Depositors Who Made Transfer Requests That Were Not Actioned On The 8th Oct

  • codhelpus
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 20/10/2008 - 22:52

Hi all,

I hadve decide to set up a new forum because I am becoming increasingly concerned that some of the savers
who made transfer requests that subsequently werent actioned by the bank seem to be in a generally weaker
position that the 'In flighters' simply due to the fact that they had there requests actioned and therefoe
monies sent out from the IOM bank. Whilst this is fortunate for them, for those of us that are in this 'grey area'
I feel that we should be represented for our unique situation as well. It seems unfair to me that, we made a request
in the same manner, before the bank was suspended on the 9th and yet we stand less chance of getting our money
if the funds in the UK are unfrozen. Why, because, Mike Simpson is probably going to allow those funds that are in the
UK control and therefore out of the IOM control, to continue on to their destination, because it will be more dificult for him
and as he said 'probably not legal' for him to try to claw these back.

The question I keep asking is, if these funds in transit are allowed, then the same conditions that make them legal to contiunue
on MUST be the same conditions that would allow all other transfer requests to be authorised and actioned.

I still believe and have done right from the begining that ANY transfer made up to the close of business on Wednesday, should be
out of the realms of the liquidation. WHY? because, when a customer makes a request for THEIR money by whatever means,
before a bank goes into default, that money becomes due to them under the terms and conditions that were signed up to when
you opened yoour account. I opened my account, with the express intention, and intention is also key here, that if I made a request
for my money, the bank would be obliged to meet that request, if it was fully operational and if the bank didnt ahve access to the funds then, this must be a form of IOU. It does not mean the bank can keep the money simply because it cant access them.

I am writing this because I want to appeal now to all the people who are in this position. It is looking like the action that Hoppers
legal team are taking, really isnt going to be directed at mine and others in my position, unique situation. They have stated that
they are aware that there are two types of depositor lines that are forming:

1 Those that are inflight - that is those that had their transfers actioned
2 Those that did not, but that did make a transaction

He has further stated that the first scenario is a more favourable scenario but that he can try to at least
see if he can get the 2nd scenarios to be first in line when the liquidation money is dished out.

I am not sure that I am happy about this. I feel that he will be acting more in the interests of the 'In flighters'
because for him it is an easier situation for him to win. I feel rather like how the IOM govenrment treated us when they said
they would put in a request to the UK governement to include us in their discussions. What came of this? Not alot so far.

If us 'non - inflighters are to stand any chance in this, we must have someone acting on our behalf wholeheartedely.
Precisely because our case is harder but I believe still a good case, is why we need someone fighting tooth and nail for us
to help bring our unique in justice to an end also.
Why should we not get our money and the others do. How can the law come down to such an 'arbitrary' fact or whether you were
lucky enough to be in the pile that got actioned, or that the bank didnt have enough staff to cope with the backlog. This cant be
fair - this wasnt our fault - we have just as much right - our contract with the bank is the same contract that the in flighters signed.
If they get their money, we too should get ours.

Why are we being asked by Richard Gore to 'tag along for the ride' if we want to but your chances arent good and
could be difficult to prove - "Well damn well prove them" I say. Thats your job. We've got the evidence, either we've got a case
or we havent - but dont ask us to tag along, pay the same money and then help to subsidise the 'in flighters' but sorry
I wasnt prepared to try harder for you. I dont think this is acceptable. If I take on a lawyer, he must work in the best interest
of each an every person. He must be able to fight each case as best he can for their own unique circumstances, otherwise
why hire him.

Please 'no-inflighters', I would liike you to reconsider what your being asked to do. We are being asked to pay the same money, and even pay if he is not successful and he is as much as saying that we may be, but yet he doesnt seem to want to take on this
area in it s own right - it is a separate case - it cannot be lumped together with the 'In flighters' - either he fights for us as a
separate and unique case or we go find someone who will. Anyway, I have said my piece - you can all decide for yourselves.
Tomorrow, I am going to try to speak to Richard Gore or somone else in the office about this, and let them know Im not happy
about it and see what he says.

What I would like to get now is some sort of idea from all of you out there how you are all feeling about this and if you are not
feeling too great like me. If you are feeling great, let me know too. Maybe Im just having a really bad day!

