nilrems camp for the disappointed to seek solace!

casabiosca

amistupid wrote: »

Can't you see a change of view from your first post when you say to the FSCS "Damn you people" suggesting you are a very dissatisfied customer.

To your second post "The way the FSCS has handled this has been nothing short of spectacular"

If you can't see the difference I suggest a visit to Specsavers for some very thick lenses.

"Damn you" is obviously a phrase you use when frustrated.

Are Specsavers FSA regulated?

Polka_dot_4

Come on guys:lovethoug Chill out a bit. I know it is frustrating, but some of us have to be last:rolleyes:

I think we have all been put through the wringer these last few weeks - what we do know is that we will get our money eventually though. I know a lot of us have been disappointed that receiving compensation later than others has meant we have doubly lost out on interest and putting our monies into a better rate interest account.

I for one am grateful to HM's Gov. for reacting so swiftly, and I think FSCS have also tried to get a handle on it as best they could. They could have done better in the information department - maybe indicating to us in the first email when we would get the 2nd email eg end of 1st, 2nd, 3rd week ect. I guess that this debacle is quite unprecedented so !!!! ups were bound to happen:eek:

People have shown on this thread a great deal of patience and heaps of good humour. I am not on every day, but i would like to say thanks to all of you for the laughs it has really helped keep my spirits up, and that I am glad I wasn't the only one to turn to drink and view my emails every 10 seconds;)

You are a great bunch of people:A

But let's not get argumentative with each other either:D

Edit oohhhhhh!!!! I put another word up there and it obviously wasn't allowed - it put 4 exclamation marks in place of it. I didn't know they could do that! How clever!

Icesaver

Gonna see if No.2 comes naturally tomorrow. No explosive cocktail of laxatives for me tonight.

Night all.

casabiosca

As you may have guessed from my previous rantings, I have vehemently disagreed with the FSCS statement that they have compensated savers by use of random selection. I will not reiterate my full reasoning, suffice it to say that as an IT systems programmer, I am aware that technically and administratively, a random order would be very difficult to implement and manage. Of course, given the gross unfairness of the compensation timescale , with some depositors being refunded many weeks before others, it would be easier for those of us less fortunate and still waiting for the elusive funds to believe that it is all in the hands of the gods, akin to the National Lottery. We can handle the fact that our name has not yet popped up out of the hat. Or we could believe that if it were not such a fallacy!

There IS an order. you can be sure of that, though it is as yet undetectable to ourselves with the limited knowledge at our disposal. It may well be to do with FSCS funding. Someone suggested that the FSCS did not have full funds at their disposal to pay out everyone at the same time.

I maintain that doing so was certainly feasible. Websites and banks daily handle that sort of traffic. My concern with the unfairness engendered by this system is that should another bank fail in the meantime or for other possible reasons, the FSCS would be deluged with work that they are not geared up to handle and our wait of weeks could turn into a fairy story. The FSCS can only pay out when they receive funding and several more episodes of failing banks could potentially bankrupt the entire compensation system. In other words, would it be totally impossible for some depositors NOT to receive compensation others already have?

Apologies for the length of this missive but one final note on random selection. When, for example, you are asked how you are going to vote in an election, you are being as far as is possible, randomly selected from a greater populace. The company commissioning the questionnaire knows that given a large enough quantity of randomly selected people, then order will arise, sufficient to quote fairly accurate statistics.

So here is the important point, randomness gives way to order.
There are 230,000 Icesave account holders and I believe circa £4billion of deposits. Pragamatically therefore, when the FSCS tell us that they have sent out over 100,000 invites and have repaid £1 billion, then it could not have been random, otherwise they would have repaid £2 billion. We would have seen a pattern arise. They are £1 billion out. Their only mitigation is that many many people have not initiated their payment which I cannot believe, given the immediacy which everyone demonstrates.

I just wish I knew what the order was. Even I am getting tired of my pet hamster theory.

Polka_dot_4

I'm thinking here casabiosca, we need a poll with very many questions for people to answer, and some statistition to collate and feed back to us;)

Probably not something that the polls here could cope with?But maybe if someone was dedicated enough to ask the right questions?

suesie999

muddyfox470 wrote: »

sorry i better clarify this:
"damn you people" was aimed at you people in the thread in a joking manner, hence my later post here:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=15995633#post15995633

I have always been impressed by the FSCS with the handling of the compensation, and i'm sorry if you've mis-read/mis-interpreted my post(s)



If you had read any of my posts you will have found I have been very light-hearted in each of my posts, until this sudden uncalled for hostility came my way.

To be fair, in the light of all this it seems you are all blinkered and only read what you want to read.

Thought youd gone?????????????????????:rotfl:

KenC_3

Today, it might be me, or you :j .

suesie999

Reporting for duty but just off to gym, so I shall expect a nice coffee when I get back...Tel Nilrem I've gone to do the border patrol.....................;)

Nagiw

"I will not reiterate my full reasoning, suffice it to say that as an IT systems programmer, I am aware that technically and administratively, a random order would be very difficult to implement and manage. "

Why? How about generating a random key and assigning it to each record. (If already used try again). Bit crude but it would be quick and easy.
Oh, and don't start with the "random funcion isn't random". It's random enough for this exercise!

Sorry to bore everyone else.

Wishing you all good luck today with the 2nd e-mail:T

Icesaver

KenC wrote: »

Today, it might be me, or you :j .

Tried a laxative free night last night as No. 2 has been stubborn stomach is aching _pale_ from the abuse it's taken over the last few evenings, so I'm not anticpating mine anytime soon