Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stornoway

  1. Nice to see that the audit office estimate of the total cost to the taxpayer to bail out the banks will be around £850bn


    WT (naughty word) couldnt we plumb this into the post office/ giving cash to those that lost out when the banks went tits up and just let all but say 1 or 2 smaller banks fail?


    RBS and the like shouldve been left to go to the wall, I dont believe for a minute we would have had the doomsday scenario the govt. use to justify this disgrace that has befallen us over the last year or so




    If there is one thing I've learned since the credit crunch started then its that you cant believe the media. The £850bn is not a cost that will never be recovered;

    1) purchased £37bn of shares in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group and, in November 2009, agreed to purchase up to an additional £39bn of shares in both banks. THESE SHARES HAVE REAL VALUE AND THE GOVERNMENT IS LIKELY TO GET THEIR MONEY BACK AND MAKE A PROFIT.

    2) protected the Bank of England against losses by providing over £200bn of liquidity support. THESE WERE SHORT TERM LOANS TO THE BANKS BACKED BY ASSETS AND IN MANY CASES THE LOANS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPAID

    3) agreed to guarantee up to £250bn of borrowing by banks AS STATED THESE WERE GUARANTEES (THAT HAVENT BEEN CALLED).

    4) provided approximately £40bn of loans and other funding to building society Bradford & Bingley - those assets not sold to Spain's Santander - and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme AGAIN THESE ARE LOANS BACKED BY ASSETS FROM B&B. THE MONEY WILL BE REPAID AS B&B'S LOAN BOOK S UNWOUND

    5) agreed in principle to provide insurance for over £600bn of bank assets, reduced to just over £280bn in November 2009. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST RISKY PART OF THE PACKAGE BUT AGAIN ITS ASSET BACKED AND VERY UNLIKELY THAT THE FULL AMOUNT WILL BE LOST.


    RBS is one of the largest small business lenders in the country - if you let it go to the wall then what would these businesses have done. What about all the people that had savings with RBS ?



    • Haha 1
  2. I'm with Scaniaman. I paid £600 last year for 4 returnsd from glasgow to prestwick it was all fine - the next cheapest price I could get was £1350 with globespan. I flew with them half a dozen times last year to paris and again pretty cheap and always on time. I've also booked for Paris in January - a grand total of £48 for 4 people return including tax (but no check in bags as its only an overnighter). They are now the biggest airline in Europe - they must be doing something right but if you dont like the no frills then vote with your feet.....

  3. Quarterly Bulletin 2008 Q1/volume 48 No 1 page 103


    You can read the whole page if you wish, the best bit is in the last paragraph, bottom of the page, left side column, line 4


    "....... banks (lending banks) create credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer's current account (a broad term no doubt, in our world it means credit cards, loans and mortgages too) which can then be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank writing a cheque on itself".


    There we are, in a nutshell... there is NO money until it is borrowed... some 97% of all money is a debt to the banks (excluding coinage which is issued by HM Treasury). We work for the banks


    This is simplistic in the extreme. The banks dont just magic the cash into thin air - there are consequences in terms of ;

    1. Liquidity

    2. Capital

  4. The banks would have known the outcome a while ago. Give them time to prepare. The changes they have been making the past couple of months is a sign that they have not won.The comments that have been coming from the banks never mentions that they expect to win. HBOS is a state owned bank of which I and you are shareholders now. I expect them to refund me quickly or I will be attending the next shareholders meeting:)


    To be pedantic - HBOS is owned by Lloyds. The Government has a 40% stake in Lloyds.

  5. Bank customers in line for £6bn refund of overdraft charges - Times Online


    "The banks have lost two High Court judgments on the matter and so have taken the case to the Supreme Court, Britain’s highest court, established last month.

    Treasury officials told The Sunday Times that the banks would be pushed to negotiate a settlement after the verdict, rather than pursue the matter through the European courts if they lost."


    "A Treasury source said: “The government will be looking to settle the matter out of court rather than allow the banks to drag the process through the legal system, which could take several years before a satisfactory outcome.”

    Treasury officials have had discussions with the banks about a settlement, though payouts may still not occur for several months.

    The British Bankers’ Association said it was in discussions with the Financial Services Authority, the City watchdog, on the issue. “We have been discussing the process with the authorities from the beginning, and we will continue to do so,” the association said."


    As I've said for a while I think a negotiated settlement is definitely where this will end up - I know Your Bank doesnt think this is possible but if neccesary the government will bring in retrospective legislation that makes it possible.

