Icesave FSCS - petition for interest up to date compensation paid

Dooooooooooooooonut

I know for certain some UK based depositors lost money during the BCCI collapse. I am not certain, but am reasonably sure, that some UK based savers did as well.

This has nothing to do with my main point which is that the possibility of bank failure is foreseeable and thus depositing any money in a bank is a gamble.

bryanb

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

I know for certain some UK based depositors lost money during the BCCI collapse. I am not certain, but am reasonably sure, that some UK based savers did as well.

This has nothing to do with my main point which is that the possibility of bank failure is foreseeable and thus depositing any money in a bank is a gamble.

Some UK residents who had deposited/saved/invested in BCCI Gibraltar lost out, but they were avoiding UK tax etc.

nilrem_2

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

I know for certain some UK based depositors lost money during the BCCI collapse. I am not certain, but am reasonably sure, that some UK based savers did as well.

Lol When in a hole stop digging!:D

masonic

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

This has nothing to do with my main point which is that the possibility of bank failure is foreseeable and thus depositing any money in a bank is a gamble.

I don't think anyone is disputing that there is risk involved with depositing money in a bank (just as there is risk involved with keeping it in a safe at home). It's your definition of the word "gamble" that seems to be disagreeable. Taking a gamble is putting a stake on a contingency. Saving money in a bank just doesn't fit that.

mrkbrrws

masonic wrote: »

If the compensation arrangement included cover for lost interest during the time a claim was being processed, then yes, of course it should have been paid. But it didn't.

You posted something similar yesterday about the FSCS meeting its "obligation" and not being "owed" any further compensation.

The point is that I understand what the current FSA rules say. I'm petitioning for them to be changed, not to get something which I see as already owed to me.

If you would have no issue with the rules I am proposing, why the opposition to having them changed? (I'm not specifically asking masonic - anyone who disagrees please reply)

masonic

mrkbrrws wrote: »

You posted something similar yesterday about the FSCS meeting its "obligation" and not being "owed" any further compensation.

The point is that I understand what the current FSA rules say. I'm petitioning for them to be changed, not to get something which I see as already owed to me.

If you would have no issue with the rules I am proposing, why the opposition to having them changed? (I'm not specifically asking masonic - anyone who disagrees please reply)

Well, if that's the case, then I think myself and a lot of other posters have misunderstood what you are trying to do. If you really are only interested in getting the system changed for future claims, then I don't have any objections to that, but you will need to change the wording of your petition, since it seems to be directed at claims that are already in progress.

Edit: In fact, your petition states :- "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to pay interest to individuals claiming compensation after the collapse of Icesave and other banks from the date of default to the date compensation is paid."
- That statement clearly asks for additional compensation to be paid on existing claims, which you now say you aren't trying to make happen?

mrkbrrws

Why would there be an objection to getting additional compensation for past claims as well as future claims?

I would have thought that covering all claims arising from the current 'credit crunch' and any going forward would be fairer than excluding those who have already received their compensation.

Dooooooooooooooonut

nilrem wrote: »

Lol When in a hole stop digging!:D

What on earth are you gibbering about you cretin?

masonic

mrkbrrws wrote: »

Why would there be an objection to getting additional compensation for past claims as well as future claims?

I would have thought that covering all claims arising from the current 'credit crunch' and any going forward would be fairer than excluding those who have already received their compensation.

It's fairer that if the rules change it would only affect claims going forward. You saved knowing the limits of the present scheme and you should accept that your claim be limited to those terms.

When the VAT rate went down it only applied to purchases made going forward, not retrospectively. That's the way it should be with any FSCS changes, IMHO.

Dooooooooooooooonut

masonic wrote: »

I don't think anyone is disputing that there is risk involved with depositing money in a bank (just as there is risk involved with keeping it in a safe at home). It's your definition of the word "gamble" that seems to be disagreeable. Taking a gamble is putting a stake on a contingency. Saving money in a bank just doesn't fit that.

Fine... feel free to be a lexical pervert... let's pretend I said that the depositors took a chance... would you have a problem with that?

When you are arguing about the niceties of definition you can be sure your position is lost