NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

freddiemae

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/225m-for-PMS-39not-.6231715.jp


Reading this article it seems to say the hardship fund is not limited to the small savers.

It is anticipated that the fund would be administered by a panel who will consider applications from PMS members and award payments based on individual circumstances, not just those with less than £20,000 saved.

The £50m would only go half-way to pay off smaller savers, a problem currently being considered.

Excap123

expat68 wrote: »

Re. the hardship fund. Suppose I have £25K with the PMS, £20K in the form of shares and £5K loans i.e. creditor.

Should I receive my £5K back I would then have to apply to the hardship fund for my £20K. Would they not say there is no hardship as you have had £5K returned? That would mean I would lose 80% of my savings.

Someone with £20K shares and £280K loans can clearly get by without applying to the hardship fund as £20K represents only 6.6% of their savings.

I dont understand how this will work in practice and will just force people to be liberal with the truth when they apply to the hardship fund.

Based on the below definition given that all shareholders have suffered over the last 18 months then I think everyone therefore qualifies for hardship

"something that causes or entails suffering"

Your in about the same position as a relative of mine (who is too old to use this website). I suppose it depends on the merit of each case; if you really needed the £20,000 or some of it you might get it. If youve got the loan element back and are refused your 20000, you would not necessarily lose the rest, you would receive the proceeds of the sell-off of assets by the administrater when the PMS is finally wound up. Problem to me seems to be that the big loan to pay creditors would have to be paid off first and no doubt the government will be looking a good interest return on it. Will the PMS have enough income to pay that - it'll only have an income if it holds on to the assets, bit of a vicious circle to work out. There must be thousands of people in the same jam becuase they will get something back as creditors. Anyone any idea who will run this fund? Who will be on this panel - is it the government or will it be church people. It will need someone who understands the needs of the savers.

ink

just wrote: »

I was in the public gallery yesterday for the meeting at church house. At first I was impressed with the words the moderator spoke and the gentleman that talked about the resolution no.7 should be amended to add to read " the general assembly agree in principle to contribute AT LEAST £1million to the hardship fund." Then it saddened me to hear the view it should not be changed incase they were asked to to give more, say £5 million. Hence the words "at least" were not added. I thought the Presbyterian Church was a caring christian church. The impression I got was we (PCI) will contribute the least amount that we can get away with. I hope the goverment does not have the same attitude. Is this the attitude we should have. Just as PCI tried to say the PMS was nothing to do with them when this mess came to light. Don't take any responsibilty unless you are forced to. I wonder if we put in our FWO envelope every Sunday morning the least amount we could get away with would this be the caring christian attitude?

I was one of those who was on the ground floor at the special meeting of the General Assembly.
I can't speak categorically for everyone there but the main reason that the 'at least' bit seemed to be dropped was worries that PCI might end up putting a pile of extra money into the government's hardship fund, which perhaps couldn't be accessed because of the concerns about means-testing and other hoops to be jumped through- concerns already expressed by others on this forum. If there was extra money and, I think, most felt there should be, it might well be better channelled in some other way to help the small savers.

Personally, I think PCI has got to find ways to make sure everyone gets all their money back, whatever it costs (centrally not locally) and we should have had a hardship fund within PCI set up 18 months ago.

I'm not defending PCI's actions as a whole regarding the PMS here- if you've read any of my other posts, you'll know I think they've been wholly inadequate.

pms_overload

ink wrote: »

Personally, I think PCI has got to find ways to make sure everyone gets all their money back, whatever it costs (centrally not locally) and we should have had a hardship fund within PCI set up 18 months ago.

So who provides the money for this? Everyone keeps saying they're sure the church has money salted away somewhere but no-one has produced any evidence of this. All the money we send to church house is for specified purposes and that money cannot be touched.

joylikes2shop

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/columnists/Questions-that-remain-for-PMS.6234754.jp

BETRAYED

This link to Mark Patterson Show has interesting interview with Ernest Howie and Gwen Smyth

Go 11.50 minutes on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s0cpl/Mark_Patterson_13_04_2010/

ballyblack

BBC Radio Ulster

Sunday Sequence PMS (at the beginning of the show)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s2q9p/Sunday_Sequence_18_04_2010/

totallyletdown

BETRAYED wrote: »

I have been asked to postpone my proposed information day in Ballymena on 24 April for shareholders of PMS until after the Westminster Election.
In view of the uncertainty prevailing at present I have agreed.

Who asked you to do this ?

brick

pms_overload wrote: »

All the money we send to church house is for specified purposes and that money cannot be touched.

There was a time I would have confidently assumed that too - before it emerged that money sent to P(for Presbyterian)MS in Church House (where it was for a long time) didn't get used for its specified purpose.

You may still be correct (and I sincerely hope that PMS was a one-off), but as DA has highlighted a few times, wider governance within PCI merits renewed scrutiny in light of what has happened.

brick

BETRAYED wrote: »

This link to Mark Patterson Show has interesting interview with Ernest Howie and Gwen Smyth

Go 11.50 minutes on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s0cpl/Mark_Patterson_13_04_2010/

Listened to some of that - disagree with, and dislike, the interviewee's implication (@27:30ish) that "share" savers weren't savers.

But he does have Justice Deeny's judgment - whereas "share" savers can only point to savings accepted (by PMS) without their inferior status being highlighted.