• JayJay
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
Posted: Mon, 01/06/2009 - 17:03

The origin of KSFIOM's collapse lies with the decision and subsequent enactment of the transfer of half of KSFIOM's assets from Iceland to KSFUK. The funds were subsequently frozen. Unable to access these funds, KSFIOM collapsed and was placed into provisional liquidation on 8th October 2008.

The regulatory authorities of the UK and Isle of Man, the FSA and FSC, admit that they jointly arranged the transfer. However that is about the only thing they do agree upon. When criticized for allowing such a large amount to be deposited UNSECURED in one bank the FSC declared that they had believed the funds WERE secured, and that the decision to deposit the funds in entirety in KSFUK was made on the advice of the FSA. But the FSA flatly deny this; they claim that the FSC was aware that the funds were unsecured and that the decision to place the lot with KSFUK had been made solely by the FSC. There are also other matters of contention. I think that any independent observer would conclude that both governments share a proportion of blame.

A just solution would have been for the two governments to admit that a mistake had been made and to have cooperated from the start. Funds could have been raised to pay out all depositors in full, and then perhaps an independent commission instituted to apportion blame and accountability. The funds would subsequently have been recovered from KSFIOM's assets as they were realised. But the governments chose not to take this path; they preferred to accuse each other and still continue to do so.

The queen is head of state of both the Isle of Man and the UK. She has the unedifying spectacle of two of her governments disgracefully and demeaningly blaming each other for the fiasco which has caused incredible suffering and penury to many of her subjects (and others) for eight months, with no meaningful end in sight.

When the Treasury Select Commission advised that both governments should meet to resolve the issue, both could with impunity disregard such advice - or embark on trips to Iceland to divert attention from the real issue between them. However if such "advice" came from the queen I believe matters might be different.

Royals always attract media attention and it would be a good idea to invite one of the major UK newspapers to be involved from the start.

Under the circumstances I am confident that if we could present a well written, strongly supported and publicized petition to the queen she would take some action, even if only to inform her two governments to resolve the matter.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (24 votes)

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

Plea for Clarity

  • Peasant
  • 10/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sun, 07/06/2009 - 12:35

When writing to the Queen or anybody unfamiliar with the terminology it helps the reader, if on the first mention of an official body, its full title is used followed by the acronym. Thus, Kaupthing, Singer & Friedlander (Isle of Man) Depositors Action Group (DAG) and thereafter using DAG. When emailing or on a forum also include the web address (URL) http://chat.ksfiomdepositors.org/ or http://www.ksfiomdepositors.org/ or even http://www.whenbankscrash.com/index.php/board,2.0.html

I would also suggest keep it as brief as possible. You are writing to busy people who have a lot of letters to read.


  • upthecreek
  • 26/10/08 n/a (free)
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Sat, 06/06/2009 - 20:46

We think that would be a good idea and would like to be able to sign it. I wrote to the Queen months ago on this matter and received a reply stating that she was aware of the situation, and that she would ask Lord Mandelson to investigate into the matter, however a couple of months went by and nothing happened, i wrote to the Queen again and her senior correspondant replied, that she would write once again to Lord Mandelson but again we have not heard anything. I have written to Lord Mandelson myself, also emailed him, but he has not had the decency to reply at all. Perhaps I would get a better response if I had some green custard to throw.

This is not what the FSC said when i formally complained

  • iainb
  • 11/10/08 01/02/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/06/2009 - 16:13

You said: "When criticized for allowing such a large amount to be deposited UNSECURED in one bank the FSC declared that they had believed the funds WERE secured, and that the decision to deposit the funds in entirety in KSFUK was made on the advice of the FSA"

this is not what the FSC replied to me when i put a similar formal complaint to them

see my earlier post..lost somewhere under a deluge of largely inconsequential posts

they said that the decision to upstream funds was a KSFIOM decision that at the time, although they were concerned about Iceland, they thought was reasonable

KSFIOM management may have acted unwisely...FSC told me that any investigation into that is a matter for the liquidator

when i aired this before on the site..several contributors said that upstreaming was the way that deposit-taking branches like KSFIOM worked and that it was unlikely that there had been any wrongdoing

I'm left thinking that the only blame can be placed on HMG whose ill-thought out action led to a solvent bank being forced out of business...

i am assuming that our DAG legal team will be looking at where blame (if any) can be apportioned



What the FSC said

  • JayJay
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/06/2009 - 18:02

Thanks, iainb, for your observation. I made the statement to which you refer as a result of what I read some months ago on this site, but I cannot now find the source. Perhaps others can throw further light on the matter.

Your posting does highlight the necessity of being accurate, and the Legal Team would of course have to be involved in the drafting of any petition.

but was it ...

