Dot ComUnity Credit Union - ISA

masonic

Bhamstudent wrote: »

Just as a quick point - as far as I understand things, the restrictions in place have been put in place by DCU. That's not to say that the PRU would put similar restrictions in place if these weren't....

Those are weasel words from Dotcon. They are complying with a legally enforceable instruction from their regulator. Had they not "voluntarily" put the restrictions in place there and then, the next step would have been a court order or winding up order compelling them to make the restrictions or cease trading.

FOREVER21

Bhamstudent wrote: »

Just as a quick point - as far as I understand things, the restrictions in place have been put in place by DCU. That's not to say that the PRU would put similar restrictions in place if these weren't....it's simply a case of DCU jumping before they were pushed. As such, DCU are free to accept funds (and I guess, technically release them) as they see fit - in a recent convo with Neil he indicated that if the PRA decided that restrictions should be put in place there would be a period of time whilst their application to do so on DCU was heard.

My guess is that DCU have decided that they are confident that they have satisfied the PRA and that therefore by lifting the restrictions they placed on their own operations will not result in the PRA stepping in.

Obviously, I have no more knowledge than anyone else, but thought I'd throw my thoughts in.

I am afraid you have got it wrong, although it is a voluntary restriction, the lifting of the restriction is clearly in the hands of the PRA we have already been told by DotCom that they went back to the regulator with proposals which they thought would satisfy them and the ban would be lifted.

However this was not the case and the regulator told DotCom they needed more information.
As far as I can gather on the scant info supplied by DotCom, the restrictions are still in place and I don't know how they are now saying that they can accept more deposits.

I would like to think that they have now got their act together and the PRA lifts the restrictions, I will then withdraw my funds and try and forget all about DotCom!

Bhamstudent

colsten wrote: »

What makes you say that?

Why would any going concern put restrictions on itself, and then be unable to lift those restrictions because the regulatory body doesn't agree to the lifting? Do you see the flaw in your logic?

I'm not sure I follow, but I think what you are saying is why would DCU pace these restrictions on themselves, but then say they have to wait for the PRA to lift them. Simple (I think...) - as I said the presentation of voluntary restrictions sounds better, but they are concerned that if they then lift them, all the PRA will do is apply to put them back on. Now, Neil told me such a process would take the PRA six weeks, so maybe DCU have taken the risk to reopen for deposits at the end if the ISA year knowing full well that the PRA can't do anything until well after the start of the next tax year.

masonic wrote: »

Those are weasel words from Dotcon. They are complying with a legally enforceable instruction from their regulator. Had they not "voluntarily" put the restrictions in place there and then, the next step would have been a court order or winding up order compelling them to make the restrictions or cease trading.

Masonic - yes totally agree. As I said they jumped before they were pushed, hehe they can use the word voluntary. It's a bit like an employee resigning before they are going to be sacked, so they can present the situation in a better light.

MARTYM8`

And Dotcon gets even more bizarre.

I haven't had this ISA update email - but I still find it odd that they seem happy to take new ISA money from people but are still denying people the ability to withdraw their funds.

Again - why would anyone give more money to a body that is not allowing anyone to withdraw any funds at present?

Only 1 month and 3 days until the 5 May mass ISA maturity date - will we be any clearer then about what on earth is going on.

masonic

Bhamstudent wrote: »

Now, Neil told me such a process would take the PRA six weeks, so maybe DCU have taken the risk to reopen for deposits at the end if the ISA year knowing full well that the PRA can't do anything until well after the start of the next tax year.

The new tax year starts prior to the next working day, so in some sense you are right that the PRA would not have time to act if they unlawfully started taking people's money again. However, a freezing order could be enacted at the same time as any Court proceedings were issued, which could lock down all assets while the situation was cleared up. So it wouldn't take the PRA anywhere near as long as that to put a stop to it.

Furthermore, HMRC may decide that any subscriptions made during this period are invalid and must be removed from ISA accounts and the interest taxed.

I wouldn't risk it.

Masonic - yes totally agree. As I said they jumped before they were pushed, hehe they can use the word voluntary. It's a bit like an employee resigning before they are going to be sacked, so they can present the situation in a better light.

Yes, and to stretch the analogy further, they are fighting in an employment tribunal to get their job back. But, if they now return to their place of employment and try to carry on their business they'll be picked up by security and escorted off the premises and possibly prosecuted for trespass.

Nednats

MARTYM8` wrote: »

I haven't had this ISA update email

Sorry If I haven't made it clear to you already but the email I received was in reply to email I sent them.

Is it possible that they can allow deposit if the customer complains about their ISA allowance?

colsten

Nednats wrote: »

Is it possible that they can allow deposit if the customer complains about their ISA allowance?

Highly unlikely - they are either allowed to take deposits or they are not. There is no halfway house.

You seem very determined to find reasons why you should believe what they are saying.

FOREVER21

Nednats wrote: »

Sorry If I haven't made it clear to you already but the email I received was in reply to email I sent them.

Is it possible that they can allow deposit if the customer complains about their ISA allowance?

I don't know about deposits to ISAs, but I have complained that I can not access my money and that got me nowhere.

MARTYM8`

FOREVER21 wrote: »

I don't know about deposits to ISAs, but I have complained that I can not access my money and that got me nowhere.

And this issue will come to a head very soon - as we approach the 5 May maturity date for those who opened one year fixed rate ISAs last April (possibly the largest proportion of their ISA account holders?).

As I said they have a nerve saying they are happy to accept new deposits when the restrictions on withdrawals remain.

Steve_xx

MARTYM8` wrote: »

And this issue will come to a head very soon - as we approach the 5 May maturity date for those who opened one year fixed rate ISAs last April (possibly the largest proportion of their ISA account holders?).

As I said they have a nerve saying they are happy to accept new deposits when the restrictions on withdrawals remain.

There is an very odd situation going on here. On the one hand if the PRA lifts restrictions then everyone with any sense who has an ISA with them is going to immediately transfer it out, and there will be no fresh funds piling in.

They are unlikely to have adequate funds available to pay out the original funds plus 3% to everyone. So, should restrictions be lifted then it'll only be possible to retrieve funds on first come firt served basis unless there is some other mechanism in place to prevent mass withdrawals.

To me, this doesn't look good and I can't see anything more likely than a winding up operation.