Icesave compensation payouts... how to keep the pressure up

meanmachine_2

innovate wrote: »

Imagine the Government/FSCS just sloped shoulders and paid us the FSCS guarantee now - - most, if not all of us, would then have to simply write off the maximum amount 'guaranteed' under the Icelandic compensation scheme because hell would freeze over before any of us individually would get our money back from Geir Haarde. That wouldn't be exactly good, would it.

We're not, never, or will ever get a penny from Iceland.

All that's being sorted, or not sorted out right now is the pretence of Iceland giving us own own money back (via the UK loan of 3bn). Simple as that.

cwcw

innovate wrote: »

hmh, I think there's a fair chance that the UK Government only have the £4bn (if it is that much) for 28 days from when they seized it - - ie. for another 2-3 weeks (see the post from the person who bothered to read through the legislation under which the assets were frozen).

As I said before, I am of the opinion that the negotiation position of the UK team trying to strike a deal with Iceland would be significantly weakened if there were no savers who are owed money by Iceland. That would potentially mean that all of the compensation has to come out of the UK tax coffers, and that just doesn't sound right because Iceland would be let off too easily.

They got no money to pay us right now - but they might have some in future. And they have goods they trade to the UK. So there is room for finding a way that they re-pay any loan that they might get from the UK in the interim.

If you or I default on our obligations, we have to pay it back somehow, at some stage. Why not Iceland.

Iceland are legally bound to compensate the money. The government can pursue them through the courts if they don't pay up. But such legal wranglings could go on for years or decades and it is simply not fair to expect citizens depending on their savings to wait that long, so the goverment should compensate in the mean time. Simple as.

shindigger

innovate wrote: »

hmh, I think there's a fair chance that the UK Government only have the £4bn (if it is that much) for 28 days from when they seized it - - ie. for another 2-3 weeks (see the post from the person who bothered to read through the legislation under which the assets were frozen).

As I said before, I am of the opinion that the negotiation position of the UK team trying to strike a deal with Iceland would be significantly weakened if there were no savers who are owed money by Iceland. That would potentially mean that all of the compensation has to come out of the UK tax coffers, and that just doesn't sound right because Iceland would be let off too easily.

They got no money to pay us right now - but they might have some in future. And they have goods they trade to the UK. So there is room for finding a way that they re-pay any loan that they might get from the UK in the interim.

If you or I default on our obligations, we have to pay it back somehow, at some stage. Why not Iceland.

Does that 28 day limit imply that you think this will be resolved within that timeframe? If so id say they need to get their finger out.
I would also suggest that Iceland know this, and are playing for time.
Their PM is a first class spiv. He was the finance minister runtil 2005.:eek:

nilrem_2

innovate wrote: »

Honest, why would you want to kick the people who are already helping us?
Would you rather negotiate with the Icelandic authorities yourself to get your money back?
Our Government have been very quick and unbeauraucratic so far by taking the burden of claiming directly from Iceland off us.

TBH The problem is that as the weeks go by and we keep reading stories and also negative posts from the doom sayers, some of us start to get anxious and concerned if we will actually get our money back, I think the FSCS need to keep updating and giving us assurance.
Up until recently I was happy to wait and really relieved that we would be getting our cash back but even my confidence at a successful outcome is waning.

innovate

shindigger wrote: »

Does that 28 day limit imply that you think this will be resolved within that timeframe?

No, it doesn't.

I just understand from an earlier post (by someone who has read through the legislation under which the assets were frozen) that the freeze just lasts for 28 days. This makes sense to me, because the freezing took place under some terrorist law, and we all know the max detention period under that law is 28 days.

It's quite conceivable that the Icelanders are stalling any progress until the 28 days are up, so they can get their hands on 'their' assets again - but that's just a guess from me (have read too many conspiracy novels, lol).

No idea how long it will take, of course I hope it will be weeks rather than months.

innovate

cwcw wrote: »

Iceland are legally bound to compensate the money. The government can pursue them through the courts if they don't pay up. But such legal wranglings could go on for years or decades and it is simply not fair to expect citizens depending on their savings to wait that long, so the goverment should compensate in the mean time. Simple as.

cwcw, I agree with you, legal proceedings could take years.

I don't agree with you, though, that suddenly those UK citizens who decided for themselves to put their money under a foreign jurisdiction should expect to be covered under UK jurisdiction. None of us has any legal claim against the FSCS for the first €20,887 of our Icesave money.

Said it before, and I say it again, I for one am very, very greatful that the UK authorities have taken on my claim on my behalf. They are the only ones who stand a reasonable chance to recover my money. If it takes them a few weeks to sort out how things can be done, so be it. Still a darned side better than the years it would have taken me to probably get nothing back.

Suppose the same really goes for basically all the UK icesavers - though if anyone knows any different, I'd be very interested ;-)

KingL

And if any rank-and-file employees of the FSA/FSCS are here reading these threads, then let's take a second to say thanks to them for their current and future efforts in getting our money back.

It can't be very motivating for them to be constantly reading about how cr*p the FSCS is while this high level planning/negotiating stuff is still going on and they can't do very much to help us yet.

qamwc1

KingL wrote: »

I have spotted a third possible opportunity for a 'peg' :

I was reading the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (y'know like you do) and it would appear that Freezing Orders only last for 28 days unless a resolution is passed in the Commons and the Lords to extend them.

<snip>

---

source:
Part 10: Procedure for making freezing orders
(2) A freezing order—
(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made;
(b) ceases to have effect at the end of the relevant period unless before the end of that period the order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament (but without that affecting anything done under the order or the power to make a new order).
(3) The relevant period is a period of 28 days starting with the day on which the order is made.


Budding Perry Masons (like me ) can see the full text of the Act here:http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_1

and the full text of the Freezing Order here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20082668_en_1

.

I wonder if the above is correct. Section 10 of the Act says to me that after the freezing order is made it must be laid before Parliament and approved by it - the 28 days limit applies to this. Section 8 says a freezing order lasts for 2 years.

innovate

good points, KingL - they are in the end just people like you and I.

(and just to avoid further speculations/assumptions: I am not an FSA/FSCS/Government employee, not a member of any party either. Just one of those many Icesave victims).

KingL

qamwc1 wrote: »

I wonder if the above is correct. Section 10 of the Act says to me that after the freezing order is made it must be laid before Parliament and approved by it - the 28 days limit applies to this. Section 8 says a freezing order lasts for 2 years.

Yes, I believe you are right. My point was that the order had to go through the parliamentary approval process somewhere around the end of October and that might provide an opportunity for raising press profile.