I have set up a new forum now, because I would like to try to gather all the 'Transfer Request on 8th but not actioned' people together for the following reasons:

1 I want to guage how we are all feeling about our particular situation

2 I want a place for us to meet to talk about our particular situation

3 I want us to have an area that we can pool any information about our situation together so that we can
collectively decide what is the best way forward for us

4 I want to find out exactly how many of us there are out there

5 I want you all to hopefully make your presence known and then if everyone is happy to , to give me your contact
details, (eg email address, tlelephone contact etc) which I will collate together so that if and when wthe time comes
we can become a large force to be reckoned with in our own right. This will be vry useful if we decide that we want
legal representation to be directed at our own specific case. The more we have the more we can win and the cheaper and
better it will be for us. Like the 'In flighters' they are now quite a cohesive fighting force and for that reason alone they
are already in a strong position. I want us also to be in this position - as I firmly believe that we too have a good case
that, in the right hands, with enough people behind us, CAN BE WON.

Finally, I just want to make it clear, I was at the London meeting today for the petition handing in, and I lots of different people
with all different situations. This is when it really dawned on me. That if a legal position is taken, the most vital thing in that
repect is to be fighting WITH people in exactly the same position as you. This is vital - otherwise the lines get muddles
and the non-cohesiveness confuses matters and makes everyone more vulnerable. As much as I would love to be in the position
of the 'in flighters' - Im not, and therefore I have to get someone to hel[ me and people like me.

However, I dont want this separate fight that I believe I, along with others like me, must have, to allow myself to get segragated
from the group as a whole. We still all have a common fight and a common goal. we're still all in this together and I want to help
others get out of this mess if I can too - mainly because such a massive injustice has been done to all or us. We must continue to
be united for the ultimate goal of EVERYONE getting their money back - and help further this cause as best we all can. We
seem to be a great bunch of people, from what I can tell, and we do not deserve this. We have all earned our money, alot of
us through sweat and toil and hardship and sacrifice and we must aim to get it back for everyone as well - which we hope we can persuade the higher authorities to realise, befoe its too late.

So, anyone that would like to comment on anything Ive said, please feel free. Please tell me if you think Im wrong about
something, Im sure I am, Im just having a bit of an emotional roller coaster today, and am getting frightened that things may not turn out how I hope unless I act now and try to do something positive.

If anyone knows of any lawyers who they think may be better positioned to fight our case, I would definitly like to know. Its not
that I dont think Richard Gore is any good, I think he is probably very good, but I just dont think he is in a position at the moment to focus on the needs of mine and others like my position, unless he changes his stance on us and treat us as a separate
problem and not lump us together with a different and easy case.

Please email me separately if you want to talk about anything here, and let me know your contact details if you want to. I wont do anything with them yet, but just keep them altoghther so that if needed we can all be brought together more easily as a group
especially if we all decide to look for other legal help. Also, it would help us all to find out how many of us there are out there so that
we can all guage if we have the strength to go it alone.

Best wishes to all - codhelpus

Your rating: None

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


  • jmf
  • 16/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 24/11/2008 - 15:37

We fall into the category of requesting transfers (two accounts) that were not put into action and would like also to exchange information with depositors in the same situation. Our requests were made on the 7th of October by fax (with authorised fax code) for immediate action and the originals were sent by messenger the same day.

It did occur to me later that our deposits were in 32-day notice accounts and possibly would have been denied given the circumstances on the day. The Terms & Conditions state that ‘withdrawals are permitted subject to the Depositor providing the required notice of withdrawal …The bank reserves the right to permit repayment of part or whole without requiring the appropriate notice of withdrawal subject to the levying of a penalty…

Are there any depositors in our position?

re: non-flighters

  • matti
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 21/11/2008 - 10:06

Hi codhelpus,

I'm in the same position as you and am feeling just as frustrated and nervous that I am being shunted to the bottom of the Q in terms of getting our cash back.

I am especially angry because I had been trying to move my cash for a week before the dreaded day and had been repeatedly told a load of cobblers by the bank that I was unable to access my account to move my cash owing to " technical problems with the password system". As soon as they had the grace to give me access to my account - several days later and 'coincidentally' moments after the Icelandic govt confirmed its parental guarantee - i made a CHAPS payment. They tried to persuade me not to, and even sent me a written statement that my cash was safe in order to convince me to leave my cash in the bank.

My cash remained as a 'pending transaction' in spite of my repeated calls to the bank to action the transaction, until it went down. I am so angry with them I could scream! it's hard to prove legally but crystal clear to anyone with half a brain that they effectively froze me out of my account.

So, yes, in principle I am very keen to join any legal action to try and help us get the same treatment as those who were 'lucky' enough to have their cash leave the bank.

