NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

BETRAYED

Erskine Holmes March 2009

But not everyone accepts the Presbyterian should be bailed out. Erskine Holmes is a Co-operative Press director and attentive observer of the mutual scene in Northern Ireland. He is not persuaded the Treasury or FSCS should compensate members of the failed Presbyterian.
“Why should they?,” asks Mr Holmes. “The Presbyterian should sort this out. They were speculating. They were running an unregulated deposit and loan operation. Buy-to-let, commercial lending, building sites. The investment figures, the money they brought in, doubled in three years — from £160m to £300m. They had 9,000 investors.”
But, the problems at the Presbyterian highlight a much wider weakness. In particular, it has emerged the UK’s FSCS also does not cover credit unions in Northern Ireland, because of a vagary in the law.

Flinflon

I've just sent the following e-mail to the treasury committee, having learned that has decided to hold a hearing--at very short notice--in Belfast, re the PMS:


Attention: Select Committee Chairman Rt Hon John McFall

Unless I had observed the many years of cavalier treatment adopted by
Westminster toward the people of Northern Ireland, I would have found it
difficult to believe your committee would have the arrogance and blatant
rudeness that it has displayed by providing such brief notice to those of us
affected by the failure of the PMS. My wife and I are savers with the PMS. In
this e-mail I will be asking very specific questions, and I respectfully ask you
to provide very specific answers to them.
Your members have been aware for a long time—six months minimum—of the details of this issue, and that it has affected thousands of us. Yet it was not until
12 January that you announced there would be a hearing on 18 January. How do
you expect all or most of us to properly prepare a detailed and effective
representation in such a short period? Why could a longer period of notice not
have been provided?
I note that your schedule provides that at 12.30 a.m. (should be p.m.—no?) your
select committee has provided time to hear “those affected by the PMS failure
and their representatives.” One can’t help but conclude that you have left this
point purposely vague. “Those affected” number some 9,500. Yet nothing in your
announcement indicates how you possibly hope to cram “those affected” into the
Senate Chamber. I’ve been there a few times. Maybe you haven’t, but I can
assure you it doesn’t seat anywhere near 9,500 people. So how do you intend to
provide a fair representation of our points of view, considering that (a)
you’ve provided an insulting period of notice and (b) there is very little room
for everyone? I note further that there is no designated closing time to hear
from “those affected.” Do you intend to sit all afternoon? Into the next day?
Why didn’t your notice provide some indication of the hearing’s duration?
Perhaps you can correct some information I heard from a fellow saver: He told
me he understands your group has actually invited very specific savers or groups
of savers, and/or their representatives to appear under the rubric of “those
affected.” Maybe that’s not accurate—but would you advise me of same? I
certainly hope that you would have nothing to do with orchestrating or approving
such a cozy little arrangement, Mr. Chairman. If you did (and I give you the
benefit of the doubt at this point), perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me
why, and how such individuals or groups were selected by your committee. In other words, unless your group is quite prepared to hear any and all
representations made by “those affected”, what is the alternative that has been
decided upon? And, assuming that my information is at least broadly correct,
why was that not made clear in the 12 January statement or at an earlier point
in time?
Like many people, Mr. McFall, I am fed up to the teeth with cozy arrangements
which are orchestrated primarily to make things easier for government, its
institutions and quangos to deal with the public—to the extent that the
interests of the individuals directly affected take a distinct back seat. And
may I say, with respect, that the details of the announcement of this hearing
bear the distinct hallmarks of such a disingenuous attitude.
We are hurting, Mr. McFall. By this time (more than a year after the PMS went
into administration), some savers will actually have died. Others are in
straits that are becoming more desperate every day. I and many of my fellow
savers desire—nay, demand—a solution to this whole problem. That solution must
be rapid, effective, sincere and fulsome. Mr. McFall, you and your fellow
committee members have before you an opportunity to hear our outrage and our
suggestions, to reflect our feelings and ideas to the public and our elected
representatives, to find out why this mess happened and to see that a solution
is put in place as rapidly and effectively as possible. Please seize that
opportunity. And please answer the specific questions I have posed in this
e-mail.
Thank you.

amadan22

things would be so much better if arlene's "emergency legislation" had been aimed at this "vagary in the law" rather than rush in administration. anyone know how the lady got on without oil or prepared to take charity? if she liives anywhere like myself, that's a very, very tough call!!!

abeliever

Flinflon

Are you aware that this is the second time that the Treasury Committee has taken evidence re PMS in Belfast? Members of this forum have previously had the opportunity to present evidence at Stormont; the Treasury Committee is well aware of the real hardship that does exist.

Whilst accepting that "notice is short" - J McF & his committee have, in my view, taken a real interest in PMS (& JMcF has regularly highlighted the plight of PMS savers).

We need the support (& inputs) of the members of this important committee.

Lester_F

abeliever wrote: »

Flinflon

Are you aware that this is the second time that the Treasury Committee has taken evidence re PMS in Belfast? Members of this forum have previously had the opportunity to present evidence at Stormont; the Treasury Committee is well aware of the real hardship that does exist.

Whilst accepting that "notice is short" - J McF & his committee have, in my view, taken a real interest in PMS (& JMcF has regularly highlighted the plight of PMS savers).

We need the support (& inputs) of the members of this important committee.

Abeliever is correct.

Flinflon's e mail reads like it was written by a crank. (Sorry, but that's my opinion)

joylikes2shop

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-troubles-fail-to-stop.5986622.jp

BETRAYED

Flinflon wrote: »

I've just sent the following e-mail to the treasury committee, having learned that has decided to hold a hearing--at very short notice--in Belfast, re the PMS:

Flinflon
I can understand the frustration felt by youself and your wife. This is shared by many others.
A certain number of people at an earlier date were party to the information that the Treasury Committee were to meet on Monday and arrangements were made for representative representation on that date.
I certainly saw no press notice.
It is however worth noting that it was after your e-mail to John McFall on Thursday14th that everyone who had ever written to the Treasury regarding PMS got an e-mail the next day, Friday 11.25 am.
I don't consider you are a 'crank'.
A number of us who post on this forum and share information in a genuine attempt to help often suffer ridicule from others.

BETRAYED

Newsletter 18 Nov. 2009

Writing in the News Letter this week, the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, John McFall MP, said he would like to see the Church and Stormont give financial support to a potential rescue package.

"I would like to see a solution agreed between the Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Church, with a proportionate contribution from all three to support the affected savers," Mr McFall said.

"I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that this happens."

Clarifying his comments, Mr McFall said he was putting forward his opinion in the article and "not necessarily reflecting the intentions of the Government or the current state of the negotiations".

He also said he wanted to underline his call for "proportionate contributions" by which he meant that "whatever solution is agreed, a substantial majority of the funding would come from the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive".

joylikes2shop

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Treasury-committee-to-hear-PMS.5989121.jp

BETRAYED

Moderator to be at Stormont

http://www.staffordcarson.com/2010/01/patience-prayer-and-the-pms/