GOOD NEWS INTEREST WILL BE PAID - if you're unhappy about this- GET OVER IT!

john_holgate

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

But it is the Labour party's fault in this country.

13 reasons you're not feeling so lucky after eleven years of Brown

1. Brown lies about his intentions and then sells half our Gold reserves, established over centuries, at the 20-year bottom of the market and fritters the proceeds away
2. Brown raided all our pensions and frittered the proceeds away
3. Billions and billions wasted in the public sector, as witnessed by anyone who works there
4. Brown breaks pledge not to raise income tax by increasing NI contributions to pay for the above waste. Affects the poor more than the wealthy.
5. Elderly people robbed of their homes and savings to pay for care that they were told (by Labour) decades ago would be free
6. Homes impossible for young people to buy, and hopelessly-out-of-step stamp duty crippling for prospective owners of even modest homes. HIP makes things worse, not better.
7. Countless billions wasted on a war in Iraq with no legal basis or even any objectives. (Soldiers and families treated like scum by the MOD and NHS. Compensation for crippled veterans pitiful).
8. EU rebate dismantled - we now contribute even more to pay European farmers NOT to produce food. There are global shortages and have you seen food prices recently?
9. Fuel-tax, car-tax, road-tax all increased in real terms. Public transport still hopeless and costs more than ever in real terms.
10. Nothing done by the treasury to check on the health of other banks FOR A WHOLE YEAR AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF NORTHERN ROCK! Hundreds of billions of tax-payers' earnings suddenly gambled in panic-stricken, last-ditch rescue attempt!
11. FTSE100 lower today than 01 May 1997, when Brown took over the economy! And that's not allowing for inflation!
12. National debt now 50% of GDP! High inflation will erode this, though!
13. Brown's windfall taxes on privatised industries merrily passed on to consumers...

So how have things improved with all this taxing, borrowing, selling and spending?

• Can't get in-hours appointment or out-of hours home visit from your own GP.
• NHS, Police, DSS, you name it: still none of them have a working national computer.
• Life-expectancy predicted to decrease for the first time ever due to child-obesity.
• Roads more congested than ever. Motoring costs outrageous. Public transport awful and costs an arm and a leg (not much help when there is nowhere to sit).
• CBI and universities distrusting of school qualifications that apparently just get "better" every year.
• Armed forces decimated and overstretched.
• More surveillance cameras per capita than anywhere else in the world.
• Citizens menaced by petty fines at their every move.
• No-one thinks it's worth reporting crime.
• ...and the clincher: The UN names the UK as the worst place in the industrialised world for a child to be brought up in.

Everybody happy? :T

Nick_C

john_holgate wrote: »

If you are so clever, then why are you so unhappy that IceSave's customers are being given the same protection as Northern Rock's?

People who saved money with Northern Rock were covered by the UKs FSCS.

People who saved money with IceSave had their initial €20,000 covered by an Icelandic scheme.

Why should the UK government have to pick up a foreign country's obligations?

I would have thought any sensible person depositing money in an overseas bank that offered higher interest than UK banks would check the facts first, establish the risks, and not expect other UK taxpayers to bail them out when it all went wrong.

As you said, the FSA could not prevent IceSave operating in this country as they were authorised in another EEA state.

Daft_Monkey

Nick_C wrote: »

People who saved money with Northern Rock were covered by the UKs FSCS.

People who saved money with IceSave had their initial €20,000 covered by an Icelandic scheme.

Why should the UK government have to pick up a foreign country's obligations?

I would have thought any sensible person depositing money in an overseas bank that offered higher interest than UK banks would check the facts first, establish the risks, and not expect other UK taxpayers to bail them out when it all went wrong.

As you said, the FSA could not prevent IceSave operating in this country as they were authorised in another EEA state.

I bet FSCS were happy that in theory they wouldn't have to foot the bill for the initial £16K if the bank folded.
Tell me what makes ICICI (or whatever is called), ING and nowadays Abbey, A&L , B&B etc. any different, from Icesave apart from the depositors protection schemes?
What about the Post Office Savings?
I'm really fed up reading all those "offshore", "foreign", "high-risk investments".

LGG_2

good news thanks for the info everyone. funny how u can spot the redneck daily mail readers a mile off. well it made me smile today:j

Nick_C

Daft_Monkey wrote: »

Tell me what makes ICICI (or whatever is called), ING and nowadays Abbey, A&L , B&B etc. any different, from Icesave apart from the depositors protection schemes?
What about the Post Office Savings?
I'm really fed up reading all those "offshore", "foreign", "high-risk investments".

Absolutely nothing, but surely the level of protection offered should be a key consideration when deciding where to put your money? Having said that, the fact Abbey is fully covered by the FSCS makes it, in my view, a little less foreign than Icesave, which relied on the Icelandic govt making good an impossible guarantee.

john_holgate

Nick_C wrote: »

People who saved money with Northern Rock were covered by the UKs FSCS.

People who saved money with IceSave had their initial €20,000 covered by an Icelandic scheme.