Having said that, I doubt the strength of our case in legal terms. I've spoken to several lawyers and did find someone in London who was willing to take the case on - but he said my chances of success were very slim and pretty much advised me not to go ahead. He also advised me against joining Hopper's legal action as he felt I would be wasting my money (of which I have very little now).

I'd like to keep in contact on this however and, if you find someone who thinks we have a decent case, I'd be interested in banding together. Maybe if we can get enough people together we can keep costs sufficiently low to make it worth a stab?

I don't want to post my contact details here but I believe they are in the database? If not, let me know and we'll work out a way to exchange them.



  • rk
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 21/11/2008 - 16:39

Yeah, I'm in a similar position to this. I made a CHAP's (same day - are you having a laugh) payment request via the web at 11am (ish) BST on 07.10.08 for pretty much the whole balance of my funds to be transferred out to another IoM Bank.

I have a printout of the website screen saying this payment was "authorised"

Of course, it was not processed by the time of the suspension of the banking license on the 09.10.08, and this is what the PL has written to me to say, effectively your payment request was not processed before he was appointed, therefore nothing he can do.

Not being an advocate, but I guess that's the crux of the matter with these type of payments, they are only requests.

When you give the bank an instruction to transfer money, it is actually a "request". They endeavour to do their best to make good your request, but if it actually physically hasn't been processed by the time the banking license was suspended then there's little you can do if the bank failed to meet your request.

It's probably hidden in the terms and conditions of opening the bank account, that they endeavour to make good all requests for transfers of money but will not be held responsible for any consequences of failure to make said request for whatever reason.


Would be interesting to read the t&c of the account and it's operation.
Think chances of sueing them for failing to carry out a transfer request are slim, especially now bank is in provisional liquidation.

as ever, we live in hope...

Similar position too

  • madmax836
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 21/11/2008 - 14:41

Hi Similar position I requested £145k to be transfered on the 7th oct vis Royal Scandia as it is a bond (instant Access) confirmed via RS on the 8th oct that the money was transfered, then told by RScandia on the 9th oct that the money wasnt there because the bank was in Liquadation !!!

Count me in please

Similar position too (Skandia)

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Fri, 21/11/2008 - 16:31

I hold a bond with Royal Skandia.

I requested Royal Skandia on Wednesday 1st of October to transfer my money from KSF IOM (instant access), RS delayed the dealing instruction. RS confirmed on the 8th Oct that the money was transferred and then later RS informed that they did not get the money because it was frozen.

Count me in please.

Just received a transfer

  • lesleys
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 20/11/2008 - 16:13

Just heard from our bank that the transfer out of KSF (IOM) we requestd on October 6th has been deposited into the requested destination at Barclays branch on November 10th.

Have also received a recodred delivery letter stating that KSF (not clear if this threat is from KSF (UK) or KSF (IOM)) will sue us if we don't return it or if we attempt to disperse it as it was, quote "transfered in error, possibly as a result of a duplicate transfer request".

So the money has been cleared but now we are being told to return it or else.....

Anyone else have similar experienec or advice to offer?

lesleys very interested in your letter

  • adrienne
  • 10/10/08 13/05/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 24/11/2008 - 13:02

lesleys, we are a group of depositors with a high interest in in-flight issues. can I contact you? or can you copy the letter onto the forum for us to read in detail?

has anyone else received a similar letter?

Keep it!!!

  • Yoda
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 21/11/2008 - 14:03

OMG!!! Its an outrage - trying to sue to get your money back!
I'll look after it for you!!!!!

I cant see any reason to give it back - transfer it quick!

Well done...Im really pleased for you.


  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 21/11/2008 - 00:06

Hang on to it with tooth and nail.
Probably best to move it to somewhere else.

The funds belong to you

  • sami
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 20/11/2008 - 17:01

The funds were requested before KSF IOM was put into liquidation. They belong to you, do they not?

Can you move them to another account, or into a friend's account? It would take PwC a long time to recover them from you, even if there is some legal requirement for you to return them. I suggest you "ringfence" them and sit tight. Good luck.


  • gazfuk
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 20/11/2008 - 16:39

I would offer you this advice...but i have no qualification other than a sense of what is right.

Take the money out of that account and disperse it/spend it/do what you like with it. You have every moral right to keep control of your own funds. I doubt there is a court in the land that would entertain anyone sueing you for the return of what is your own money.

Whatever you do, don't send it back.

PS I am very happy for you.

The bank made an error?