  6. I do think there will be negotiated settlement here. My prediction;

    1. OFT win this part of the test case.

    2. "Fair" level of fee is fudged by the banks and OFT at £5

    3. Automatic refunds issued for the original charge less £5

    4. if anyone wants more than that they have to go to court (I.E. refund of interest paid on the charges)

    5. banks happy as they get to keep part of their ill gotten gains

    6. most consumers happy because they get a nice little windfall

  7. lots more rumour mill, I would just take abbey offer at face value it will be of no consequence in the coming months when announcement is made in our favour the banks will start jostling for position ... this can be a good thing as competition will heat up for our business.... abbey just the first to do so...


    the problem is a few years down the line when we all leave this site with our money in our pockets. they all get together again and find a way to fleece us once more.... you can bet next time they do it , it will all be perfectly legal and we will have to just suffer it. the only power we have is in numbers and if we keep campaigning and sick together we can beat all they throw at us..... next time any banks steps out of line we should all withdraw our money and close the bast"ards down.....


    THE DSB bank is an example of exactly how people power can work in practice. For those that havent heard of this one - basically an activist was so disturbed by some of the bank's lending practices that he called on consumers to withdraw their deposits and close their accounts. Many customers did exactly that and the bank collapsed.....

    The DSB Bank debacle ? a timeline | Radio Netherlands Worldwide

  8. I'm not with Bookworm because having read every single word of the Santander's press release a few times now just for clarification, not once did they use the word "convert". They specifically talk up their current account offering alongside the mortgage and they talk about the full account package. That is why when the paper states "convert" it is talking about people having their current account and mortgage account with Santander which clearly they don't. You can ask metro whether that is their interpretation of the press release(which I can understand) but Santander NEVER mentioned it in their press release.


    Yourbank - You have too much time on your hands, I'm with bookie.icon10.gif

  9. Lloyds appear to have recently agreed terms with HM Treasury for a rights issue which will mean that they raise probably £15bn new capital from investors and then avoid going into the Government Asset Protection Scheme (all very complicated).


    Interestingly, as part of the conditions, HM Treasury have said that Lloyds need to have £7bn of additional "contingency" capital. I've read somewhere recently that the estimate of total bank charges refund which could be due in the UK is around £20bn. Lloyds have about a third of the UK current account market and £7bn is about a third of £20bn......


    Is this wishful thinking on my part or are HM Treasury lining Lloyds up for refunds ????

  10. Hi all,


    My view is that if they finally pay everyone back, it will boost the economy, as everyone will spend again, or pay back the debts they owe anyway, as they won't want to be in that situation again! Also the banks will take debts out of payouts before people get any money, therefore getting the cash back that way.




    I completely agree either;

    1. the money goes straight back to the banks to reduce outstanding balances that have probably been written off as bad debts anyway, or;

    2. the economy gets a boost because people spend the refunds and therefore the government benfits through VAT receipts, company corporation tax and extra income tax as more people are employed.

  11. Thank you for the kind comment! :D


    Well at the time of the investment failure it was the banks operating (including their depositors) funds. In a normal course of events they might lose or gain a limited amount of invested funds. However the companies they traded with unfortunately were in the same 'boat' so the transactions worldwide failed.

    We could all ponder on 'taxpayer' involvement but in reality that is post failure. The taxpayer funds would be used as required to 'set everything straight' and the rest for day to day operations. The real ongoing problem is that the funds from the past are gone and the funds currently in use must be used because they must continue to trade and make profit.

    The 'bonus' element is really meaning that of success of the investment branch of a bank. This is occasionally high risk but to make profit they need to take the chances. In a normal course of events the people who are involved in the investment section are professional. However in this instance the effect was not on a single bank (or the people within it) but multiple banks throughout the world. The finer parts are of course commercially sensitive so no one is going to divulge exactly te places that the funds went to.

    So that's it really, an unfortunate bit of bad trading, bad news all round. If no one gives people who are succesful any incentive then they'll look elsewhere for employment or simply not produce what is wanted.

    Personally I look at a business as 'blocks'. In the case of a bank the real profit is produced in a background set of investment blocks. The side of banks as we see them are exceptionally expensive to operate with branches and staff to contend with. Having said that as I veer so far from the thread is that we are only interested in the HoL decision. Again an area none of us are privvy to. 8-)




    This is a very simplified version of events. Not all banks have big investment banking divisions making lots of profits. In the UK Barclays and to a lesser extent RBS do (or did !) make significant profits from Investment banking but HBOS didnt and neither really did / does Lloyds. If you take HBOS as an example in terms of its 2007 total profits these were £5.4bn with £2.05bn from retail banking, £2.35bn from corporate banking (lending to businesses) and most of the rest from overseas ops, insurance and treasury. The point being that the retail part of the bank (the branches) was making a lot of money pre credit crunch.


