Icesave FSCS - petition for interest up to date compensation paid

masonic

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

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

You seem to be mistaking me for someone who is disagreeing with you. I know exactly the point you are trying to make - I'm just pointing out why others don't. Or perhaps it's more fun for you to dress up your point in misleading language so that others might get a bit hot under the collar, hmmm?

harz99

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)

This is a bit like "I am just saying" methinks..........

harz99

masonic wrote: »

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?

Must be because that is what the OP wants however they try and dress it up.

innovate

As one of the Icesave victims, I couldn't possibly support this petition.

Because the passport scheme would probably never have paid a penny, many of us would have got a big fat zero if the FSCS/Treasury had not stepped in. Many others would have got some but not all of their money back.

It seems quite unfair to ask for even more - particularly at a time when some old age pensioners haven't got enough money to heat their houses, and thousands are losing their jobs because of the recession.

casabiosca

How exactly is depositing funds as a retail depositor in an FSA regulated bank amount to gambling?

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

Of course it was gambling. It was admittedly low risk as these things go... but it's still gambling.

Not as if there had never been a bank failure before 2007, is it?

casabiosca

A century ago? But we now have the government organisation known as the FSA who guarantees deposits up to £50,000.
Maybe you need to concentrate on financial changes in the recent past and not dwell so much on Victorian times.

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

Well then learn some history... !!!!!! BCCI ring any bells? That was less than 20 years ago!

And a century ago banks were popping all the time... people's ignorance and inability to learn from the past always amuses me.

casabiosca

However, the Government statement following the Landsbanki collapse was that all retail depositors can be confident they will be repaid in full.
Most depositors deposit in order to gain an advantage, which is usually interest on their deposit. If one has to wait months then one clearly is not being repaid in full, in view of what one would have confidently expected. The Government did not guarantee the return of the capital investment alone per se. Please refer to the original assurances.
The petition therefore, although almost certainly doomed to failure, makes a fair and valid point. I commend Mark for raising the issue. He is also absolutely correct in his assumption that the amount involved is infinitesimally small in comparison to the total amount compensated. It is also extremely small compared to the 'overpayment' made to individuals who unwisely exceeded the FSA guaranteed limit. I know of some indiviiduals with more than 300K in Icesave who should have known better, yet didn't lose a penny. If the govt were willing to stretch the rules for that situation, is it asking too much for lost interest? Inaction achieves nothing and I am truly surprised at the level of contentment and well being displayed by some posters on this forum. I would bet that they would complain about 1p on a pint of bitter or 10p on a gallon of petrol though.
Incidentally, I have yet to receive ANYTHING from the FSCS because I cannot get them to send me a paper compensation from for an ISA transfer out from Icesave in mid September which did not complete resulting in a bounced Icesave cheque.

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.

casabiosca

Could you state that in English? Babel fish seems to be having problems with it.

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

What on earth are you gibbering about you cretin?

casabiosca

But in the case of Landsbanki the limits of the present scheme have already been broken by the Government by covering deposits in excess of £50,000 which nullifies your point.

masonic wrote: »

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.

casabiosca

Forget 'niceties of definition'. Nobody is under any illusion of what you meant and intended when you said gambling.

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

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