Fidor "bank"

ChiefGrasscutter

@masonic simply has a inherent suspicion (like me) that despite us all being all so friendly and in the the EU together when it really matters in times of a bank failure we might well find that a non UK government might find all sorts of ways to "delay" payment to foreigners....perhaps for years...and years.
I note that you are looking for "evidence" that the German scheme has not paid out under the passport system which does not exist as the Germans have yet to be required to pay under it.
I'd rather look at the evidence the only time the EU passport scheme has been called upon to deliver - that of Icesave when the Icelandic government bluntly told the Dutch and British depositors that they were not paying, they were ripping up the agreement and we could all go and shove it.

Maybe his suspicion comes like mine does from trying to do business with the EU and finding that the playing field is not actually that level and there are all sorts of things that can be done to be awkward to non nationals whether that is a company trying to win a tender or possibly a individual trying to get compensation. I would not 'trust' an EU government under any such circumstances.

While I agree with you that for a significant bank it is likely that the relevant government would simply nationalise it overnight, for a smaller deposit takers we already know what happens.
The Southsea mortgage and savings company went bust in 2011 and the FSCS closed it and compensated those up to the then limit of £85K - those with more than this on deposit lost that part above £85K.

masonic

Anthorn wrote: »

Again where is your evidence? It just comes across to me as unsubstantiated drivel.

I'd suggest that is down to your lack of reading comprehension rather than anything else.

There is no evidence of the scheme having been called upon and successfully used by UK savers. Would you agree so far?

- If so, then there is zero track record for the scheme in compensating UK savers.

- If not, then if you are asserting there is evidence of the scheme compensating UK savers, so you may assume the burden of proof and provide said evidence.

The evidence to support my claim that in the event that a bank goes down it will be taken over by the government and bank of england is a matter of public record.

Then why was the FSCS invoked only last year?

All I have from this thread so far is that these non-UK banks are just "a bunch of foreigners" who cannot be trusted. Hardly ideal.

That's a shame. But what has been posted does not state that, so all you have is apparently the product of your own mind.

masonic

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

@masonic simply has a inherent suspicion (like me) that despite us all being all so friendly and in the the EU together when it really matters in times of a bank failure we might well find that a non UK government might find all sorts of ways to "delay" payment to foreigners....perhaps for years...and years.
I note that you are looking for "evidence" that the German scheme has not paid out under the passport system which does not exist as the Germans have yet to be required to pay under it.
I'd rather look at the evidence the only time the EU passport scheme has been called upon to deliver - that of Icesave when the Icelandic government bluntly told the Dutch and British depositors that they were not paying, they were ripping up the agreement and we could all go and shove it.

I wouldn't go as far to say I am suspicious. I simply recognise that there is a risk - one that is unnecessary to take. And on the subject of nomenclature, I hope it is the 'EEA' passport scheme and not in fact the 'EU' passport scheme as it hasn't escaped my attention that we have an in/out referendum being called for membership of the latter and the ramifications of leaving the EU are worthy of consideration even though I think that outcome is unlikely.

pmduk

Anthorn wrote: »

The evidence to support my claim that in the event that a bank goes down it will be taken over by the government and bank of england is a matter of public record.

It doesn't follow that just because something has always been done one way it will continue to be done that way, particularly if a Government decided to bring the banking industry "to heel" by letting a small to medium bank fail.

colsten

Anthorn wrote: »

It just comes across to me as unsubstantiated drivel.

Oh the irony.

System

I was simply was trying to help the OP move this forward as trying the FOS etc clearly won't work.

Fidor strikes me that it launched before it was ready and its lack of response to this incident doesn't exactly instill confidence.

masonic wrote: »

As long as you have verified that the relevant protections and procedures are equivalent, then it might not be a big deal. But I doubt many of Fidor UK's customers have done so. It would be naive to simply assume they are the same because they are, in part, the product of some common EU legislation.

The main issue with a bank like Fidor is lack of FSCS protection. Relying on a foreign compensation scheme is an unnecessary risk in my view.

masonic

Heng_Leng wrote: »

I was simply was trying to help the OP move this forward as trying the FOS etc clearly won't work.

Yes, it seems i mistook this for a different discussion going on in the other fidor thread.