Dot ComUnity Credit Union - ISA

Mr_Doubtfire

Just to reiterate what I have messaged to colsten privately - I realise my first post was misleading. I wanted to give you all a heads up as to what the guy from DCU had told me on the phone. I assumed everyone would receive the same call as I did over the coming days. Apologies again for the confusion.

ajdj

As you say, Gmail addresses are so easy to obtain I can't see how you can avoid adding somebody to your private group that is somehow connected to Dot Com.

Why not just carry on the discussion here? There are no doubt a lot of lurkers checking into this thread affected by the current restrictions that are relying on the updates in the absence of transparent communication from Dot Com.

masonic

colsten wrote: »

As his user name implies, there's doubt and there's fire.......I am very tempted to accept him into the private group but there's this doubt based on is first post.....I wanted to add a poll to this pst but for some reason MSE won't allow it

Polls can only be posted to new threads I think.

If the main purpose of this group is for you all to share information that might get removed from here, then if you accidentally invite in a DotCon mole, so what? I was more than happy to openly discuss my HL formal complaint and potential FOS claim on the open forum last year and I'm sure the thread in question was being monitored. The main issue is putting the sensitive parts of the discussion beyond the reach of censorship.

Forti

I welcome the chance to discuss in private. This whole situation is absurd, we have waited nearly four months and are seemingly know closer to accessing our funds. We need to coordinate.

colsten

ajdj wrote: »

As you say, Gmail addresses are so easy to obtain I can't see how you can avoid adding somebody to your private group that is somehow connected to Dot Com.

agree, there is no foolproof measure anyone could take.

ajdj wrote: »

Why not just carry on the discussion here?

because we wouldn't be in control of the retention of posts.

colsten

ajdj wrote: »

As you say, Gmail addresses are so easy to obtain I can't see how you can avoid adding somebody to your private group that is somehow connected to Dot Com.

I don't suggest we could ever ascertain that we'd never have enemies posing as friends.

But it is quite easy to identify obvious plants. Try it:-)

mt77

I haven't received my letter for my ISA maturity yet either.


Oh, how I now regret finding this stinker last year.

Steve_xx

I think that this is best discussed on here. I also think that discussion on here is more likely to contribute to bringing the matter to the attention of other ISA holders. There may well be many holders of these ISA's who are blissfully unaware of the situation that exists. An open forum like this, does much to promote ad-hoc discussion. Sooner or later it is likely that the MSE hierarchy will become interested in this, but that will only be so if discussion continues and the situation starts to look dire.

gwapenut

colsten wrote: »

User Mr Doubtfire has applied for membership in the private Google Group.

As his user name implies, there's doubt and there's fire.......I am very tempted to accept him into the private group but there's this doubt based on is first post.....I wanted to add a poll to this pst but for some reason MSE won't allow it

If i had to put money on it, I'd say it was just an unfortunate chain of events that led to his first post. I can understand his aim for discretion. I think i rang dcu round about the time of his post, about notice requirements, and they requested my number as they wanted to talk to isa holders. I figured it was cos i was asking about transferring, but they never called me back. It adds a little weight to his explanation .

I also think a dcu rep whose cover had been blown would have run a mile and set up a new account. And certainly not risked speaking badly of their own organisation, in case a link later be established.

FOREVER21

colsten wrote: »

I feel that those affected by this shambles would benefit from being able to have discussions that aren't open to the public, and to share information such as the original T&Cs.

I have set up a closed Google Group for this purpose - anyone wanting to join, please PM me with your @gmail.com email address so I can give you access (I don't think it works with a non-gmail address, but gmail addresses are easy to get by the dozen)

I will initially apply my own judgement as to whether you are an affected ISA holder but hopefully other members will soon be able to join me in vetting requests for Group membership.

I will process your requests asap but please bear with me as I am not 24 x7. I am normally about mid-morning and early evening but I will attend to any requests with priority.

Let me start by saying I have no connection to DotCom , other than being unfortunately, one of those who took out an ISA with them.

I can confirm what Archi said about transfers out, I have completed a transfer form , been advised by DotCom they have received notification from my other provider, but will not transfer funds until the restrictions are lifted.

With regard to starting a " closed" group I can not see what you hope to gain, if you are concerned about DotCom " moles" then as has been said they might also infiltrate the new group. I personally have never been keen on joining any form of clique or secret group.


In any event I am sure DotCom does monitor this forum, but I doubt if what is said will influence the management to change their policy on the restrictions. The lifting of restrictions lies in the hands of the regulators.

As has been said the best course of action is for all members who have had enough of this shambolic organisation , is for them to contact and complain to the regulator, my e mail has gone to them.

If enough people complain then it might just get the regulator to pull the plug on them and let the FSCS step in.

If this has not been resolved after the election I intend to take it up with my new MP and ask him/her to approach the FCA and see if they are in a position to get more factual information as to why the regulator seems unwilling to be more decisive.