  • wipeout
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 20/11/2008 - 16:35

It seems to me that you have a perfectly good case. The money is yours and it was transferred following instruction - how can it be an error?

I would certainly not return the funds. Make sure they cannot be retrieved, although reading your post it sounds like this is not possible. I would certainly seek further legal advice as I assume the amount is large enough to warrant fighting for, otherwise I doubt that KSF would be so concerned.

Just my thoughts - good luck!

May the Force be With You !

  • MichaelB
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 20/11/2008 - 20:22

You are very lucky.

I agree with everybody else .... it is your money legally requested to be transferred to you while KSF IOM was a fully functioning operational bank.

It is your money .... move it, spend it .... do what you like with it !

BUT DONT GIVE IT BACK ..... see how they like the boot on the other foot !

in flights

  • sad
  • 10/10/08 31/10/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 21/11/2008 - 12:18

am i looking at this too simply......i thought the money was either 'frozen' or was now legally part of Kaup UK assets, this must mean the 'in-flights' are 'actual 'cash and are able to be what legal president is being used to keep so the completion of the in-flights.....
That being said, i'm very happy for you.....sleep well on your 'padded' mattress!

Non Actioned Transfer Requests

  • hopeful
  • 11/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 20/11/2008 - 15:15

Hi Codhelpus

I am with you all the way with this proposal. If Hoppers team are sucessful with the "in-flighters" action then I believe we have a good chance of winning too. In my opinion it would not be just to allow full reimbursement to the "in-flighters" and not bring justice to the "non-flighters". The only difference between these two groups is that the bank simply ran out of time to process all the transfer requests by the 8th October due to the unprecidented run on the bank leading up to the collapse. Basically it was a matter of pot luck as to what group you ended up in when the bank dealt with the transfers. I strongly feel that both groups should be treated in exactly the same way. If we are left out to dry on this matter I would recommend that our case would warrant a Judicial Review. I was personally involved in a Judicial Review in the London High Court (me against a Local Authority) some years ago and the result was well worth the pain.

I am not particularly expierenced in posting messages on web sites so I hope you get this message. I am in this dreadful mess for a significant amount. I have already posted a message on the site called "Response to Michael Simpson's update dated 5th November 2008" and attached a copy of my letter to him. I am not sure if others in our situation have sent him a similar letter because there were no subsequent posts related to my message.

Hope to hear from you.

My email - john [dot] gray(?)mksp [dot] co [dot] uk

A bird in the hand

  • shafted
  • 10/10/08 12/12/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 20/11/2008 - 23:11

A bird in the hand s worth two in the bush, do not give your money back, right or wrong its yours you asked for it before the bank was provisionally took over, good luck to you!

thanks for all the advice on the unexpected transfer

  • lesleys
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Fri, 21/11/2008 - 02:32

Thanks to all who have given their thoughts on our very strange situation.

We now have 90% of our KSFIOM funds sitting in our account in Barclays. This turned up out of the blue on November 10th followed today by a recorded delivery demand for its return to KSFUK.

Their case is that it was released in error and they want it back. Barclays are on our side having been assured by us that it was as a result of a good faith request to KSFIOM sveral days before their collapse. So the funds are save but have a shadow over them: its our money but others say it is not.

Clearly KSFUK have made an oops here and want to get the funds back so thay can account for them to E and Y probably. Our position right now is that the next move is theirs.,... I cannot imagine in a million years writing a cheque to KSFUK to return this money. After the 6 weeks of hell we have just endured, this demand has been the final straw!

Do your best KSF administrators....we live in the States at present, we banked in the IOM..and we have no leagl relationship with KSFUK....under what legal system are you planning to hound us?

We still have funds in KSFIOM and won't be abandoning the fight for 100% return anytime soon.

You can't make this stuff up!

Rest well fellow activists.

in flight update

  • rippedoff
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 11:20

Maybe I'm giving yesterday's news here but I just spoke to KSF IOM and they drew my attention to latest statement by Mike Simpson regarding in flights;

"As at the date of my appointment, there were in addition a large number of payment transactions which had been requested by customers but which had not reached their payment destination. Over the last couple of weeks we have sought to clarify the precise position in respect of these transactions, including seeking legal advice. We will shortly be writing to the individual customers concerned advising them of the position, as we have been able to establish it from the information we have been provided with"

He makes no specific reference to requests which were made before his appointment but which never subsequently started the journey to their destination.

