DCS Claim Registration NOW ONLINE

  • manu_fr
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Wed, 10/06/2009 - 05:44

You can now access and register to the DCS Online Claim system managed...
First step is easy... but then you will need to fill at least 5 online forms before printing out, signing and mailing the last one.

Printer is a must-have. Not sure what's the offline process...

www.dcs.im

4.714285
Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (7 votes)

Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

DCS claim form re JOINT HOLDERS

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 12:49

Just called DCS helpline as page 2 of the claim process asks for amount of account and I didn't know if this was asking for the total of the account or just the joint holder's portion. Anyway the woman on the helpline didn't know the answer and said she will call back in due course. She did call back and said that each joint holder must apply separately and each must show the TOTAL amount of the account on Page 2 and not their portion of it.

Cheers


Tel Number

  • kuce
  • 27/11/08 30/11/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 12:56

Undone,
Which number did you call? one that I have has only recorded message


kuce, re: DCS helpline

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 13:03

Following is the number I called. They are having a few problems, as you can see from their following statement which is shown when one attempts to make a claim

13:30hrs Tue 10th June : We are aware that some claimants are experiencing difficulties entering their Account Details, this is most often due to Deal Numbers being used instead of Account Numbers. Using a Deal Number instead of the Account Number may allow you to proceed If you still have problems please ring the following help line +44 1624 625 680


I agree that the form which

  • stradivarious
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 08:31

I agree that the form which arrived in my mail today is more than a bit ambiguous. It makes it seem that by signing up for the DCS you give up rights to further money either after liquidation or, as the news is now humming, any recapture from the Parent Guarantee let alone the 500+mil that seems to have just floated away. I admit to being more than a tad paranoid but with the way we have been treated so far it's hardly suprising. If the UK wire was repatriated and the Parent Guarantee respected then the IoM and the UK would actually profit by the liquidation if we were just stuck with 50k total each depositor. Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I am just floating in a space I have no experiene.


DCS Web Site - Problems

  • giveus backourfunds
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 11:20

Hi

For anyone who is claiming there is a problem with some accounts, those who had individual bonds have a problem entereing the account number, as the liquidator has provided the Deal No and not the account number so it does not recognise the account number (which is a valid account number).

I have spoken to KPMG who are administrators for the site and they blame the information they received from the liquidator, they have gone back to them as they have had a calls this morning on this issue and are doing an update once they get the information back for the liquidator.

They will be posting info on dcs.im once sorted.

We should have expected it to not run smoothly!!!


Blame the liquidator! Surely

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 14:18

Blame the liquidator! Surely not that nice Mr Simpson; dedicated to looking after the depositors best interests at all times; being careful, meticulous and caring...

Run smoothly? with Simpson involved...


Claim DCS Now or Not ?

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 07:55

The question is whether it makes sense to sign-up for the DCS right away ? I read somewhere that doing so signs voting rights away for the complete account amount (i.e. if you had 200k you'd sign up for the DCS which somehow get's you up to 50k but you sign away rights to the whole 200k). Can anyone elaborate as to whether this is really the case and is there any DAG guidance as to whether there's a benefit to holding-off for a while ?


I emailed DCS and got a reply

  • allyourbase
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 09:02

Obviously take their reply with caution, but I emailed DCS about this and got this response:

"The assignment of rights is to enable the DCS to recover the compensation
paid.

In the event that this is achieved, any further distributions will be paid
to you directly. Therefore, in the context of your question, your
potential for recovery is not impaired."


It's about further voting rights after a DCS claim.

  • BustedFlat
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 12:14

Ok, but note I am not expecting that a DCS claim prevents one from getting more than the basic 50k - I know this is not so. Rather, I am concerned that by signing-up the IOM would get (for example) 200k worth of 'voting rights' rather than just 50k worth of voting rights, and then be able to use these rights as a way to pervert the further decisions put to creditors going forward (which, based on experience with the SoA scenario, they will clearly do if given the chance).

I could be way off the mark, but want to clarify the concern.


It's about further voting rights after a DCS claim.

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 18:32

Busted Flat: You are quite correct to be concerned about the voting rights aspect. It is quite apparent to me and Edwin Coe and the DST that the reason why FSC want claims to be submitted by 30 June is to ensure that they acquire voting rights in respect of the assignment of the depositors' full deposit in time for the first creditors' meeting (which will be in the second week of July). There is little we can do about the requirement that DCS claimants assign the full value of their deposits, which is embodied in the regulations and necessitated by property law if the assignment is to be a legal assignment rather than merely an equitable assignment, although there is one aspect of the assignment issue that is open to challenge if not remedied by negotiation with the FSC and there are other aspects of the FSC's interpretation that also remain to be determined in a similar manner (more on these later). Obviously the value that FSC will acquire for voting purposes, as a result of the assignments made by claimants, will far exceed the amount that it would be entitled to recover from the liquidation (ie. the sum paid out in compensation under the DCS) and it is arguable whether it should be permitted to vote with this value or indeed at all in these circumstances.

