NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

fivealive_2

no_more_f.w.o wrote: »

Here's what I have done since the administrator's report came out

• Written lots of letters to politicians
• Taken legal advice
• Met with my MP
• Signed the Downing St petition

Here's what the PCI have done since the administrator's report came out

• Written lots of letters to politicians
• Taken legal advice
• Met with MPs
• Signed the Downing St petition

The difference is I'm not sitting on £43 million ................ go figure

How could you have watched this site for 3 months and not said a word until now?
Anyway now that you have started contributing hopefully there will be no stopping you cos you seem to have a pretty succinct way of putting things! Welcome on board.
:T

expat68

soothsayer wrote: »

The first priority should be the needy.
If the matter is handled sensitively it should be possible to reach consensus over this. This approach would also increase the pressure on the PCI to meet its obligations.

I do agree that the first priority should be the needy, my point is how do we decide on the needy, is Pastor wotshisname's charity supporting african projects which are now on hold (£600K investment) more needy than the pensioner getting by on a state pension while the PMS sit on her £20K savings. This would require someone to play God and PCI aside (:A?? ) I'm not sure anyone is qualified.

expat68

jon_groovy wrote: »

welcome aboard, and hope this encourages the other lurkers to say their bits

Its good to talk................

crazymess

This thread is getting back to normal now!!! Great, but one or two people are missing - goodbyepci - come back!!!!!!

I agree with you expat - very hard to make differences now on need - unless really someone can't afford to pay their household bills or for food - however all of us savers had our money in the PMS for some reason, whether, weddings, funerals, univ fees, to pay tax bills - for what ever the reason - we all need to access our savings - especially now when people are losing jobs, everything expensive - this is a typical time when you dip into your savings - this is the ironic thing - we never saw the PMS as a long term investment plan - we wanted to dip in and dip out whenever we decided - there were no rules (except the 21 day rule which was never adhered to).

Don't think I'll ever get over the fact that I was led to believe a portion of our savings was lent out to Congregations and a bit of Property in Scotland and England. I am not by any means stupid, have been pretty successful up until now and am sickened by the fact that this has happened.


Rant over

Josef

Been some reason, whether, weddings, funerals, univ fees, to pay tax bills - for what ever the reason - we all need to access our savings - especially now when people are losing jobs, everything expensive - this is a typical time when you dip into your savings - this is the ironic thing - we never saw the PMS as a long term investment plan - we wanted to dip in and dip out whenever we decided - there were no rules (except the 21 day rule which was never adhered to).

This part still amazes me, the PMS took our money, and spent nearly all of it!!!! - I don't think I'll ever get over the fact that I was led to believe a portion of our savings was lent out to Congregations and a bit of Property in Scotland and England. I am not by any means stupid, have been pretty successful up until now and am sickened by the fact that these .......... directors took our hard earned savings and literally threw it away!!!!!!

Its so sickening - it seems they just got all this money in by way of savings since 2004 and decided "we must spend this" without even stopping to think of the rainy day!!


Rant over[/quote]


Been reading the forum for 2 months now.Keep up the pressure.
Agree entirely with your synopsis .

joylikes2shop

I'll be interested to hear anyones thoughts about the following...

When I went for legal advice about the PMS situation, one of the questions I asked was, how can I find out if any of the directors have Liability Insurance.
I was told that probably this information would not be available, so therefore I would need to wait until I had ACTUALLY lost money as a result of having invested in the PMS- which technically, as yet, I haven't- before I could start proceedings against any of the directors.It would only be at this stage, that it would become evident if there was Liability Insurance in place.
For one individual to start legal proceedings would be very costly, so it was suggested to me that perhaps if an individual (or group of individuals acting together )could get financial assistance from the other members of the PMS, a 'test' case could be brought against the directors and it would be during this proceeding that it would become evident if any directors had insurance.
The other valuable point that was made was that the insurance cover would have an upper limit which may not be high enough to be of any use to those seeking to claim against it.

crazymess

I think the term used is ' A CLASS ACTION' if a group of say 100 people want to go down that road.

Bannside_2

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/my-church-may-lose-pound1m--moderator-14169785.html

It seems as if the new moderator of the PCI ranks the PMS high on his list of priorities which must be a good thing.

soothsayer_2

expat68 wrote: »

I do agree that the first priority should be the needy, my point is how do we decide on the needy, is Pastor wotshisname's charity supporting african projects which are now on hold (£600K investment) more needy than the pensioner getting by on a state pension while the PMS sit on her £20K savings. This would require someone to play God and PCI aside (:A?? ) I'm not sure anyone is qualified.

I take your point, this could be very difficult to manage.

goodbyepci

Coleraine Times
http://www.colerainetimes.co.uk/news/Former-Moderator-appeals-to-Gordon.4939553.jp

Newtownabbey Times
http://www.newtownabbeytoday.co.uk/news/Burnside-in-call-to-nationalise.4943380.jp