NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

warmhands.coldheart

Maybe we should be turning the attention to the assembly... Lets not let them fob the blame onto the Government.. they have their part to play too

loganjh

jon_groovy wrote: »

I've spoke to a few people in the press and politics and the word on the street is that the petition will get us nowhere and Gordon Brown isn't in the slightest bit interested in our plight and won't be helping us out.
horrible news i know :-(

Regrettably, Gordon Brown (or indeed any 'mainland' politician doesn't care about N.Ireland unless they need MP votes. It's not as though the PMS is Northern Rock (think lots of Labour Westminster seats at risk in the North East of England). Problem is that the loss isn't big enough. It it were a few billion then he may be interested - old banking saying, you owe the bank £500, it's your problem, you owe the bank £500M, it's the bank's problem.

Time and a recovering property market looks like the only hope now.

morenews

This forum has kept us going these past weeks.. many thanks to all...we put our money in pms in good faith because we were told money was totally safe, no risk..instant access and of course as it was the church felt reassured we all need to stick together and fight for our rights and a full refund... even if we have to go through the courts.. together we are strong.. we cannot allow the powers that be to wash their hands of this as the church has tired to do .Is there any reason why we couldnt form a support group?

BelfastGran

Pensioners cannot wait for Property Market to recover, they need their money now to live on, some have all their savings in the Presbyterian Mutual because they believed it was in a safe place, as was so stated!!!
This has caused great hurt. Unbelievable

crazymess

Great to see so many people coming on board this thread. I've been feeling yuck with the whole situation but am back now and ready for the fight again?

Lets see what happens this weekend with all the various people putting pressure on Government - lets see if we get a response if any - agree with the previous poster - think DETI might be feeling pressure! Think we will be getting more headlines and maybe tv coverage.


BIG THANK YOU TO MARTIN LEWIS AND HIS TEAM FOR THIS INVALUABLE WEBSITE - WHICH REALLY HAS GOT ME (AND I'M SURE OTHERS) THROUGH THIS ORDEAL UNTIL NOW.


THANKS................

Bannside_2

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/moderators-in-appeal-to-help-mutual-savers-14162645.html

This is the article in the Bele Tele about the moderators' letter. Though from the couple of comments already posted it would seem some people would not be too impressed about government assistance for what they see as a church organisation.

Nomad25

Around 10,000 stakeholders were being asked to decide by noon today whether or not to |accept a proposal by the administrator to accept an orderly run-down.
If this does not receive sufficient approval, the Society may face liquidation.

Ref Bannside's link, does this mean it will be settled [in terms of a wind down or liquidation] today? Not given people much time has it?

marford101

Am I missing something here? As I understand it the PMS is a mutual society and was formed for the mutual benefit of it's members. To be a member I understand that you had to belong to the Presbyterian Church. I and the majority of UK tax payers would of been excluded form being members of the PMS as we were not members of the Presbyterian Church. So it follows that in good times we non members of the Presbyterian Church were always to be excluded from any gains made by the PMS. So what confuses me is the fact that although I would never of been allowed to join the PMS or gain from any profits made by the PMS I am now expected by members of this mutual society to stump up for their loss!
Now don't think that I have no sympathy for the PMS members who have lost some or possibly all their investment. I do feel sorry for them. But then it is no different to the millions of investors from all walks of life who have lost out recently. If I am wrong about this can someone please explain the difference?

warmhands.coldheart

marford101 wrote: »

Am I missing something here? As I understand it the PMS is a mutual society and was formed for the mutual benefit of it's members. To be a member I understand that you had to belong to the Presbyterian Church. I and the majority of UK tax payers would of been excluded form being members of the PMS as we were not members of the Presbyterian Church. So it follows that in good times we non members of the Presbyterian Church were always to be excluded from any gains made by the PMS. So what confuses me is the fact that although I would never of been allowed to join the PMS or gain from any profits made by the PMS I am now expected by members of this mutual society to stump up for their loss!
Now don't think that I have no sympathy for the PMS members who have lost some or possibly all their investment. I do feel sorry for them. But then it is no different to the millions of investors from all walks of life who have lost out recently. If I am wrong about this can someone please explain the difference?

I see what you are saying in that why should taxpayer potentially bail out the PMS..

Basically the PMS was never really under any magor threat as such until the government made the decision to garauntee up to £50,000 in Banks & Building societies for all savers (At tax Payers expense!!) but decided to leave Mutual societies out in the cold.. which in turn frightened the begeepers out of people who in turn withdrew vast amounts of cash in a short period of time putting the society in metldown... so basically it's the Governments fault the PMS is in this situation... Had they garaunteed all savings in all socities (Giving an even playing field) then I personally believe the PMS would still be happily ticking along as before..

Your comment that "To be a member I understand that you had to belong to the Presbyterian Church."
I thought that too but seems the rules were "bent" a bit in some occasions...

I understand your grievance but then it's the government creating this one rule for one and one for the other situation... Why should we (as taxpayers) have bailed out banks and garaunteed savings in Bank savings accounts?

The Garauntee should have been made across the board...

expat68

marford101 wrote: »

Am I missing something here? As I understand it the PMS is a mutual society and was formed for the mutual benefit of it's members. To be a member I understand that you had to belong to the Presbyterian Church. I and the majority of UK tax payers would of been excluded form being members of the PMS as we were not members of the Presbyterian Church. So it follows that in good times we non members of the Presbyterian Church were always to be excluded from any gains made by the PMS. So what confuses me is the fact that although I would never of been allowed to join the PMS or gain from any profits made by the PMS I am now expected by members of this mutual society to stump up for their loss!
Now don't think that I have no sympathy for the PMS members who have lost some or possibly all their investment. I do feel sorry for them. But then it is no different to the millions of investors from all walks of life who have lost out recently. If I am wrong about this can someone please explain the difference?

Fair point but seems as a taxpayer I'm bailing out Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley, RBS, HBOS, Lloyds TSB etc etc despite never having used them or ever wanted to. Re. investors losing out I may have missed something but I'm not aware of any saver who has lost money yet - shareholders of listed companies maybe but not savers.

Sometimes the governments role is to protect the minority as well as the majority.