NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

BETRAYED

There is a proposal that in January 2010 a one day conference be held in a Ballymena hotel to learn about what a Mutual Society is and to have speakers on the subject.
1 Historyof PMS
2 What members/creditors of PMS can do in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
An advertisement re. event will be in News Letter early January.

crazymess

ONE QUESTION KEEPS ANNOYING ME?

WAS THE PMS ALLOWED TO LEND MONEY OUT?..................... - whether to churches, congregations, property developers or joe bloggs???????


WHY ARE THE FSA NOT TAKING FURTHER ACTION????????????? As per FSA website "doing activity that should have been regulated"

Either they were allowed to lend or not - now of course we didn't expect them to lend to big Property Developers (if this is found to be true), but where they allowed to LEND MONEY ON??? Was there a specific rule or law about this???? OR - WAS THERE NO LAW AVAILABLE? Why is the FSA taking no further action???

Bit strange that we are told by FSA - that PMS was doing something it shouldn't, yet no further action, and what for the Savers then? our problem - deal with it!!!! All seems very strange.


Perhaps the answer lies therein.

HOPE

Crazymness

The short answer re loans is yes.

If you look at Rule 3(b) of the Rule Book which deals with the objects of the Society - to create a source of credit for the benefit of its members at a fair and reasonabale rate of interest.

See also Section 4 - LOANS, ADVANCES AND IVESTMENTS

Note also where it states The Society shall not receive money on deposit.

crazymess

Hope

Thank you

However - I know you refer to the PMS Rule Book etc - don't think we can believe that any more - can we?

Certainly in the Brochure it states they would not speculate with our savings???????????????

Now question again is:

Was the PMS allowed to LEND money????????????

HOPE

Crazymess

The answer is still yes. When I joined the PMS many years ago there was a clause in that a member could not borrow more than £5,000. It was subsequently removed from the Rules. The PMS accountants had a clear legal responsibility to ensure that the aims and objectives contained in the Rule Book were adhered to and that the PMS acted within the law. Clearly the rules were bent and broken!! Nevertheless they remain the Rules of the Society as registered under the I & P Societies Act 1969 and 1976.

crazymess

Well then - why the case and need to be Regulated if the Ind and Prov Societies Acts of 1969 and 1976 allowed them to do so??

HOPE

crazymess wrote: »

Well then - why the case and need to be Regulated if the Ind and Prov Societies Acts of 1969 and 1976 allowed them to do so??

Crazymess

I do not pretend to be an expert but my understanding is that they were accepting deposits which within PMS Rules is prohibited. Under the Financial Services & Marketing Act 2000 and its predecessor the Banking Act 1987 to accept deposits you need FSA Regulation.

BETRAYED

HOPE wrote: »

Crazymess

I do not pretend to be an expert but my understanding is that they were accepting deposits which within PMS Rules is prohibited. Under the Financial Services & Marketing Act 2000 and its predecessor the Banking Act 1987 to accept deposits you need FSA Regulation.[/QUOTE


A lot of hype is being talked about regarding what PMS was doing wrong.
I believe that FSA, Gov. in London, Assembly in Belfast and HM Treasury are scraping the bucket to avoid addressing the dilemma we face.
Foster claims she only registered the Society and received their Annual Report and Statements of Accounts.
I have read that the Rule Book has to be approved by her Department.
Is that not admitting regulation.
The rule book allowed the issuing of shares and taking and making loans.
As regards 'taking deposits'. When a shareholder called at the office to
put in more savings if they had 20K in shares they were told that their money would have to go in as a loan to the Society. You got a small paper receipt for your cash or cheque and in a matter of days you got a 'Loan Certificate". In my opinion that was not 'Banking'.
I know the directors misled us regarding what they were doing with our funds.
One builder developer should never have got 11% of our total funds.
This in spite of directors stating that they carried out 'risk assessment'.
Members/creditors are entitled to be told by administrator and his legal advisers where and how PMS was in breach of legislation.

Grrrandad

I have to say that the only reason I keep coming back to this site is to see if anything positive has been posted. I need my money back and really I am so disappointed at the constant raking over of old coals.

Personally, I don't think that anybody in authorty ever thought that we would be left in the position we find ourselves today. I don't think they went out of their way to knowingly 'gamble ' away our money - why would they - it is not to say they were going to benefit financially on a personal level.

I do think however, they were complacent, ill advised and treated being a director of PMS something akin to being say, a member of Kirk Session.

I have read an increasing number of personal attacks on a lot of people , including clergy - and for me it really calls in to question the term 'Christian'.

I have been a Presbyterian all my life but to me a Christian is a bit more - we were always taught that to be a Christian you had to be born again - I am not, so maybe it's people like me who are doing the most of the shouting and name calling.

I started work at 16 and retired on my 60th birthday - I put all of my lump sum into the PMS, so in real terms, I have as much to lose as the next member, BUT, I see absolutely no point in dealing in 'if's and but's' , name calling and looking for someone to pin the blame on - I am sure all those concerned aren't feeling too clever anyway.

Let's hope that some good news comes soon and the 'healing' process can start.

HOPE

Grrandad - You are absolutely spot on. Raking over the past will not get us anywhere.

Something is bound to happen soon if recent letters are anything to go by. I am personally encouraged by the content particulary from the NIO.
Mr Woodward's certainly was sympathetic and positive. We could not have envisaged that 6 months ago. It is difficult but we have to hold ourselves together and hopefully our day will come in the not too distance future and we will get the justice that we so much deserve. Why would they go to all the bother of Working Groups and banks if they were not going to do anything. No news is good news.