Moreover the bank are now only permitted to give balances on accounts at 30 September. When I called them 2 weeks ago they gave me account status at 8 October. I believe this change indicates their wish to portray the balances before the great wave of withdrawals, thus somehow strengthening the perception that the money belongs to the bank and therefore forms part of the banks assetts.

in flight update

  • IanAbroad
  • 11/10/08 13/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 11:25

hello rippedoff,
this is the latest from Mike Simpson:
"Funds in transit – payment requests made by customers prior to the date of my appointment
As at the date of my appointment, there were in addition a large number of payment transactions which had been requested by customers but which had not reached their payment destination. Over the last couple of weeks we have sought to clarify the precise position in respect of these transactions, including seeking legal advice. We will shortly be writing to the individual customers concerned advising them of the position, as we have been able to establish it from the information we have been provided with, and will post a separate notice on the website. "
We will shortly be issuing statements to customers as at 30 September 2008 – this has been slightly delayed due to logistical difficulties. It is intended that statements as at 9 October 2008 will be issued in due course once we have completed the exercise of making sure the statements are up to date."

So there does seem to be something going on, but what??
I'm not going to speculate.

Am in this category and would

  • The Biggest Ban...
  • 10/10/08 14/07/15
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 02:33

Am in this category and would be interested in group action. Made transfer request on 8th October. Recently acknowledged by M Simpson but usual reply. Wrote back again emphasising my instruction was filed with them BEFORE administration.

Legal action

  • Yoda
  • 21/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 13:16

As a group we are taking legal advise and action - but the more that get on board, the cheaper it will be for all.
I will email our 'group leader' and seek advise - but to me, that seems the best way forward.
Not sure that anyone else is going to come and save us!!

Transfer request

  • funkyjim
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 05/11/2008 - 02:19

I am also intrested in this legal action as I requested a transfer on the 7th Oct but the KSF site was not working. I sent a letter recieved and acknowleged by Alison Tombs on the 8th. Standard reply featured elsewhere.

Non in flighters

  • Alia
  • 15/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/11/2008 - 21:32

I am in the same position. I sent registered letters ,faxes and emails reqesting transfer from 4th
October, to no avail. Count me in on any action.

Transfer not actioned

  • shafted
  • 10/10/08 12/12/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/11/2008 - 13:07

I telephoned and e mailed on the 1st of OCT was asked to send a letter as not having internet acc sent letter on 1st asking for 193k to be chappsed then kept ringing and mailing asking if it had been actioned finally on the 7th i had an e mail to say funds will be transfered tomorrow ie 8th.I also have 200k in fixed deposit all connected to my SIPP pension.
I originally joined Hoppers group £100 but got somewhat concerned following querying my documentary evidence was seemingly not quite as wartertight as others that had chaps receipts ie A group.
I would gladly join a group in identical positions.i also comment that i sent a email to M Simpson last night confirming my recorded delivery letter sent on the 12 thof Oct explaning my transfer request that was not actioned before provisional liquidation as yet i have not had a reply to either i also asked for a read receipt on my e mail it has not been sent although i had a delivery receipt.

Chaps transfer

  • Kenman
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/11/2008 - 16:14

First! I live in the Isle of Man, retired here in 1985, so that makes me quite old! I love the Island, previously living just outside Liverpool I found the way of life here so laid back, crime here is minimal, taxation is much less than the U.K. You can walk the streets at night without the fear of being mugged!
I am in the same boat as the rest of you ……but …..using the old adage, `I didn’t put all my eggs in one basket’, so I am not completely penniless . . . . .yet!!, (unless one of the other banks fail.)
Why…did I put my money in KSF, well, I did my homework, I knew they had a cash mountain of £850,000,000, and, . . . . they were giving 6.8% on an Instant Access account, (around 50% more than the other banks) now why didn’t that warn me? I took my money out of Bradford and Bingley and lodged it with KSF. Another old adage!! If it looks too good to be true etc . . . .and, with Iceland with inflation at 15% I should have known better. However I was greedy, (so far no one else has owned up to that!) The bank looked solid. I assumed that it ran solely as an I.O.M. bank, I was wrong, I saw the writing on the wall and put my chaps in on the Monday, though it was only authorized on Tuesday morning (7Oct). So, like a lot of others, my account at KSF shows a zero balance, I have been personally to their offices, and . . . .they don’t know where the money is, they think it is locked in KSF UK, which I believe the UK Govt. controls. Will we ever get it back . . . . .I must be honest, for all the words, letters, threats, legal arguments, that I read in this group, if the UK Govt. has its claws on the money I doubt it will return.
Another worrying thought is . . . .My account at KSF shows zero, how can I claim from the I.O.M. deposit scheme if I haven’t got any account to show?
It’s a problem. Will it work out, I hope so! But the last bank collapse here, the BCCI took almost 20 years to sort out, and depositors only saw pennies in the £. Sorry I’m so gloomy, but I feel it’s honest comment.

