FSCS/Icesave EMAIL WINNERS?

NonGeographicalMan

bryanb wrote: »

The continuation of my fixed term accounts is a bonus for which I may even vote Labour next time round. BB

I am disappointed to hear that your vote is that easily bought.

gelato_cat

And therein lies your problem. Do you believe everything you read in the papers?! When you signed up, Icesave asked if you'd read the T&C and you said yes. But you didn't, and now you're blaming them for not including the information in their adverts.

Bleat all you like, but it's nobody's fault but your own that you chose to listen to other people rather than educate yourself - especially if your cash is as important to you as you imply.

Suze

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

It was stated in the articles written by various journalists in early 2007, including Martin Lewis who owns this website. It was clearly stated in those articles that Icesave was fully covered up to £35,000 compensation like other UK deposit takers. There was no mention of the Passport scheme and relying on Iceland for the first £15,000 at that time. That only seems to have started in April 2008 perhaps when some concerns about the Icelandic economy viz the banking crisis began. Unfortunately that was over a year after I deposited with Icesave and my eye was not on the Icesave ball at that stage as I was busy with other things. When I deposited originally Icesave looked totally secure.

I didn't wade through pages of type 2 font of Iceave terms & conditions but I did follow what the national press and people like Martin Lewis were saying and they all said depositors in Icesave had their money covered up to £35,000 the same as other UK deposit accounts.

Icesave's staff in Newcastle were liars because when I spoke to their customer service line in Newcastle in 2007 their staff said if you were worried about the £35,000 compensation limit all you needed to do was open further accounts with no more than £35,000 in each one and they didn't mention the Passport business. They suggested that one of their customers had opened 10 Icesave Instant Access accounts for that very reason. I knew that was untrue but I thought that was just staff in a call centre being stupid. At no time was it ever put up front by Icesave in any marketing literature when I originally invested that around 3/7th of the total compensation scheme amount was subject to a different compensation scheme run by the Icelandic government and that the FSCS only cut in after that. My understanding was that it was like buying electrical goods from a Chinese supplier in Britain from a legitimate source. That is they still have to comply with British rules and safety standards.

You may say you knew different but I would suggest most people who invested in Icesave didn't and that Icesave deliberately hid it because if most people had known about the inferior compensation arrangements and relying on the compensation scheme of a nation with only 300,000 citizens they would have thought twice and not deposited their money with Icesave. It is clear Icesave were conmen in terms of their selling methods. But the FSA let this happen as they were selling in the UK through UK newspapers with full FSA regulatory approval. That is why the government is now picking up the full tab (apart from the interest after October 7th). Would the FSA have let an Iraqui or a Syrian bank market in the UK in the way Icesave did - no of course they would not. Icesave abused the priviliges of being in the wider European Economic Area to deliberately missell the product and its protective features. Again the government knows that whic is why it feels it has to step in and pick up the tab.

bryanb

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

I am disappointed to hear that your vote is that easily bought.

It's not as bad as it seems. They have no chance in this constituency.

NonGeographicalMan

bryanb wrote: »

It's not as bad as it seems. They have no chance in this constituency.

Apologies also for there being no simley after my previous comment about the voting issue as there obviously should have been.:o

NonGeographicalMan

Suzey wrote: »

What did I say there that was either untrue or insulting to you?

You said:-

And therein lies your problem. Do you believe everything you read in the papers?! When you signed up, Icesave asked if you'd read the T&C and you said yes. But you didn't, and now you're blaming them for not including the information in their adverts.

Bleat all you like, but it's nobody's fault but your own that you chose to listen to other people rather than educate yourself - especially if your cash is as important to you as you imply

Pretty inflammatory wouldn't you say.

I have savings with Icesave and I was aware of the passport/FSCS setup when I signed up in November 2006. So I'm in the same situation as you

So obviously reading the Terms & Conditions didn't do any good at all then did it due to the powerful recommendations exhorting us not to put up with low rates of interest by Martin Lewis & numerous other journalists.