    Turning to bonuses ..... the bonus pot in HBOS for 2007 was £280m split between 65,000 staff which is an average of £4.3k each. The average bank worker is on less than £20k. Its hardly the moneyfest that the media makes out....

  12. thank you for the letter, i have obviously discussed this with my partner over the last day and it has been decided to take the gamble and try and run with starting to turn it into a business - but obviously i will not be allowed to work for my present employer so how do i handle the situation now?


    do i hand my notice in monday/tuesday before they have a chance to dismiss me do i have to work my calendar month notice period?

    can i still re-activate the website and not worry about being in breach?




    If you have done nothing wrong then the very least I'd be doing is to negotiate some kind of severance from them - you should be looking for at least as much as you would get in statutory redundancy.




    Dear Sir/Madam


    With regards to our dicussion on friday in relation to my actions of setting up a website in my own personal time as my own personal venture. i hereby inform you that such discussion was a breach of employment law, as it was infact a disciplinary hearing in which you had failed to give me prior notice of or advise me of my legal rights to have a person of my choice attend the meeting with me (whether union representative, friend, colleage or solicitor). You also made clear that a decision about my future employment with the company would be made today (monday). i am therefore of the belief that you intend to inform me whether i have been dismissed or not. Such dismissal would be a breach of employment laws and a breach of my contract with the company, as you will have clearly not followed the correct disciplinary procedures as set out and governed by employment law. therefore any dismissal would be unlawful and i will take the matter up with an employment tribunal.


    With regards to your comments as to myself being in breach of contract as a result of setting up a website, you are infact incorrect. It clearly states in my employment contract that i can not run a business whilst working for the company. however i am not running a business, i have not registered as a buiness or as a sole prorietor, therefore the website is nothing more then a personal venture set up in my own time, and not that of a business venture. To call it a business when it and/or i am not registered as such would be the same as saying "everyone that uses ebay to sell things, is running a business". would you say i was running a business if i was a stall holder at a car boot sale? no probably not! as i do not need to have a buisness or be registered as one to sell products as a personal venture to suppliement my income.


    I also point out that the supplier who informed you of my website and my account with them has infact committed a criminal act. as they were in breach of the Data Protection Act and the information Act as they did not have my permission to share such information or data with 3rd parties such as yourselves. i accordingly reserve my rights to deal with them though appropriate legal channels. therefore any action taken by you as a result of such information being given to you would also mean you are acting unlawfully, as you woud be using information or property obtained as a result of a criminal act to your own benefit. I will therefore take the appropriate legal action required if you are to continue your current course of action.


    I therefore given all the above, suggest that before you make any discision that you should consider the consequences of any action you take against me. if you see the error of your actions, then i request a formal apology and that all notes regarding this matter be removed from my employment file.i also request that all information obtained as a result of the said suppliers criminal act be destroyed. i also inform you that you are also subject to the Data protection act and the imformation act and therefore must not disclose the imformation obtained to anyone without my permission doing so would be an criminal act.


    Please note that this letter is not in anyway to be assumed to be a threat it is simply to make you aware of your legal responsibilities and my legal position in the event that you fail to respect your legal responsabilities


    Yours Sincerely



    Some good advice - I've fixed some of the spelling typos.

  14. I'M 730 which given my track record is actually OK as far as I'm concerned ..... (6 defaults albeit 3 years old)


    These scores dont capture all the info that banks use though ;

    - length of time with bank

    - stability of employment

    - type of employment

    - number of kids

    - marital status

    etc etc


    All these factors have an impact - also not all the banks check the full 6 year credit history, some only go back 3 years.

  15. Things work a little differently in Scotland but I had a speeding FPN that I wanted to challenge as it was from a fixed camera and my car number plates had been stolen recently (I was arguing that it might not have actually been my car that was filmed). I pulled together my "evidence" and sent it to the Procurator Fiscal (ie CPS in England) together with the FPN which was ticked "court date requested". THE Procurator Fiscal wrote back to say that he had marked the case "no further action" and the case never went to court. A similar approach may be your answer here.

  • Create New...