I am in the same position.

  • iomillie
  • 13/10/08 30/09/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/11/2008 - 12:29

I am in the same position. Has anyone taken legal advice regarding whether we should address these two issues ("in-flight" and "not processed") together or separately? If not, I could perhaps do so.

I am in same position I agree

  • milo2003
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/11/2008 - 10:58

I am in same position I agree we should look at legal avenue and see how strong our case is let me know what you need

in flight funds

  • sambururob
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 03/11/2008 - 18:49

We had £135,000 and euro 90,000 authorised to move on the 6th October: £23,000 and euro 25,0000 authorised to move on the 7th October and a residue on the 8th - which should have moved at 9am. Nothing arrived in HSBC.
How can we help you to help us to help you etc.?
You say it and we will do it.
All the best

in flights

  • rippedoff
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/11/2008 - 10:03

Just had a few days where I could not reach internet. Really missed the comfort of this forum. So I'm just catching up and may have missed some news....

I broadly agree with Codhelpus. I was in Hoppers legal group but withdrew when I learned that he could not pursue Euro inflights (all my funds are in euro). So my real inflight (that means the funds requested on 6th have been debitted from my Edge balance) are probably in IOM nostro account OR in Deutsche Bank Frankfurt. I have decided not to appoint a German lawyer since I cannot even be sure the funds are in Germany.

I also have a 100k euro transfer which was made on 8th and was never actioned. In these cases I suspect the currency does not matter; the principle is the same. I would support Cod's call for some kind of group to discuss what is happening/can be done about this.

Interesting Cod that you indicate Mike Simpson may be inclined to let the real in flights continue - whats the latest on that?

in flight

  • rk
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 04/11/2008 - 09:35

I had via my KSFIOM internet account an "authorised £180k + payment" on 07/10/08 morning, yet this was not actioned and did not leave my account as at CoB on 08/10/08.

Therefore balance still "in account"

Think it would be throwing good money after bad to persue why this transaction was not processed....

News on NOT in flight transactions

  • Maud
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Mon, 03/11/2008 - 17:49

I phoned KSFIOM today and spoke to Jeanette Morgan she told me that the Administrator has asked that all transaction requests that were received prior to closing up shop be recorded on a spread sheet. Today they were STILL processing requested transferrs. I do not know if this is a good or a bad thing. We wil wait and see. Maud

In Same Position

  • worriedsaver
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 23:16

I am too in the same position ( eg . I made a fax withdrawal request on 6th that was not actioned ) and my funds never left KSF(IOM) due I am told to a " heavy workload" . I have joined "Hoppers" legal action through Latchams Solicitors and that means I am in what they describe as a Category B claimant . I too would be interested to know how many of us are in the same position . I stand to lose a substantial sum and so it is worthwhile for me to pay for some legal representation at this stage and if nothing else any legal action by any " category" of claimants should hopefully benefit all depositors in that it should create some extra publicity . Not sure how far down the legal route I can go due to the expense but there has to be strength in numbers if we can fight our corner together as a group .

In Flight pre- 8th October savers

  • Claus
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 19:15

Hello Worriedsaver & everyone else in this mess. I asked "Hoppers" solicitors Richard Gore how many savers as of today 30th Oct was he representing who were in his Category B class. His answer:

"Of the B claims I have 9 people instructing me to write a letter for them. Insofar as the letters of claim are concerned, they are individual letters of claim which will need to fit with the individual circumstances of each case. As B claims differ, i.e. different facts, figures, evidence, it means that the letters have to be bespoke to a certain extent and this takes time.
I debated the costing on this for some time before settling on the figure but it is the only fair way to apportion the charge for these sorts of claims." unquote
I do not think that is a lot (9 people) which makes me wonder (1) whether the general concensus amoung B catagorised savers is that we have little chance, or (2) people dont want to throw more money into this pit.
Personally I have a money problem in my hands and this next letter the solicitors will be sending out (at a cost of a whopping £1630 so far!!!) is certainly as far as I am prepared to so/spend at this moment.

