IMPORTANT! FSCS Icesave payouts to start in November...

Patr100

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

Unfortunately these aggressive but very active trolls seems to make up a remarkably high percentage of MSE forum regulars (that is the people with more than 1,000 posts each).

My theory would be they are people with no savings themselves who are jealous of those who do have them and who are thus enjoying trying to ratchet up the current pain, suffering and misfortune of the Icesave investors.

There's "trolling " and there's people who actually have a different view to the stuation that you happen to.
Rather than"assume" but make the effort to actually read my previous posts and you'll find I am an Icesaver with a substantial amount . I just didn't moan and complain and challenged the notion that among other things:
1.Martin should have been held personally responsible for the original listing and hold my hand constantly since the Icesave crash.
2. That we should be entitled to interest from Oct 7th
3. That the FSCS didn't move fast enough and should not have used email to initiate the compensation.

If you bother to trawl my posts you'll find that contrary to Dan66's statement most of my 700+ posts have been friendly helpful and supportive - it' s only on the recent Icesave issue have I taken issue with some.

You obviously didn't have a clue what my circumstances were so your "theory " needs to be filed under fiction/fantasy .
But please take his advice and ignore my posts in future ....

kenshaz

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

And have you thought of the costs involved if they had to write to all 300,000(?) account holders? It is/was an internet based bank after all so it makes sense that it is all sorted out via internet/email

I believe that this poster also feels that controversy is the dish of the day.

NonGeographicalMan

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

And have you thought of the costs involved if they had to write to all 300,000(?) account holders? It is/was an internet based bank after all so it makes sense that it is all sorted out via internet/email

About £150,000 depending on the deal they get with the Royal Mail and the cost of printing the letters and buying the envelopes. A mere pin !!!!! in the vast ocean of Icesave cost. And I don't suppose these email incompetents are doing the job for nothing. I bet they are charging at least £20,000 or so.

Patr100

kenshaz wrote: »

I believe that this poster also feels that controversy is the dish of the day.

Hmmm.. Nice ..because it challenges your view you attack the poster but don't even attempt to address the point they make.

Patr100

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

About £150,000 depending on the deal they get with the Royal Mail and the cost of printing the letters and buying the envelopes. A mere pin !!!!! in the vast ocean of Icesave cost. And I don't suppose these email incompetents are doing the job for nothing. I bet they are charging at least £20,000 or so.

£20,000 is cheaper than £150,000 but both are arbitrary figures you have no real evidence for. The fact is you do not know the real cost but since they are, in your opinion "incompetents" anyway, even if they did it for nothing it wouldn't be good enough.

NonGeographicalMan

Patr100 wrote: »

£20,000 is cheaper than £150,000 but both are arbitrary figures you have no real evidence for. The fact is you do not know the real cost but since they are, in your opinion "incompetents" anyway, even if they did it for nothing it wouldn't be good enough.

My point is its a drop in the ocean compared to the total cost and the job is about doing it right and not just about doing it as cheaply as possible. I bet you none of the accountancy or IT staff involved are working for free or on minimum wage.

Dan_66

Patr100 wrote: »

Hmmm.. Nice ..because it challenges your view you attack the poster but don't even attempt to address the point they make.

Hmmm......The phrase 'Pot and Kettle' springs to mind here methinks!


OOOPs, I'm soooooo trying my best to ignore your teadious postings on this subject but your ability to shoot yourself in the foot in this choice example [above] has lured me into replying to you!:D

noh

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

About £150,000 depending on the deal they get with the Royal Mail and the cost of printing the letters and buying the envelopes. A mere pin !!!!! in the vast ocean of Icesave cost. And I don't suppose these email incompetents are doing the job for nothing. I bet they are charging at least £20,000 or so.

Why do you label them incompetent? I have seen nothing to support that accusation.
If you examine the headers of the email and past marketing emails from Icesave you will see that they have been sent by the same organisation Highford Solutions Ltd
Newcastle Building Society are obviously being paid a fee by the FSCS to manage the process and have used the same email marketing company that they regulary use.

Nigel

NonGeographicalMan

noh wrote: »

If you examine the headers of the email and past marketing emails from Icesave you will see that they have been sent by the same organisation Highford Solutions Ltd

It is precisely the fact that the FSCS leave matters in the hands of the same bunch of incompetents that got us in to this mess in the first place by saying that opening 10 accounts increased your investor protection 10 fold that inspires no confidence. The FSCS is a prestigious rescue scheme of last resort and I expect them to employ the most competent email house in the land who guarantee they will get the email there and not have it classed as spam.

However as it happens none of the previous Icesave marketing emails from hearfrom.come were trapped as spam so clearly something very wrong was done with this email to cause the problem. It may as some others have suggested be to do with the language in the email about sending money to us. To avoid this all they needed to do was send us a link to a web page with the announcement about how our funds would come back to us in an email and the email would then probably not have been trapped as spam. But the bottom line is that sending emails is not a robust enough method on a matter of this importance when it is vital that every single depositor is reached. Despite the hang ups some of you have about using the post a postal letter explaining the eventual process would be to log on to one's online account and trigger the transfer would have been a more robust method without all the spam blocking problems.

Newcastle Building Society are obviously being paid a fee by the FSCS to manage the process and have used the same email marketing company that they regulary use.

Well their email has been almost universally classed as spam but they have not so far addressed either the problem content or sending process that is causing this and then resent the message to everybody. I judge these matters by results and Newcastle Building Society's Mailing House (Hearsay) have clearly failed on a spectacular level here.

cozmic_power

Well their email has been almost universally classed as spam

i hate spammers