NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

OldJohn

Where have all the Posters gone?

Ballygal

Beginning to think i was all alone here and there was no point talking to myself!!
I have my mother's copy of March Presbyterian Herald in which Mark Orr answers questions. For example he says that no director took money out prior to the collapse.Would anyone like to see it? I don't suppose there's an easy way to put the 2 pages up here other than me scanning and people sending me a Private Message request. Let me kow what you think!

crazymess

Isn't it interesting all has gone quiet!

This whole situation shocks me still to the core -

The time is coming soon - and we will have to vote - to pay the creditors first - those with over £20,000 - as is the law - or to change the law and vote mutually - everyone treated equally -

Its very interesting that the PCI and by this I mean those in CHURCH HOUSE - still try and wiggle and wangle out of this situation - saying as I understand in the Pres Herald - that its not just PMS savers suffering at present but its all over the world.

This may be correct however we, Presbyterian Savers were not speculating all over the world - we were saving through our own church - this was promoted to us and now we are left out to dry. Some people had serious concerns about this last year and decided to do nothing. We are left to fend for ourselves, - why do you forsake us at this time?

I therefore say to all savers - you have a choice - do as the hierarchy of the PCI have taught us in the last four months to do -
LOOK AFTER YOUR OWN INTERESTS, YOUR OWN NEEDS - because those in Church House are sticking to the legal word and not helping nor seem to have any intention of helping us out of this situation.

They want us to sort it out and hopefully they will get along without too much damage.

This Hardship Fund - PCI stop saying you have one in place when really its not Hardship related to the PMS savers - you are trying to wiggle and wangle out of this whole situation - but truth will come to bear in the end.

Nomad25

How much does PMS owe PCI - enough to put the church coffers in the poop?

LOOK AFTER YOUR OWN INTERESTS, YOUR OWN NEEDS

No, no. Your faith will have taught you different and you'll feel bad if you go against this. Look after each other - don't allow the few rotten apples in the PCI barrel to change the basic decency of its congregation - or to tarnish their core beliefs.

Please don't anyone start quoting passages from the Bible, but I am sure there will be appropriate words to be found in there, which give guidance and wisdom for such a situation.

Mags52

I have only ever posted one comment of here when some people said that there were people who were not Presbyterians had invested in PMS. My comment was to say that I knew people who were refused.

Thank you to those people who have posted very helpful,solid and accurate comments.

I am moved to this post because I am shocked and saddened and the last two. In fact they have moved me to tears. I am perplexed as to why people think that because PCI have made a monumental blunder, others who are small investors should suffer through the 'look after yourself' attitude.

I am involved in pastoral care in my church and the stories I have heard are heartbreaking. I ask you, should the wee couple who have saved for their wedding in the summer, the old lady who has saved for her funeral, the student who saved summer earnings to pay for his university fees, or the man who's helping his brother's family as their daddy is terminally ill and can't work all be forgotten about when you are voting to have your money back first? These people are probably amongst many hundreds of small investors who can ill afford to loose anything. I just pray that all of you who perhaps don't need their first £20,000 will think of these people as well as yourself and keep mutuality central to this issue.

crazymess

Mags

Fully agree with all that you say -

I have posted about this some three months ago and struggle with it - but you cannot forget those who are currently being taken to court for non-payment of bills, taxes, vat payments - unable to pay for their daughter's wedding - the man who was unable to pay for his wife's funeral ........

The list is endless - people put money in the PMS because it was the Church and it was safe - if the PCI are now saying its not legally them - then surely this is no different than defending your position for example if you were owed money from Woolworths.

Each and every person will need to make their own minds up on this - the sad thing is - is that there is nowhere to turn for help.

Maybe PCI will read this and help us and then no-one will be in this awful and sensitive situation of making horrendous choices.

pensiongone

Mags52 wrote: »

I have only ever posted one comment of here when some people said that there were people who were not Presbyterians had invested in PMS. My comment was to say that I knew people who were refused.

Thank you to those people who have posted very helpful,solid and accurate comments.

I am moved to this post because I am shocked and saddened and the last two. In fact they have moved me to tears. I am perplexed as to why people think that because PCI have made a monumental blunder, others who are small investors should suffer through the 'look after yourself' attitude.

I am involved in pastoral care in my church and the stories I have heard are heartbreaking. I ask you, should the wee couple who have saved for their wedding in the summer, the old lady who has saved for her funeral, the student who saved summer earnings to pay for his university fees, or the man who's helping his brother's family as their daddy is terminally ill and can't work all be forgotten about when you are voting to have your money back first? These people are probably amongst many hundreds of small investors who can ill afford to loose anything. I just pray that all of you who perhaps don't need their first £20,000 will think of these people as well as yourself and keep mutuality central to this issue.

Mags52
Sadly the situation we are in now, will set Presbyterian against Presbyterian
Those with a larger amount of money invested in the PMS cannot necessarily “spare” £20,000.
Nursing home fees are going to absorb that amount in less than a year.

May I respectively ask what your congregation have been able to do to help the very sad situations that you describe. I know you have obviously supported pastorally, but have your congregation been able to help financially in a meaningful way to restore the funds of the young couple getting married this summer, or to financially help the family of the terminally ill man?
I wonder have Church House been approached for financial help in these situations?
If they have please would you share what the response has been to an obvious desperate need.
I have heard that the Hardship Fund has now been relegated to a loan?
Is that your experience?
I would love to hear that is not the case.

You say the small investors can ill afford to lose anything.
I would suggest that there are very few people who can afford to lose anything.

I have been bitterly disappointed by the initial and subsequent reaction of Church House in distancing themselves from the financial hardship of the PMS savers. They claim to have little “free money” yet The Times reported on 28th Dec a general investment fund of £43M, other reserves of £20M which could be brought into play, and a site in Lucan valued at £4M to £6M.


You say Church House have made a “monumental blunder”
Monumental blunders can be apologised for and put right, sadly that has not happened.

When the time comes for the vote, I will do the sums, and I will unashamedly vote for the situation which suits my circumstances and my family
Mutuality will not feature in my decision.


I do hope when the time comes to vote, that Church House will not seek to influence the outcome.
After all as a completely separate legal entity who have done nothing to ease the financial plight of PMS savers, they have absolutely no right!

goodbyepci

Mags52
The stories you tell are heartbreaking.
I can't for the life of me understand how PCI can turn their faces away and say they have little money available.
There must be hundreds and hundreds of such stories repeated over the whole island.
But as crazymess says, people have to defend their position as if they were a supplier to Woolworths, and they have every right to do so.

pensiongone quoted the figures which were openly in the media in December, the money PCI has at their disposal, those figures have not been disputed by PCI.

We have just been told the money is legally inaccessible and that little money is available.

I find that impossible to believe.

D.A.

goodbyepci wrote: »

We have just been told the money is legally inaccessible and that little money is available.

I find that impossible to believe.

Well, you'll have to believe it, since it's the truth. Read the article in the Herald again; much of that money is from bequests, etc. which do not allow it to be used for any purpose other than that for which it was given.

goodbyepci

D.A. wrote: »

Well, you'll have to believe it, since it's the truth. Read the article in the Herald again; much of that money is from bequests, etc. which do not allow it to be used for any purpose other than that for which it was given.[/quote

If the money is sitting in investment funds, not being used, then what is the purpose for which it was given?