Is my £85,000 covered

jk38

Hi

I have a company bank account in the company name (I'm a director) and a personal bank account in my name - both at Lloyds

Am I covered for two lots of £85,000 if the bank went under - one for the company account and another for my personal, or just one allowance of £85,000 ?

I've called Lloyds and no one seems to be able to answer me - unbelievable but true

If anyone knows, and can point me to some Gov or other webpage showing the situation, I'd appreciate it

steelbru

FSCS have a freephone number - probably best to ask them rather than the bank, since it is they and not the bank providing the cover

http://www.fscs.org.uk/contact-us/

xylophone

The business is an entity just as you are?

JK38 LTD is the account holder but there are certain signatories on the account, one of whom may be you.

JK38 has his own personal account and is the account holder.

That said, there are different rules for the protection of business accounts see http://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/questions-and-answers/qas-about-deposits/#Is_a_business_covered_if_the_bank_or_building_society_it_holds_money_with_fails_

macca1974

well, I would have thought that as you and the company (who have the deposit) are separate legal entities, then as long as the company is a "smaller company" with turnover of less than £1m, then it would be covered and your individual money would be covered as well. If it isn't a "smaller company" then it wouldn't be covered anyway.

Having said that (personal rant time apologies), it doesn't really matter because (imho) the FSCS will never be triggered to pay out on deposits in a UK bank because the bank would need to be declared in default before the FSCS is triggered and no proper UK bank will ever get to that stage because the Government will rescue them in order not to have to pay out through the FSCS (as they did with Northern Rock and all the others wobbly banks in 2008).

If the Government hasn't got the money to bail out the banks then I would have thought they certainly won't have the money to pay out via the FSCS.

colsten

macca1974 wrote: »

Having said that (personal rant time apologies), it doesn't really matter because (imho) the FSCS will never be triggered to pay out on deposits in a UK bank because the bank would need to be declared in default before the FSCS is triggered and no proper UK bank will ever get to that stage because the Government will rescue them in order not to have to pay out through the FSCS (as they did with Northern Rock and all the others wobbly banks in 2008).

The FSCS is an independent statutory scheme, funded by the industry, not by the the tax payer. The fact that FSCS might get a loan from the Treasury if there were insufficient funds doesn't make it a government scheme.

We are independent of the government and the financial industry, and were set up under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, becoming operational on 1 December 2001

http://www.fscs.org.uk/industry/about-fscs/

Funding information can be found here: http://www.fscs.org.uk/industry/funding/

macca1974 wrote: »

If the Government hasn't got the money to bail out the banks then I would have thought they certainly won't have the money to pay out via the FSCS.

Leaving aside that the FSCS money isn't supposed to come from the tax payer, I can't see how a bank bail out could ever be cheaper than re-imbursing the bank's depositors up to a max of £85K each.

PeacefulWaters

macca1974 wrote: »

Having said that (personal rant time apologies), it doesn't really matter because (imho) the FSCS will never be triggered to pay out on deposits in a UK bank because the bank would need to be declared in default before the FSCS is triggered and no proper UK bank will ever get to that stage because the Government will rescue them in order not to have to pay out through the FSCS (as they did with Northern Rock and all the others wobbly banks in 2008).

Bradford & Bingley. £14bn of FSCS payout rings a bell.

A few other players on this link too.

If the Government hasn't got the money to bail out the banks then I would have thought they certainly won't have the money to pay out via the FSCS.

They can print it. It may have an inflationary effect but they can certainly do it.

kidmugsy

It seems unnecessary to assume that all future PMs will be as extravagant with the taxpayers' money as Brown was. Though I dare say Milibrown would be.

Cyberman60

My belief is that only personal accounts are covered, which means that businesses are not.

PeacefulWaters

Cyberman60 wrote: »

My belief is that only personal accounts are covered, which means that businesses are not.

Beliefs can be wrong.

FSCS was set up mainly to assist private individuals, although some smaller businesses are also covered. Larger businesses are generally excluded, although there are some exceptions to this (for example for claims in respect of certain compulsory insurances). Our rules tell us which claims are eligible and form part of the PRA's Handbook, under Redress, Compensation.

As an indicative guide only, for the purposes of deposit and investment claims, smaller companies are protected. A smaller company must meet two of the following criteria (as set out in section 247 of the Companies Act 1985 or section 382 of the Companies Act 2006 as applicable):

Turnover: not more than £6.5 million
Balance sheet total: not more than £3.26 million
Total number of employees: not more than 50
For claims made under an insurance contract, small businesses are protected. A small business under the COMP rules is one that has an annual turnover of less than £1m.

The same levels of compensation apply whether the claimant is a private individual, small business, or a small company.

colsten

kidmugsy wrote: »

.....Milibrown.....

Now that is really harsh on Gordon Brown. He wasn't all bad as a Chancellor.

Love it, though