Icelandic Banks

Meltdown_2

imcat,
what you say would seem to imply that 'novation' gives you more rights than if your bank was simply sold lock,stock & barrel to a foreign bank (as many UK banks already have been).

In practice, it surely wouldn't matter which mechanism underlay the transfer if you had an easy access account. If you didn't like the new situation you are free to move your money.
If it was tied up in a fixed-rate, fixed-term deal then you would probably wait out the term before deciding anything.
I still can't see why you feel this condition to be of such importance.
Personally I think it is an irrelevance.

ianmr65

imcat wrote: »

Not the same thing mate. Although FD may, if they wish transfer their rights to the account, my contract still remains with them as does my right of redress and enforcement of it's performance, ie, the contracted parties have not changed.

There is no contract without consideration. So if they transfered your account under this clause, and the new institution honoured the terms, ie kept paying / charging you the same amount of intrest. The contract would have been deemed to have been transfered, wthwer you liked it on not.
You could only bring a claim for breach or performance if you had been damaged. The bank would rightly argue that you had not been damaged, as your money/debt was now held with another institution, under the same terms. Only if the new institution then went on to change the terms in a way that materially damaged you, eg a change in a fixed term mortgage rate, would you have a case for redress. And then only with the new institution.
So your account being transfered to a new insititution in a jurisdiction that had a different compensation structure, in case of default: would not be seen by any court as a material breach, as you haven't been damaged. That you might be damaged in the future, would in the court's view have to be dealt with, when and if it happened. And the fact that you would be claiming for damages which might occur, at some unknown time, agianst an institution, which by definition, would no longer be in exisitence, and not be around to pay anyway, would stall your case at first claim stage.

As banks tend to buy each other out all the time, if you look hard enough every bank's terms will have some such clause, to enable the transfer to happen.

The difference with KE is that they explicity say they may novate. (which is mighty honest is you ask me) Most other banks would just transfer, using a clause like this one.

But this is all largely irrelevant. The bottom line is when you open an account, or take a loan, you do so ON THE BANKS TERMS.
Thse are there to proect the bank. NOT YOU.

If you tried to trade on terms favorable to you, unless you were depositing a few million quid, they'd tell you to get stuffed.

So normal contract law dosen't effectively apply. They are not going to let you sign up to terms that are in any practical way enforecable by you. But these terms will very easily be enforecable by them.

Hence the massively drawn out class action compo cases on unfair bank charges. The banks are hiding behind their terms.

This applies to any supplier that has the consumer over a barrel. To whit banks, utility, car hire companies, employers or whoever.

The only time you'll ever get contractual terms that are favourable to you is when you negotiate them, term by term, and clause by clause. So if you're up on your contract law, you'll stand a fair chance with your plumber. But no chance with any bank.

chesky369

Imcat - why on earth are you on the one hand asking incredibly basic advice which I would expect from someone who had never had any financial experience before, then on the other hand expound dogmatically, using technical jargon (I mean, how often does one use the word novate in normal conversation)?

Sorry sweetie, you just don't 'ring true'

cheapskate101

I think we can now see who was right and who was wrong on the Iceland Banks saga...

Icesave seems to have been the problmatical one but Kaupthing Edge (saver myself) seems to have been Ok as the transfers are now coming through.

edwinac_2

cheapskate101 wrote: »

I think we can now see who was right and who was wrong on the Iceland Banks saga...

Good point. And it's worth reviewing the vulgar and aggressive tone taken by the Icesave shills, especially the foul-mouthed poster, shindigger, see above..

I lost track of the times he told well-reasoned critics of Icesave to "f*ck off!!!"

Now we see elsewhere that he was worried sick about his own deposits at the doomed bank.

edwinac_2

ianmr65 wrote: »

IMCAT you are a lemming, or a troll or a trader, or all three...

The chief executives of the three main banks, Landsbanki, Glitnir and Kaupthing, made clear in interviews last week there is no evidence this is the case, despite the negative publicity about Iceland...

So which UK based Bank or banks are you going to trust with your fortune?




Also i seriously doubt any UK insurance company, has ever said anything about the icelandic situation.

IMCAT please novate off.

Is IMCAT still around on this forum? More than six months ago, he was posting numerous warnings about the Icelandic banks, and their grave risk of failure..

For his troubles, he was attacked as a "troll" a "doom monger" and a "lemming"..

We can now see how unjust those insults were.

