors with more than 50K is realy unfair to those of us who split it up with the remainder in a lower interest account.

renard_2

Gareth56 wrote: »

Do you honestly think that if a UK bank or two goes bust then the depositors of those banks will get ALL their back!!!!!

I didn't say that.

None of we mere mortals, and probably not even the great GB or AD, knows exactly what will happen over compensation if a UK bank goes bust.

The stated guaranteed limit is now 50K.
AD has announced his intention of breaking this limit in respect of Icesave.
He is under pressure from some quarters to extend that guarantee to all accounts, as other countries have done.
I and other people here (and elsewhere) have merely observed that his actions over Icesave may have set a precedent that he may have to follow if (heaven forbid) British investors face losses elsewhere.

You really should calm down. Getting over-excited is bad for the health, especially in these alarming times.

Mr._H_2

renard wrote: »

The stated guaranteed limit is now 50K.
AD has announced his intention of breaking this limit in respect of Icesave.
He is under pressure from some quarters to extend that guarantee to all accounts, as other countries have done.
I and other people here (and elsewhere) have merely observed that his actions over Icesave may have set a precedent that he may have to follow if (heaven forbid) British investors face losses elsewhere.

Actually, the precedent was set by Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. In the case of NR, it was nationalised, with B&B the FSCS was used, but not in the way that most people would have expected. Some reported that Santander "bought" B&B savings, but they didn't really. Would you pay to owe hundreds of thousands of people a total of £14 billion? Thought not. Neither did Santander. They bought B&B's infrastructure (their branches), but were given £14 billion via the FSCS to cover B&B's savings deposits. That £14 billion will be repaid via B&B's mortgages as they're repaid, and interest on the loan that the FSCS had to take to raise £14 billion will be paid by the 700 institutions that are members of the FSCS. (see here).

I agree with an earlier comment that it's unfair to provide everyone with 100% compensation. The £35,000 limit (now £50,000) was clear and well-defined but now the tax-payer and anyone with a savings account (via lower interest) or mortgage (via higher interest) (so pretty much everyone) is going to have to pay over-the-odds to cover the new "100% of everything" limit.

Jays

I thought I had it cracked.

I followed the news carefully last week, spotted Iceland was going down financially.

On 6 October, logged onto my Icesave account, transferred the over £44600 (left £3.00 to keep the account open). Icesave confirmed the transfer, it was still shown as transferred yesterday (8 October).

Should have arrived in my current account today, but it didn't!!

Logged onto Icesave and, lo and behold, they had 'corrected item posted 6/10/2008' and paid it BACK IN!!

Needless to say, I am fuming.

And now waiting to hear from FSCS.

Grr

JimmyTheWig

magicdogsbrain wrote: »

I think the icesave bailout for depositors with more than 50K is realy unfair to those of us who split it up with the remainder in a lower interest account.

I can see your point theoretically, but I am not sure I agree with you in practice.
I don't know if this actually covers you or not, but lets say you are someone with, say, £100k in savings.

Scenario 1. You had £100k in Icesave, getting the top rate.
Scenario 2. You had £50k in Icesave and £50k elsewhere in the next best rate.

Which scenario would you rather be in right now? Having to go through FSCS to get all your savings or having to go through FSCS to get half your savings but a little bit down in interest?
I know which one I'd choose - scenario 2. So I would be greatful for the rules which encouraged me to split my money up.

Gareth56

magicdogsbrain wrote: »

If he said "ok we will guarantee all depositors", the press would ask him how this was going to be funded if all the banks go down. He would not be able to answer the question (because it simply is not possible).

During this crisis - I think he will bail depositors out completely (unless many banks go down) - so my advice is to put as much as you can into the highest rate - dont split it up into lower interest accounds for protection.

I think the icesave bailout for depositors with more than 50K is realy unfair to those of us who split it up with the remainder in a lower interest account.

So as usual this fool of a chancellor doesn't know what he's talking about. In one breath he says that you'll get £50K back but if a bank goes bust you may get more. Which is it, ALL your money or £50K or does it depend on how many banks go under? Talk about dithering, other countries seem to be able to get a responsible grasp on this matter but here in the UK choas and confusion reigns supreme.

Gareth56

renard wrote: »

You really should calm down. Getting over-excited is bad for the health, especially in these alarming times.

I can assure you my health in fine. I haven't become a rate tart and put in jeopardy my savings for the sake of a couple of extra % by putting it in foreign banks. I sleep very well at night

DigitalJedi

Gareth56 wrote: »

So as usual this fool of a chancellor doesn't know what he's talking about. In one breath he says that you'll get £50K back but if a bank goes bust you may get more. Which is it, ALL your money or £50K or does it depend on how many banks go under? Talk about dithering, other countries seem to be able to get a responsible grasp on this matter but here in the UK choas and confusion reigns supreme.

I'm not seeing dithering here. He has said that in these "exceptional circumstances" all the savings are guaranteed. He's not legally obliged to do so but many here are breathing huge sighs of relief here because he did so.

So in short, on this occasion he is waiving the rule but doesn't mean he will in future.

As I've said before, the govt are not doing this out of any sympathy for us but to restore the missing confidence in the system. They're doing this purely to avoid a recession. A recession that may cost a lot of people their jobs, family and home. Those who are moaning like billieo just pause for one second and think that it could be you who ends up losing your job and on handouts. It could be you who loses their loved one through the stress or ends up ill as a result.

People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Gareth56 wrote: »

I can assure you my health in fine. I haven't become a rate tart and put in jeopardy my savings for the sake of a couple of extra % by putting it in foreign banks. I sleep very well at night

Those who put their savings with Northern Rock or B&B. Were they rate tarts? You'd be dancing to a different tune if the shoe were on the other foot. Its easy to be smug isn't it when you haven't nearly lost your life savings. I hope you don't have to go through what many people had to over the last few days.