NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

readyforaction

It looks as if you're ready for bed dmxdave!!

By the way - get over what?

We would welcome your constructive suggestions. Look forward to them.

crazymess

'The PMS is not a Building Society, nor a Bank like the Dunfermline Building Society, nor indeed is it a Credit Union - all of which have some degree of financial protection which I shall describe later in this email. The PMS is an Industrial & Provident Society into which people bought shares and invested risk capital. So they are not savers depositing money in say, the Northern Bank or the Progressive Building Society, but shareholders buying an equity stake in the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

All Banks and Building Societies are regulated under the Financial Services & Markets Act and all member organisations contribute a levy that makes them eligible for protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme overseen by the Financial Services Authority. (This is the scheme that guarantees savers up to £50,000 of their deposits.) But being an Industrial & Provident Society PMS was not permitted to take deposits as an IPS such as the PMS is prohibited under the legislation from carrying on any banking activities. You will understand that I can't comment on the relationship between the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the PMS, nor how they marketed the PMS to potential investors as that isn't a matter for Government. I do understand however that the Administrator of the PMS said in his report that he was assisting the Financial Services Authority with enquiries that they are making into how the activities of the PMS were run.

The legislation governing the IPSs is the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. This was an Act of the old Northern Ireland Parliament and means that the governance arrangements for IPSs such as PMS are devolved to Northern Ireland and are not matters for Whitehall Departments like the Treasury. So any assistance or financial guarantee for investors in PMS would have to come from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) which sponsors the IPS legislation.

You also mention Credit Unions, it is important to point out that a Credit Union is another type of organisation entirely different to banks, building societies and Industrial & Provident Societies. Northern Ireland Credit Unions are devolved and so (like IPSs) are the responsibility of DETI who legislate in respect of them.

'

'Again let me again express my sympathy for you and your family. We have received many other letters from investors who are in a similar situation and it is very sad to see the distress that has been caused but I regret that all can do is point out the facts and advise that responsibility for legislation in respect of the the PMS is a matter for DETI in the devolved administration in Stormont to consider'



JUST THOUGHT IT WAS TIME TO REMIND YOU ALL OF THIS PREVIOUS REPLY FROM SHAUN WOODWARD!!!!

DON'T FORGET YOUR LETTERS TO MRS ARLENE FOSTER - SHE AND THE PCI ARE KEY TO THE RESOLVING OF THIS SITUATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sickasaparrot

Ards Clerk of Presbytery is Alan Russell


arussell@presbyterianireland.org;

readyforaction

Agree with you crazymess

let's recap the 3 point plan reminder and keep the pressure on.

1. Creditors vote for creditors' rights. PCI can work out their plan to help the shareholders.

2. Write to Arlene Foster and DETI. They have responsibility and accountability in sorting this out too. Surely our devolved government need to be earning their votes.

3. Contact Clerks of Presbytery who can convey the hardship stories and the sway of disappointment and disgust at PCI's treatment of their 'church family'

amadan22

dear readyforaction, at any stage has the pci suggested there's a plan to help shareholders or if they're even willing to do so? did i miss something?

Dr._Who_2

This would be the difficulty I would forsee. Does PCI have the money to help shareholders in PMS even if there was a decision to do so. Such a decision could only be taken by the General Assembly.
We hear the figure of £40 million + mentioned: this money does not, in fact, belong to PCI centrally - it is money from Congregations invested in the PCI "General Investment Fund" which cannot be accessed as it belongs to Congregations. Do we sell Church House? And Union College? Guysmere at Castlerock? Various other smaller properties in Belfast? What would these properties realise in a depressed market? Do we have yet another "assessment" on Congregations? Can't see that being accepted!!
Should we halt the renovation of church House - perhaps that wouldn't be a bad idea and would set an example although the present exterior work is needed to make the building safe. I imagine someone would come up with an idea as to how the money needed could be raised but it's a high risk strategy with no certain outcome for the shareholders. Perhaps better that everybody sticks together - others may not have abided by the principle of "mutuality" on which PMS was based and withdrew money in a panic but let US not abandon the principle.
Why, by the way, is there no word FROM those individuals and congregations who withdrew large sums of money and started the problem in the first place? Or from Banks some of whom, it is emerging" "enticed" people to remove money from PMS and place it with their institution? Does this amount to an attempt to bring down a competitor? Not very moral, is it!!

pensiongone

Dr._Who wrote: »

Perhaps better that everybody sticks together - others may not have abided by the principle of "mutuality" on which PMS was based and withdrew money in a panic but let US not abandon the principle.

Dr Who
I'm afraid all notion of mutuality disappeared out the door when Donald Watts did his best to wash his hands of the situation in late November.


It was not very moral of PCI to encourage Presbyterians to save with PMS for 26 years, then walk away declaring that they were two separate legal entities. PCI were quite happy for savers to put their money into the PMS, and build up the infrastructure of the church, at very favourable rates under the illusion that they were supporting their church (as we were told).

Dr Who
The links between the two organizations are too numerous to mention here, but I will gladly email them to you if you PM me.

Lets not forget that Church House knew about the situation with PMS at least 2 weeks before the savers did. They were not "shocked" they had plenty of time to prepare their story and their tactics.

Denial, legality and the tactics readyforaction has described, do not change the fact that PCI are morally culpable, and I think they know that!

And we know that they know that!

crazymess

Dr Who????

On the one had you want us to lobby the Elders and Clerks and those who will be attending the General Assembly - then on the other hand you tell us that Church House wouldn't have enough money to sort this out.

The PCI should not then have got involved and promoted us to save within their church - PLEASE SEE JON-GROOVY'S SIGNATURE.

The PCI - whoever that may be - whether it is all the Presbyterians in Ireland or Church House SHOULD NOT HAVE PROMOTED PMS - THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE GOT INVOLVED WITH THE PMS - AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT - WE - ALL THE SAVERS WOULDN'T HAVE GOT INVOLVED EITHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember Dr Who - there is a lot of money in the PMS belonging to congregations - like there is a lot of money in Church House belonging to congregations - like for like - ditto ditto !!!!!!!!!!

We are suggesting the PCI would need to borrow - on an interest free loan against all of their properties - for say the next 50 years to resolve this very serious issue - then instead of us giving to a BUILDING FUND - THEY CREATE A REPAIRING THE WHOLE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND FUND - and through the donations they pay back their huge loan. I don't think they will then ever get involved - or let their name be used again for a FINANCIAL ORGANISATION - they might then stick to what they know best -

They would need to stop say perhaps doing overseas work, mission work in Ireland - whatever it takes as their own family are suffering here.

D.A.

crazymess wrote: »

They would need to stop say perhaps doing overseas work, mission work in Ireland - whatever it takes as their own family are suffering here.

Terribly selfish attitude. Whilst I accept that many are genuinely suffering because of the PMS mess, there are many people overseas being helped by PCI who are in much much worse situations than virtually all PMS investors...

brick

crazymess wrote: »

PLEASE SEE JON-GROOVY'S SIGNATURE.

I'm sure this is old hat, and I recall debate on radio as to what "availing of services" meant, but it is indeed hard for the ordinary person to read a resolution of the following nature as anything other than a clear recent (2008) encouragement to save with and/or borrow from PMS.
At least by any fair minded person who trusted and respected church hierarchy (of which there were/are many among PCI membership).

From http://www.presbyterianireland.org/assembly/pdfs/bmi.pdf

"That the General Assembly congratulate the Directors of the
Presbyterian Mutual Society on its continuing success and encourage
Congregations and individuals to avail themselves of its services."