If IMCAT is still around, he's surely owed an apology by quite a few people who cast aspersions on his knowledge, his character, and his motives.

Ratatosk

edwinac wrote: »

If IMCAT is still around, he's surely owed an apology by quite a few people who cast aspersions on his knowledge, his character, and his motives.

I agree that there were people on these boards who, with the best of intentions, tried to use their knowledge of the situation to warn people of the dangers of saving with Icelandic institutions.

There were an equal number of posters who rigorously defended these institutions, and who did so with equally good intentions.

However, on both sides of the debate were people who were sensationalist band-wagon riders, and people who were almost certainly PR stooges. The question is how is the average saver supposed to judge these debates. Both sides seemed to have good arguments.

Normally in these circumstances the best place to look for advice is to those professionals without any vested interest. So ignore tabloid journalists, and posters on web forums, and the statements of the banks. What do the independent experts say. Unfortunately opinion here was divided also.

Being risk averse and being unable to convince myself of the safety of these banks, there was still nothing I could do except sit and worry. As I'd been advised to do, my money was tied up in a fixed rate bond. Had it not been I would have been out of Icesave in April.

I'm sure that some people, when in a similar situation, find comfort in finding posts that tell them what they want to be true. With hope over reason they latch onto these ideas, and perhaps get some measure of comfort by defending them.

It's just been an unfortunate affair all round. The people on these boards who should be apologising are those paid PR representatives of the banks posing as informed savers.

The internet can be a great resource, but unfortunately can be abused. I think most people with savings in Icesave, myself included, have learned a very hard lesson.

Stavros_3

edwinac wrote: »

Is IMCAT still around on this forum? More than six months ago, he was posting numerous warnings about the Icelandic banks, and their grave risk of failure..

For his troubles, he was attacked as a "troll" a "doom monger" and a "lemming"..

We can now see how unjust those insults were.

If IMCAT is still around, he's surely owed an apology by quite a few people who cast aspersions on his knowledge, his character, and his motives.

Decisions on investments are your decision, and yours alone, whatever is posted on here is not financial advice just oppinions. Get off your high horse

imcat

Ratatosk wrote: »

I agree that there were people on these boards who, with the best of intentions, tried to use their knowledge of the situation to warn people of the dangers of saving with Icelandic institutions.

There were an equal number of posters who rigorously defended these institutions, and who did so with equally good intentions.

However, on both sides of the debate were people who were sensationalist band-wagon riders, and people who were almost certainly PR stooges. The question is how is the average saver supposed to judge these debates. Both sides seemed to have good arguments.

Normally in these circumstances the best place to look for advice is to those professionals without any vested interest. So ignore tabloid journalists, and posters on web forums, and the statements of the banks. What do the independent experts say. Unfortunately opinion here was divided also.

Being risk averse and being unable to convince myself of the safety of these banks, there was still nothing I could do except sit and worry. As I'd been advised to do, my money was tied up in a fixed rate bond. Had it not been I would have been out of Icesave in April.

I'm sure that some people, when in a similar situation, find comfort in finding posts that tell them what they want to be true. With hope over reason they latch onto these ideas, and perhaps get some measure of comfort by defending them.

It's just been an unfortunate affair all round. The people on these boards who should be apologising are those paid PR representatives of the banks posing as informed savers.

The internet can be a great resource, but unfortunately can be abused. I think most people with savings in Icesave, myself included, have learned a very hard lesson.

I had opened so many savings accounts it was getting ridiculous. And one by one they fell. Golden rule during these uncertain times is make sure your money is in an instant access account and not in a fixed rate bond. that extra percent just ain't worth it. I reduced my balance down to the compensation level a few days before icesave went bust. However, when I saw what the Icelandic government did by freezing the British accounts, although protected, the hassle wasn't worth it so i withdraw the lot the day before Kaupthing Edge went. The transaction executed on the day they went under (shows as a debit) but the money has gone missing and not turned up at the other end. The phone lines don't work and email is not being acknowledged. A bit worrying.

With regards to ING, although the insurance is up to £77k, the question that needs to be ask is if they went under could the Dutch government afford the bailout or would they be in the same position as Iceland being such a small country?

All this worrying about savings pales into insignificance though given that 3/4 of my wealth was in equities and 2/3rds has just evaporated. Feeling poor is an understatement. Saying that, if my money from Kaupthing turns up, I will just go and buy some more.