Transfer authorised on 8 Oct but not actioned

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 21:02

I requested via on-line banking a CHAPS transfer of funds from my "Instant Access" account (a misnomer!) at KSFIoM on 8 October. This was authorised but not actioned by the bank even though the bank's licence was only suspended on 9 October. Surely all transfers that were requested and authorised but not actioned prior to the suspension of the bank's licence should be given priority and actioned as soon as possible by Mr Simpson using available funds?

Same situation

  • Sophie
  • 16/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 21:48

My wife and I are in the same situation as this for £107,000. Now what?

'I requested via on-line banking a CHAPS transfer of funds from my "Instant Access" account (a misnomer!) at KSFIoM on 8 October. This was authorised but not actioned by the bank even though the bank's licence was only suspended on 9 October. '

Please look at...

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 21:09

Hi Scott - take a look at the forum "Hopper's legal action on in-flight transfers" under active forum topics. If you've been member of this website for the last 2 weeks+, what have you been doing, mate? (No offence intended, sir)

"Grounded" transfers

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 21:40

Thanks for comment. I am well aware of Hopper's legal action on in-flight transfers. Not quite the same though. Mine is not an in-flight transfer - rather a case of the bank failing to action a transfer which was authorised the day before the bank's licence was suspended.

Transfer not Actioned

  • IanAbroad
  • 11/10/08 13/08/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 22:59

Hello Scott,
you can call Richard Gore at Latchams, he is easy to get hold of and won't mind giving you 5 minutes of his time.
Legal action is always going to cost, but then again, so is losing your life savings.

Message for IanAbroad

  • mikepapa
  • 10/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 20:46


Thanks for your opinion over the past couple of days.

I called Richard Gore this afternoon and he was on phone, however he rang me back less than 5 mins later.
He was happy to discuss my particuler issues and went to great lenghts to explain everything.
As you say, legal action costs [and how!] but then, loss of ones life sayings has got to be worth a fight!


Thanks for the response..

  • uptight61
  • 14/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 22:09

Thanks for the response, Scott. I believe Hopper's lawyer is also acting for a group of depositors in a simiar situation to yourself (class B depositors - internet requests that were not actioned). I myself sent a fax in on the 7th requesting transfer of monies which was not actioned (evidently Category C) but did not pursue the matter as evidently the Bank was bombarded by 100's at the same time and transfer was not physically possible. There are arguments (eg. ownership has changed because request has been made) for legal pursuit but I did not take it up over concern over lack of precedent etc. + open-ended fees.
As always, I stand to be corrected by members of the forum if anything I have said is incorrect!

E-mail to Mike Simpson

  • Maud
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 29/10/2008 - 19:47

All seems to be a bit quiet on this forum. Does anyone have any news!!!! I have e-mailed Mike Simpson tonight as I have had no reply to my letter to him. We now know our instructions to transfer funds were definately not actioned by KSFIOM. I would think we still have a case, our faxed or sent letters must still be in KSFIOM offices and therefore accessible to the Administrator. They cannot surely deny that they received them. He must know that these instructions exist and should have made an effort to secure them. What does everyone think? Remember stay positive. Must go, natives getting restless. Maud-in-the-bush

Standard Letter

  • langley
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 30/10/2008 - 22:20

You may have a similar letter heading your way - I received this, I imagine standard, response today from Alison Tomb/ For Mike Simpson in regard to a fax I sent on the 7 October requesting that our 10 day notice account be closed and funds transferred with immediate effect.

Dear Sir,

You account number xxxxx

I refer to your letter of 7 October 2008.

On the 9 October 2008, the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man made an Order appointing me as Liquidator Provisionally of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of man) Limited (“KSFIOM” or “the Bank”), pending the hearing of a petition for the formal winding up KSFIOM, which is due to be heard on 27 November 2008. In addition on the 8 October 2008, the Isle of Man Financial Supervision Commission suspended KSFIOM’s banking licence.

I understand that you are seeking a transfer of funds from your account with KSFIOM. Unfortunately my appointment as Liquidator Provisionally has the effect of “freezing” customer accounts and as such it is not possible to process requests for a transfer of funds from your account.

Following a hearing on the 27 November 2008, if a Liquidator is appointed, customers will be contacted with regard to the process for claiming monies owed to them.

In the meantime, we would refer you to the Bank’s website at where we will seek to provide any updates on the situation.

If you have any queries, you may contact the Company on +44(0)1624 699222.

Yours faithfully

Alison Tomb
For Mike Simpson
Liquidator Provisionally of
Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander (Isle of man) Limited

Funds In Transit

  • Veteran
  • 23/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 09:09

May I possibly have the contact who is looking up the top London Barrister in an attempt to find where we go from here. I would like to become part of the group that will fight for our funds.

