There's no point reproducing the letter. TC has given the requirements of the FSA in the matter.
However, the tenet of the letter is that everything in the garden is rosy, all under control. How can this be. Does the FSA enter into supervision when there is nothing wrong?
Hardly.
Murray writes:-
The existing Directors of the HCTCU were invited (sic) to a meeting on Thursday 4th February. At that meeting an agreement was reached to advise the FSA that EHCTCU through lack of volunteers would not recover from the present situation and all matters should be handed over to the Financial Services Compensation scheme (FSCS).
Now doesn't this beg some questions?
1. Why was the EHCTCU served the First Supervisory Notice by the FSA. What were the c ircumstances which led to this?
2. Who called the meeting. Who "invited" the directors.
3. Who are the directors?
4. Were all the directors present?
5. What was the link with ITS?
6. Why is there a lack of "volunteers"? What efforts were made among the membership to solicit volunteers? Is this just a not very good red herring?
7. What is the "present situation" alluded to in the letter?
8. Why is it not recoverable?
9. Why is it necessary for the EHCTCU to fold and force members to seek compensation if their money, according to Murray, is "safe"?
10. What investigation is now being undertaken by the FSA?
Murray has kindly invited members to discuss the matter with him and publishes his email to allow this
murraysfleming@hotmail.com
The answers, if forthcoming, will make interesting reading.
Despite Murray's best efforts, doesn't the actions of the FSA suggest that the EHCTCU is insolvent? And with ITS going down the swanney, and Neilson apparently being difficult to get a hold of, isn't there a stench of reasonable suspicion here?
Question remains, is Murray a fit and proper person to be holding such office? Or do we now live in a society where no one is culpable?