Why should the UK government have to pick up a foreign country's obligations?

I would have thought any sensible person depositing money in an overseas bank that offered higher interest than UK banks would check the facts first, establish the risks, and not expect other UK taxpayers to bail them out when it all went wrong.

As you said, the FSA could not prevent IceSave operating in this country as they were authorised in another EEA state.

As I'm sure you know, Northern Rock's customers had only £35K FSCS protection and that would have been all they got had the government let the bank fold. Instead, a precedent was set in many ways by nationalising the bank (cost: £50bn) to protect all depositors.

Iceland is the only NATO member with no military of its own. We should be used to paying to look after the Icelandic's by now!

But seriously, the government has a duty to protect UK citizens from the illegal actions of all foreign organisations on UK soil. It is compulsory for EFTA member states to pass statutes on basic consumer protection. It is also unlawful to prefer any creditor of an insolvent business in the UK which is what Iceland's government attempted to do.

I don't see why people are getting upset that the government is stepping in to enforce the law.

We have today used anti-terror legislation to freeze the assets of Icelandic businesses in the U.K. (bringing down another bank in the process) to get security over the outstanding deposits, and this will hopefully result in recouping the compensation due from Iceland.

This is perfectly proper and protective of IceSave's creditors, the UK taxpayer, and public confidence in the financial system. With luck the ball is now back in Iceland's court and the likely cost to the treasury: £nil.

To blame depositors is very harsh: most of them will simply have picked IceSave from a list in a Sunday paper.

A savings account is harldy a sophisticated investment tool and it is not fair to expect anything more than the most basic level of consumer knowledge for such a product. To expect anyone to become suspicious about a bank because of its name is just silly - no-one with an HSBC account researches the scale of the PRC national debt, nor should they have to.

This is a major regulatory failing in my opinion since I feel that Brits have been allowed to open accounts with IceSave without it being made at all clear that they account was not regulated in the same way as a regular UK account.

Mr._H_2

danny69 wrote: »

Completely no relevence whatsoever. People have deposited money into a bank that was always seen as risky. If you look at old threads then you will see many had the opinion that they would not invest in these offshore accounts. The whole thing was run online, no UK branches I believe (?) and then they want sympathy when things go wrong?! The UK taxpayer shouldnt have to foot this bill, it should be the Icelandic Government and their taxpayers. They were the ones reaping the rewards of this (profits and jobs), let them cough up, even if it takes years.

Danny, I'm sick of your ignorant spouting.

For a start, we did not "invest" in ICEsave. Saving and investing are two completely different things. If we were investing, we would have been buying shares. We were not investors in ICEsave, we were customers of ICEsave.

Next up, the accounts were not "offshore accounts". ICEsave operates in the UK, is/was regulated by the FSA, and signed up to the Banking Code. Yes, it had a foreign parent, but so what. Would you refer to Abbey accounts as "offshore accounts"? How about those of HSBC or ING Direct?

The bank was not always seen as risky. There was the usual xenophobic hate-filled claptrap from the Daily Mail a long time ago, but to anyone who cared to investigate, they'd find that the experts who asses risk day-in day-out for their (highly paid) jobs at credit agencies had given Landsbankii an AA credit rating; there are only two ratings that exist above that. So even the experts (not bigoted Daily Mail journalists) considered Landsbankii to be sound.

As it stands, how do we even know that Landsbankii was genuinely in trouble? Maybe it was taken over by the Icelandic governement in order to try and save the Icelandic economy rather than to save the bank.

Having said all of that, I do think that ultimately it should be the Icelandic institutions and taxpayers who cover the first €20,000 of each ICEsave, and Heritable (assuming that they also operated under a passport scheme) deposit account as that is what the compensation scheme promised. In the meantime I don't think it's unreasonable to hope/expect the UK government to come to the rescue given that Iceland are completely unable to pay at the moment. I also think that only up to £50,000 in total should be covered, but the problem here is that if that were to happen it could cause a serious confidence crisis on the part of the general public and potentially lead to more damaging runs on other institutions.

ed123_2

....what I find strange is that Heritable was sold to ING and not Icesave both being part of Landsbanki?? Given that Darling was a darling for covering the 20k euro's which those cod war barstewards renegaded on...

[Deleted User]

To all those who have an axe to grind about icesave interest being paid ..... Tough! We're getting it!!!!!! muhahahaha!!!!:D
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
:j :j:j :j :j :j :j :j :j :j :j :j :j :j :j :j

Justice!:beer:

narrowboat_2

drsue wrote: »

A member of another forum has spoken to the FCSC and they have said interest will be paid until Icesave folded at the Icesave rates and thereafter until money is refunded at the FCSC rate which is quoted as something between 3.5 and 4%.

I had been wondering about payment of interest so this is really good news. However, I also have a 12mth fixed rate account due to mature late November and interest is due on maturity - what is the chance of getting the full interest due? Any ideas.

It is helpful to have so much input via these threads and to know we are not alone!