  • steveservaes
  • 13/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/06/2009 - 16:31

" a solvent bank"
We are still in the dark as to whether KSFUK was a walking nightmare that had to be stopped by Darling or a super bank taken down by his actions.
If the former we blame the UK FSA, if the latter HMG.
But we need to know which.
The Kaupthing judicial review in early July may help.
But can't Mike Simpson ask Ernst and Young for this information? They have all KSFUK's financial records so unless it is within the "gag" lets be having it!

Publicity is the Key

  • JayJay
  • 30/10/08 31/05/09
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/06/2009 - 15:19

Every effort should be made to attract one of the big national newspapers to take an interest - I do not think this would be too difficult in respect of a petition to the queen.

There are among our elderly members those who are invalids, some are war veterans. I would suggest that those who hand in the petition should comprise a small group of such members if they could be persuaded and are able to do so.

Such a group, with some wearing their war medals, handing in a petition at the gates of Buckingham Palace, would I am sure, attract considerable media interest. It would be difficult for the queen and her advisers to ignore or shelve the matter. If it was only us, then quite possibly they would do so; but with one or more national newspapers following the story and waiting for a response I believe the outcome could well be different and possibly very much to our advantage.

The Queen

  • grapow
  • 20/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/06/2009 - 10:30

Whilst I generally support any initiative which adds publicity, I was in correspondence with Prince Andrew, who I am advised as Royal family responsibility for the IoM, albeit through his PA. Eventually, in exactly the same way as the MP's etc the correspondence merely ceases.

So much for the caring face of the Royal family!

I have to confess to being a dedicated anti-royalist and this experience of absolute in-difference only serves to strengthen my feelings!

Good Idea

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/06/2009 - 07:01

I think this is a good idea.

I don't know about others, but I'm exhausted with writing to MPs. When they deign to reply, it's always the same old evasive crap, cut and pasted by secretaries. .Also, our individual letters and emails may tend to cancel one another out.

With a petition, only one well-written letter goes out, countersigned, the more signatures the more weight. As JayJay suggests, that can be followed up by the same letter to the media with information as to its purpose.

This way we can all contribute, and much less arduously than through individual emailing.

Personally, I think the Queen would be a good one to send to. While she's a benign presence in the UK, she still has a lot of support from the British public. There will be others too; key figures in British life who are without strong political bias. What about similar people in some other countries too? The usefulness of this would not so much be what these people might do to help, but as a story for the British media to broadcast.

The latest DAG letter for us to copy to MPs is almost appropriate for this purpose too.

She never answers

  • bellyup
  • 10/10/08 09/01/10
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/06/2009 - 22:39

While we must leave no stone unturned and i would sign such a petition i have little faith asking the Queen to do anything .

She is an 81 year old constitutional monarch who has no political power and cannot in a hundred years imagine what it must be like in our position.

what do they know or care about the lives of ordinary people\/

Has anyone who has written( and many have) even got an email response back from the palace or any other royals?

No acknowledgement . . .

  • drglowry
  • 14/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/06/2009 - 01:37

I wrote to HM in October in her capacity as Queen of Australia. Unfortunately, no acknowledgment was received. The rather shabby and unfocused replies that I had from No 10 and Treasury were little better.


  • D RAM
  • 13/10/08 01/08/14
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Tue, 02/06/2009 - 05:00

Is there any scope for raising possible maladministration - certainly by the UK bodies - with the Ombudsman ?

YES YES YES !!! I am sure

  • The Biggest Ban...
  • 10/10/08 14/07/15
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Mon, 01/06/2009 - 18:02

YES YES YES !!! I am sure that many of us have written directly anyway (I certainly have - and anyone that hasn't I encourage you to do so....) but as you say, a well written, well publicised letter / pettition from the group would I am sure have some impact.....

Petition to the Queen

  • Expat13
  • 19/10/08 31/05/09
  • unspecified
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/06/2009 - 02:39

We might be better off involving the Court of Human Rights which is part of the Council of Europe. Failing that we could approach the International Court of the Hague. Anything sent to the Queen will not be acted upon. All the Queen or one of her assistants will do is pass the petition onto a government department. Our best bet is to take legal proceedings against John Aspen of the FSC and the directors of KSF IoM even though this will cost us more money in legal fees. We might even consider taking legal action against the UK Treasury for stealing our money. The only problem with this is that we will be using our hard earned money whats left of it to fight a government that uses taxpayers money to defend itself. The old adage of blow you Jack I'm alright is alive and well in the UK.

I received a reply from the

  • IceCrusher
  • 14/10/08 25/10/11
  • a depositor
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/06/2009 - 12:02

I received a reply from the Court of Human Rights and they agreed to consider the case. Trouble is, they said they had a backlog of some 100,000 cases to deal with...

I received a reply from the

  • Anonymous
  • Offline
  • Wed, 03/06/2009 - 12:46

Ask them how in many of those 100,000 the plaintiff is based in the UK. The answer is probably embarrassingly large.