NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

crazymess

john2009 wrote: »

I agree with everything you say but wanted to pick up on one point which is above. I understand the frustration at the lack of answers and a creditors committee but I don't think you can simply go to court and request this. In England you couldn't and I understand the law is the same in NI. Administration will not answer all the questions about the management of PMS until DETI has decided if any action should be taken. A court will not change this. Also, the court cannot order a creditor's committee to be set up, you need a creditors meeting to do this.

Thank you john2009

Its a minefield - we haven't been afforded the opportunity to have a Creditors Meeting because the Administrator chose to deal with us by correspondence. If a large group of savers, got together - and financially - could we not put a case together for the court to listen to us - would they not listen sympathetically to us??? It has been tight lipped the whole way so far in this process.

We still don't know each other - because the Administrator decided, rightly or wrongly, to not show the names of the creditors - so the idea of getting together and being pro-active in getting our voices heard at say Stormont.

The other option is to let this all roll out and take what the Administrator gives us over the next five years - and put this whole sad tale behind us.

Witless

crazymess wrote: »

I chose this mutual society because I believed that the Society was well run and the Directors did not speculate with my savings.

If I wanted higher interest with higher risk I would have gone to stocks and shares.

quote]

Sorry. I must be missing the point. You could have deposited your funds in an ordinary account, in an ordinary bank - which was already guaranteed.

Not being insulting; the PMS was (AFAIK) run by Presbyterians, for Presbyterians; therefore that's where any compensation should come from.

If the directors of your society didn't behave as you hoped / expected then that's an issue between you and them; not you and the government.

As a matter of interest - if the PMS had performed spectacularly well as a result of their high(er) risk dealings - would you have refused the additional return?

Lots of people have lost money in lots of investments, from PMS to pension plans; as I asked in the previous post do you suggest everyone is compensated or should this compensation be solely for Presbyterians?

(I have no intention or wish to be insulting or unsympathetic; and probably won't post on this topic again.)

john2009

crazymess wrote: »

Thank you john2009

Its a minefield - we haven't been afforded the opportunity to have a Creditors Meeting because the Administrator chose to deal with us by correspondence. If a large group of savers, got together - and financially - could we not put a case together for the court to listen to us - would they not listen sympathetically to us??? It has been tight lipped the whole way so far in this process.

We still don't know each other - because the Administrator decided, rightly or wrongly, to not show the names of the creditors - so the idea of getting together and being pro-active in getting our voices heard at say Stormont - we could then meet and see who means business and wants to take this all the way!!

The other option is to let this all roll out and take what the Administrator gives us over the next five years - and put this whole sad tale behind us.

I definitely wouldn't sit back and take what you get over the next five years but I think you (and everyone else) needs a strategy. At the moment eveyone is just giving off (which is understandable) but it is very sporadic and this will not get you anywhere fast.

I wouldn't waste the money going to court. The court will probably say that you need a creditors meeting to convene a creditors committee and put the onus on you to call one. You will only waste the money!

I think you should get a few on here together and plan a strategy. If I was back home at the moment and directly involved (rather than looking after my mums interest), I would be canvassing DETI and the local press for a public enquiry. This will give you the answer you need.

sickasaparrot

John
According to Arlene Foster DETI are not responsible for regulating Mutual Societies in Northern Ireland, see-
www.newsletter.co.uk/news/DETI-We-could-not-have.4953815.jp

However I have found this article on the DETI website which seems to imply that DETI are responsible.

CORPORATE REGULATION
The 'Registry of Companies, Credit Unions and Industrial and Provident Societies' is responsible for the incorporation of companies, credit unions and industrial and provident societies; the registration of documents required to be delivered under companies, societies, insolvency and related legislation; the provision of a legal framework for the proper regulation of companies, credit unions and industrial and provident societies. The Registry is part of Corporate Regulation Branch which has responsibility for policy and legislation development in respect of primary, secondary and EU Directives related to company law, credit unions, industrial and provident societies.