You only suggested it was my own fault for not reading the Terms & Conditions to try and look clever and smug didn't you. Come on admit it.

gelato_cat

Given the fact that you seem to be very emotional over the Icesave thing, then yes you would be more likely to take heart at my comments. But nothing I said wasn't true. I was offering an alternative point of view which you obviously weren't interested in hearing.

The point you made originally, that I was responding to, was that nobody told you about the passport scheme and it wasn't in the adverts. Whether or not I read the T&C is immaterial to this. What I am saying is that if you had bothered to read them, you would have been aware and (presumably) would not be in this predicament now. So despite what you may think, you did have some control over the situation. The difference is that I took an informed risk and you (by your own admission) took an uninformed one. Now you are looking for someone else to blame. I'm not. Nothing clever about reading the T&C - you don't even have to go and find them, the bank shows them to you as part of the signup process!

Smug? No. I'm just sick to the back teeth of people blaming others for the decisions they make. You and you alone are responsible for where you put your money. I'm entitled to my opinion, same as you are - you've no right to tell me to "crawl back under my stone" and stop posting.

Suze

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

You said:-



Pretty inflammatory wouldn't you say.



So obviously reading the Terms & Conditions didn't do any good at all then did it due to the powerful recommendations exhorting us not to put up with low rates of interest by Martin Lewis & numerous other journalists.

You only suggested it was my own fault for not reading the Terms & Conditions to try and look clever and smug didn't you. Come on admit it.

tuggy12

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

How sad it is that there are always people like you in forums like this who crawl out from under their little stones to revel in the misfortune of other people.

I read up extensively on the parent bank and its reputability or otherwise after reading the recommendations of Martin Lewis and others and only then did I place my money with Icesave. I did not read all the Terms & Conditions in illegibly small print because Terms & Conditions usually tell you very little other than that a lawyer is reserving the right for the organisation to vary the terms and conditions in any way it likes at any time and that the relationship is one sided and lets the organisation you are with change the fees etc at any time.

I am perfectly sure you don't read from end to end the terms and conditions of every single product you buy but that what you do always enjoy doing is preaching a load of hypocritical and sanctimonious humbug to other individuals to give some of warped and sad emotional satisfaction to yourself.

Please go and crawl back under your stone rather than trying to deliberately flame people trying to have a constructive disucssion about the Icesave issue in this thread.:mad::mad::mad:

Rather then abuse anyone who dares question your self proclaimed superior knowledge, why don't you take the points raised and respond to them in a calm, reasonable and logical manner.
Being a public forum, people are entitled to comment and disagree with your posts without being subject to your personal abuse.
It seems to me you are carrying the problems of the world on your shoulders.
Lighten up man and have a beer:beer:

NonGeographicalMan

Suzey wrote: »

Smug? No. I'm just sick to the back teeth of people blaming others for the decisions they make.

Well its perhaps a pity you didn't lose all your money then so you could enjoy taking the loss of your money on the chin content in the knowledge that you had read at least read the Terms & Conditions properly.!:rolleyes:

gelato_cat

Hallelujah! :beer:

Suze

tuggy12 wrote: »

Rather then abuse anyone who dares question your self proclaimed superior knowledge, why don't you take the points raised and respond to them in a calm, reasonable and logical manner.
Being a public forum, people are entitled to comment and disagree with your posts without being subject to your personal abuse.
It seems to me you are carrying the problems of the world on your shoulders.
Lighten up man and have a beer:beer:

gelato_cat

Yeah... :rolleyes:

And you had the brass neck to call me warped!

I repeat, I knew what I was getting into, I knew the Icelandic economy was not good, and I carried on. I took a risk which luckily did not backfire. You took a risk, you're getting your deposit back, and still you're complaining.

I don't know why I bother trying to reason with you, you clearly don't respond well to it.

Suze

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

Well its perhaps a pity you didn't lose all your money then so you could enjoy taking the loss of your money on the chin content in the knowledge that you had read at least read the Terms & Conditions properly.!:rolleyes: