maotw
*
Posts: 60 
Likes: 29
|
Post by maotw on May 4, 2020 16:07:02 GMT
For info ....
Had the 'final' on my complaint .... a polite F.O. as expected.
They acknowledge what the chats say, but that doesn't move them.
I have requested the logs from the 12th March - which they say will be provided.
Confess I don't fully understand the intricacies of the planned resale market, but I see the word chronological being used, so me thinks unpicking the time stamping problems will become an imperative if holdings ever start to trade at par; which of course may well be never.
|
|
maotw
*
Posts: 60
Likes: 29
|
Post by maotw on May 6, 2020 11:38:27 GMT
Got the logs - not what I wanted - they are simply session logs, with no detail of the actions i did on my account. I've requested the detail.
Of course with "withdrawals back to normal" and CBIL [hopefully] adding liquidity - it's happy days ;-)
|
|
maotw
*
Posts: 60
Likes: 29
|
Post by maotw on Jun 9, 2020 13:09:49 GMT
Ha! Having told me that they'd closed my complaint, and that the dates have to stick, and giving explanations that contradict what has actually happened, said in chats ..... etc etc etc
They've fixed the withdrawal timestamps to now be correct.
So now correctly in the period between locking the withdrawals and putting-up the -NMC banner/explanation (the IT glitch BS period). Next step is to get my money back on the basis that I requested the withdrawal during NMCs.
What hope I wonder?
|
|
maotw
*
Posts: 60
Likes: 29
|
Post by maotw on Jun 10, 2020 11:41:34 GMT
My dates are still 14th and 19th. Sigh. I'd assume that FCA rules will require them to treat everyone the same in the same circumstances. Message me if you decide to fight it AND think I can contribute to that. My position is that NMC's ceased at the instant that they put up the "slower than normal, no longer NMCs" banner, and not when they commenced the "IT glitch" stuff. NMC's is a decision entirely in their gift, and therefore it ceased at the point they promulgated their decision that NMCs had ended. If they decide to pay me, then they'll have to pay everyone else who withdrew/unswept between BSIT and -NMCs
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 10, 2020 12:17:24 GMT
My dates are still 14th and 19th. Sigh. I'd assume that FCA rules will require them to treat everyone the same in the same circumstances. Message me if you decide to fight it AND think I can contribute to that. My position is that NMC's ceased at the instant that they put up the "slower than normal, no longer NMCs" banner, and not when they commenced the "IT glitch" stuff. NMC's is a decision entirely in their gift, and therefore it ceased at the point they promulgated their decision that NMCs had ended. If they decide to pay me, then they'll have to pay everyone else who withdrew/unswept between BSIT and -NMCs Somewhere I thought I read that that the block on AA withdrawals was triggered automatically by the system when the accounts breached Minimum Operating Limits. Therefore there would be specific identifiable point at which NMC ceased.
|
|
maotw
*
Posts: 60
Likes: 29
|
Post by maotw on Jun 10, 2020 12:41:25 GMT
I'd assume that FCA rules will require them to treat everyone the same in the same circumstances. Message me if you decide to fight it AND think I can contribute to that. My position is that NMC's ceased at the instant that they put up the "slower than normal, no longer NMCs" banner, and not when they commenced the "IT glitch" stuff. NMC's is a decision entirely in their gift, and therefore it ceased at the point they promulgated their decision that NMCs had ended. If they decide to pay me, then they'll have to pay everyone else who withdrew/unswept between BSIT and -NMCs Somewhere I thought I read that that the block on AA withdrawals was triggered automatically by the system when the accounts breached Minimum Operating Limits. Therefore there would be specific identifiable point at which NMC ceased. I'd be interested if there was evidence of the existence of an automatic trigger (before 12th March) , and whether the MOL limits were set, and at what metric/level (or even existed ;-) prior to 12th March. I also wonder why they would need to revert to "IT glitch" to describe what was a coded action of the platform?
|
|
|
|
Post by drphil on Jun 10, 2020 15:34:10 GMT
Not sure how it may help, but the cut-off time on 12th March was 14.35 (as conveyed to me during a phone call with customer services on the morning of 21st April)
|
|