My wife and I are yet more people who are upset by the actions of authority. I have lond advocated that Government and Local Authorities are no good for running businesses. They may have the advice to hand but not the necessary unique business acumen.

We have lost (or likely to lose)a substantial amount and would like to be part of the team fighting for our funds which technically left the bank, that is, 'Authorised' and showing they had left the account.

Please would someone contact me from the team. Thank you


Looking into top London Barrister we have connections to

  • codhelpus
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Fri, 24/10/2008 - 08:23

We have decided to go with Richard Gore for the time being because we now believe that its possible
that many of the inflighters may get their money soon - like IainB. If this happens, Richard Gore will
have to focus more of his attention on the non-actioned in-flighters. But we have decided also to look
into getting help from a top London barrister that we have connections to but who may be very influential in governement
circles. We will ask him to look into what action we can take against the government and if indeed a crime
has been committed. We think it could be a human rights issue and something to take to the European
Parliament. We dont think people should let this lie - a government shouldnt be able to bring down a bank, steal their own citizens
money and expect to get away with it. Look what happen to Nick Leeson when he brought down Barings Bank - he
was brought to justice. Govenrments are not above the law - not in the civilised world.

If we get good advice and he believes there is a good case, we will let everyone know
We all deserve to get our money back

Not in flight transactions

  • Maud
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/10/2008 - 19:48

At last someone with the same problem as me. all the hype seems to be about they guys who have "in-flight"transactions but what about us who do not have inter-net access on our accounts. I faxed 3 letter on 7th giving the correct code word on each and confirmed by phone that they had got them and would action them. They did not get actioned and are not registered on my accounts. We need to establish where we stand legally. can we start a new formum for not in flight transactions.

in flights

  • rippedoff
  • 12/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/10/2008 - 20:10

Maud, lots of posts about this topic. The hype revolves around the distinct theoretical possibility of capturing and reclaiming funds which have electronically left IOM and are probaly in clearing bank in London. These funds are likely to be GBP rather than Euro or USD.

Latchams have, as far as I understand it, stated that there may be a case for capturing and reclaiming funds which were requested to be transferred but did not actually debit the account OR funds which did debit the account but did not make it to UK clearing bank. This case was also made in GUTTERED's technical paper. The issue though is that Latchams have stated that if you fall into this category (which right now I believe I am in) then it becomes more difficult (but not impossible) to achieve.

So to answer your question, we don't know where we stand legally and we will not know until we can learn where our funds are. I have wriiten to Mike Simpson askin him where my funds are but I may not get a response before he has identified that himself and if he's able to, move them back into his jurisdiction.

So, its a gamble which is difficult to weigh up; either you sign up with Latchams and take the risk or wait to see if you can identify where your transfer is and then get a clearer picture on chances of getting them to their destination account either through Latchams or AN Other. I believe at this stage it is more likely that Mike Simpson may get to them first before Latchams can seize them - especially if they are not in UK.

For my part I will think overnight and make a decision tomorrow.

Derbyshire IofM code word

  • Weeter Peeks
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/10/2008 - 23:27

I had a faxed transfer letter (6th) acknowledged by KIoM on the 7th returned requesting my Derbyshire IoM codeword be attached before they could do the transfer. Clearly a delaying process as when I did attach the code word (against Derbyshire policy) I was refered to a customer Relations officer who tried to persuade me all was well. No transfer was ever made.

Authorisation Bureaucracy

  • Relentless Posse
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Sat, 25/10/2008 - 00:50

I have read some of these comments and when I hear that these members of staff are basically saying everything is Ok - well that is fraud. Fraud is a criminal action.
Every component in this stinging mess needs to be taken out ,washed down and cross examined.Its scandalous ;it makes my blood boil.

IofM Code word

  • Blades
  • 19/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Thu, 23/10/2008 - 08:23

The same happened to me when I faxed on Sunday 7th. I have used faxes to trasfer money many times before and never been asked for the code word. No transfer was made for me either.

Very good letter

  • cupcake
  • 10/10/08 12/06/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 22/10/2008 - 23:00

Thanks for your comment. I am also in the same boat. KSF got my registered mail on 7th Oct , instructing them to transfer part of my funds via Telex transfer to another bank, but they did not act. So if there are sufficient people to go for a legal action, you can count on me too. I am also retired, so need more people to share the "Unknown" legal fees.