Also of interest is this site particularly the AR30 Guidance notes.
http://www.detini.gov.uk/cgi-bin/moreutil?utilid=977&site=7&util=7&fold=&parent=

What do you think?

goodbyepci

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/0211/1233867932046.html

john2009

sickasaparrot wrote: »

John
According to Arlene Foster DETI are not responsible for regulating Mutual Societies in Northern Ireland, see-
www.newsletter.co.uk/news/DETI-We-could-not-have.4953815.jp

However I have found this article on the DETI website which seems to imply that DETI are responsible.

CORPORATE REGULATION
The 'Registry of Companies, Credit Unions and Industrial and Provident Societies' is responsible for the incorporation of companies, credit unions and industrial and provident societies; the registration of documents required to be delivered under companies, societies, insolvency and related legislation; the provision of a legal framework for the proper regulation of companies, credit unions and industrial and provident societies. The Registry is part of Corporate Regulation Branch which has responsibility for policy and legislation development in respect of primary, secondary and EU Directives related to company law, credit unions, industrial and provident societies.

Also of interest is this site particularly the AR30 Guidance notes.
http://www.detini.gov.uk/cgi-bin/moreutil?utilid=977&site=7&util=7&fold=&parent=

What do you think?

I dont think DETI are responsible. They will say that they provided a legal framework. The problem you will have is that DETI's role in monitoring PMS was very limited and they will say that PMS grew beyond its regulation into FSA territory. It was the directors (rather than DETI) who should have recognised the need for regulation by the FSA.

If you blame DETI they will get lawyers involved etc and this will go no where fast. You should look to DETI for help and canvass through the media and directly for a public enquiry. I have looked on the internet and DETI has had public enquiries before and this would lift the lid on what really happened (see attached)

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/probe-into-failed-medical-research-firm-nearly-over-14150068.html

sickasaparrot

Thanks John - thought this might be the case but wanted other opinions.

expat68

Agree re. DETI and that they use lawyers at drop of a hat and will accept no liability. That said I think in hindsight they probably accept in private that they should have monitored entities under their control a little more closely - they would never admit this in public though.

I agree that it is better to work with DETI to find a solution than against them. I am not convinced in pushing for a public enquiry - I'm not sure this will tell people much beyond what they have already concluded i.e. directors got a bit out of their depth, took a very liberal interpretation of lending to congregations and rest of scheme rules, didnt ensure PMS held sufficient liquidity/ cash etc etc. Look at treasury committee yesterday with heads of RBS, HBOS, Lloyds etc - they all look remorseful, say it was all very complicated, say sorry and trundle off with knighthoods and prior bonuses intact. When public enquiry is all said and done the findings may not be made public (see telegraph article) and outcome will be lessons to be learnt i.e. no guarantees or cash. It may also pave the way for negligence claims if you can get findings made public but you could do this anyway without a public enquiry. Public enquiry will also determine that PCI was completely legally separate from PMS but they should have been more upfront about this.

Sorry to be cynical and disagree if you think a public enquiry will solve anything.

I still think best thing at present is to work with DETI, MPs, MLAs and even PCI to try to secure some form of government intervention. History has shown this is best delivered by behind the scenes lobbying rather than mass protests.

Feel free to disagree and challenge ............

crazymess

ok so no rally - no public enquiry -

Then we need to set up a Pressure Group - call it what you like!!!


Just a little info -

Someone reported in a previous post re a Property Developer who had borrowed millions from PMS - well list of creditors are out and the Developer owes £83,000 to PMS - ???????????????? Much much more to other financial insitutions - so - that doesn't seem too bad - but I suppose there is still more to come out.


ANY CHANCE JOHN2009 AND EXPAT68 COULD COME OVER HERE AND HELP US OUT????

crazymess

jon_groovy wrote: »

John,

How do we go about letting the administrator know ?

After getting some legal advice - if any of the 430 people who withdrew their money, knowing there was a problem coming - then they can be asked to return their money to the Society - not allowed preferential withdrawals.

Again this will need to be clarified.