You may question why the FSC is so anxious to acquire a sizeable vote, and it may help to answer this if i remind you that the first issue that will fall to be considered by creditors is confirmation of Simpson's (and Spratt's) appointments as joint liquidators and the next issue is the appointment of members of the creditors' committee.


Elgee - "It's about further voting rights after a DCS claim"

  • brennajm
  • 22/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/06/2009 - 07:46

Elgee, I do not wish to criticise you but I am at the end of my tether trying to understand all the jargon. I just don't have the time.

Please could you re-write your message under the above heading in plain English and may I ask everyone else to write in plain English also for those of us who are not involved in the financial world (except as losers), or lawyers.

Thank you very much.


Brennajm: I'll try to

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Sat, 13/06/2009 - 14:00

Brennajm: I'll try to rewrite in what you call plain English:

The FSC believes that the DCS regulations require them to obtain an assigment of claimants' full rights in the liquidation. This is arguable and unclear from the face of the regulations, however it is evident why the FSC thinks it needs full rights and why it wants them. It thinks it needs them because it is safer for the FSC from a legal point of view and it wants them because it gives the FSC higher-value voting rights.


Elgee

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 20:29

Did you not consider all this before you recommended to vote against the SOA?


BustedFlat

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 12:33

Unfortunately, I don't think you are way off mark. However, it looks like the DCS route is not avoiding many of the concerns of the SOA route, except it can be challenged in court on the basis of statute rather than contract.

Still waiting to understand what is hugely beneficial about this fact, or if a challenge is made, whether going the statute route as opposed to contract route will delay payments or increase/decrease costs against our assets.


Claim or Not

  • Tricky Dicky
  • 24/10/08 30/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 08:01

This question, along with many others is I am certain, presently being looked into by our Legal Team. My advise would be to wait and see what they come up with as an answer.


DCS - Sign up or not!

  • flying pig
  • 16/12/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 09:20

Thanks, I agree that this is a wait and see situation.

The forms are designed by, for and in the interests of IOMG. They want us to sign away our rights just like the SoA did.

When legal advice is available can it be given prominance on the site please?


Remember that the deadline for receiving forms is 30 June 09

  • Chris88
  • 30/01/09 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 10:39

For thoses who wish to "wait and see" bear in mind that the signed forms have to be posted and must be received by the scheme manager by 30 June else you may not be included in the first payment of compensation.


All that on-line information

  • dlrow
  • 11/12/08 31/05/09
  • not prepared to answer
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 07:26

All that on-line information to be given, and it's not even an https link! (It is not a secure web link)


DCS Assignment of Rights

  • jerseygirl
  • 11/10/08 31/08/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 11:01

I am extremely anxious about signing away rights to the whole balance of my account as this is over £150,000. Do not trust IOM Gov. Is there anybody who could give this their legal opinion asap. Many thanks.


DCS Claim

  • jerseygirl
  • 11/10/08 31/08/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 11:28

Just to let you know, I phoned FSC in Isle of Man with regard to the signing away of your rights. The lady assured me that this was only so that they could get back the compensation they have paid out. Any money that comes from the Liquidator above this sum will be paid out to depositors immediately. I was also concerned that the Isle of Man Government might try to retrieve its costs for the SOA out of any further payments from the Liquidator before it pays out future dividends but she assured me that this would not be the case.

Can they be trusted?


Jerseygirl

  • chris watson
  • 23/10/08 31/03/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 10/06/2009 - 11:51

Take a look at DAG Strategy Team and IMOT "skeleton arguments" as submitted to the IOM courts. They can be found under DAG Strategy Teams blog "INCREDIBLY IOMT ASKS THE COURT TO GET KSFIOM TO PAY FOR THE SOA".

My understanding from reading them, is the IOMT is not seeking to "retrieve its costs from the SOA out of any further payments from the Liquidator". They are however, expecting the costs associated with the SOA incurred by PWC being paid out of our assets.

DAG Strategy Team are seeking to retrieve their own costs for opposing the SOA from the Liquidator (and our assets). However, their starting position is these should be paid by IOMT entirely, or jointly from our assets.

DAG Strategty Team are also seeking to retrieve their own costs for the Winding Up Petition from our assets ("in the normal way"), unless the courts rule IOMT should pay for them.

The only thing IOMT and DAG Strategy Team seem to agree on in their arguments, is that ultimately a proportion, if not all, of DAG Strategy Team costs can be taken from the banks assets.

My questions would be:

  1. How much are DAG Strategy Teams costs?
  2. How are they calculated?
  3. Who is claiming for these costs?
  4. Could these claims be subject to a challenge from depositors who did not oppose the SOA, but will see their assets diluted by the DAG Strategy Teams expenses?

If I have misunderstood the skeleton argument regards costs, I'm sure I will corrected with all the normal insinuations about my intelligence, integrity and employer.