London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Woodie, esl are not the stobart part of the consortium, they are stob.Nevertheless the stob have bonds with esl and they are falling more than the market atm.
Eddie Stobart has crashed. No tears from me. Bastards
Thanks for your observations - I am still pursuing but meeting resistance. I have even quoted the Ombudsman's ruling and rationale. It appears a game of attrition - still truth will out as they say.
and BA have announced a 5 times a week service to NQY from LHR from July to September.. Predictable.
HL did the same with my complaint twisting and turning with words / statements after my first letter they stated that they ALWAYS inform shareholders of important info regarding shares but they soon twisted that around saying they did not inform holders of a EGM unless the company was folding what a joke. As you say a bunch of weasels and they are still playing that game lets hope that the FCA come down on them. I must get in touch with the OD and see what they say.
Specky, I have to say HL have misrepresnted what actually happened by using weasel words. The Financial Ombudsman made an award to me and against HL on account of facts of the case not because I was upset , which is not really relevant. The case notes on the Ombudsman website explain the reasoning fully and you should be aware that HL resisted me every step of the way and worse still kept changing their story . I find it irratating that they are making out that they made some sort of sympathetic gesture - they did not they were forced by the Ombudsman - they were slippery obstructive and difficult imv. HL tried to argue they had complied with their corporate actions policy but the Ombudsman saw through that and ruled the EGM was very important and fitted the criteria of meetings that stockbrokers should inform shareholders of.[ In essence forcing them to actually do their job properly]. If i were you, and remained disatisfied , I would see if a financial journalist might take up the cudgels - they are hardly flavour of the month after the woodford debacle. Best of Luck.
I was looking to book a flight to Malaga from Exeter and back but no flights showing around the end of April could it be that Branson / Virgin have sold the slot. That's what they wanted the SLOTS all looks a bit dodgy just now. Anybody else having trouble finding a flight with Flybe.
I contacted H L i had a similar response as Specky even though i complained many times to them about not being informed about the EGM + other info. They replied that i did not meet the right conditions for the payment. I did not complain to the Ombudsman as i thought they had no teeth just like the FCA. Where do we go from here that's the next question will the Ombudsman back us .
I tried with Halifax and they basically said because I hadn’t requested to “opt in” for notifications of EGMs etc it isn’t there fault. I asked why they automatically put customers down as opt out, they said it’s in there T&Cs...
I went direct to the Ombudsman quoting Taverham's case - received a letter telling they are busy ATM but will respond in due course. I'll let everyone know the outcome when they do respond.
Ps - needless to say HL consider the time to complain has now expired...
Like you I lost a small amount and flagged this with my brokers HL. I attach their recent response for others...and extend my best wishes to Taverham for keeping us all posted
“I am responding to your message of 13 January 2020 following the complaint you raised last year in respect of the Flybe Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). You have referenced an Ombudsman decision regarding the EGM in which compensation was awarded – you feel this should be extended to you. Thank you for your continued patience while your recent comments have been considered.
I have reviewed your complaint in its entirety and feel it prudent to reiterate that the EGM did not meet our classification of a notifiable Corporate Action. We remain of the opinion that our actions were correct. The Board of Flybe did not make any suggestion to the terms of any such disposal or anything else that would have provided indication of the offer announced on 11 January 2019 - this is not something Hargreaves Lansdown could have foreseen. For an event to be categorised as a Corporate Action, at the time of the announced EGM there would have needed to be firm plans to dispose of the business; there was no such details on this occasion.
Whilst I mindful of your frustration at the events that transpired, I am satisfied that Hargreaves Lansdown has acted in line with its Corporate Action service. The outcome of the EGM was announced on 14 December 2018 and, at this time, the market value of the shares had increased. Had you wished to sell your shares at any point, following the announced results, the opportunity to do so was available to you. I am therefore unable to agree that Hargreaves Lansdown can be held accountable for your perceived financial loss.
The Ombudsman decision you have referenced was in relation to an individual’s complaint and was specific to the concerns they had raised and their circumstances. Hargreaves Lansdown is not bound to award this sum to every Flybe shareholder on our platform.
I am afraid it is not possible to disclose specific details of the complaint the Ombudsman reviewed. The complainant however found the matter distressing and raised concerns back in January 2019 immediately following announcement of the Scheme of Arrangement. Given their circumstances and how upset and strongly the client felt, compensation was awarded to resolve the matter.
I appreciate you contacted our offices about the EGM in January 2019, but having reviewed your message, there was no expression of distress or inconvenience caused as a result of our actions. On that basis I do not believe a payment of compensation is warranted.
I am mindful this may not represent the response you were hoping for, but trust it clarifies our position. Your right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service was outlined in our response of 5 February 2019 – you had six months from this date to contact them. I am afraid therefore the deadline to refer your complai
Flybe are doomed, again, Shirley?
Oh come on Eileen.
Source is Times newspaper
Not everyone understands how commercial loans work. So how lucky Mark Anderson can explain. The Flybe boss is trying to prise £100 million out of the government. And all via Boris Johnson’s new “levelling up” policy: one aimed, apparently, at keeping the bank accounts of the airline’s owners up to the levels they like.
Still, don’t accuse Mr Anderson of demanding any sweetheart terms for a business owned by the billionaires behind Virgin Atlantic — Sir Richard Branson and Delta Air Lines — plus New York hedge fund Cyrus Capital and Stobart. As he told Flybe staff: “We are in conversation with the government around a financial loan — a loan, not a bailout — a commercial loan, but that is the same as any loan we’d take from any bank.”
Really? So why not talk to a bank, then? Short answer: because after the stunts that Flybe’s owners have pulled with its assets, they’d struggle to get a commercial loan. As Companies House filings show, there’s almost zero security left.
Having bought the assets for just £2.8 million last February, one of the owners’ first moves was to strike a deal with Global Loans Agency Services: a trustee for their stakes that takes security over certain assets. So it’s a sort of middleman between Flybe’s owners and its assets. Or at least those that can’t fly off: lessors already had security over most of the 67 turboprop planes.
The rest of the assets, including buildings, aircraft engines and receivables, then look to have been divvied up between the owners. Filings show that Flybe’s holding company — Connect Airways — is both “chargors” and “guarantors” for asset deals. Indeed, the document says: “Each chargor shall attach to a visible part of each item of specified equipment owned by it and with a value in excess of £10,000 . . . a clear and distinctive label.”
The upshot? Well, should Flybe go bust, the owners have a charge over specific assets: enough, maybe, to eliminate any losses. True, they claim to have injected £110 million. But it’s questionable how much of that was cash. Stobart’s £45 million, say, was mainly its regional airline and aircraft-leasing wing, which experts reckon were worth nothing like that. To boot, by using Global Loans, the owners avoid a bunfight over any future carve-up.
On top came the owners’ wheeze with Flybe’s Heathrow slots. They switched Newquay flights under the taxpayer-funded “public service obligation” regime to Gatwick: a dodge, potentially to the benefit of Virgin Atlantic, that unlocked an estimated £60 million of value.
And now, on top of a £10 million holiday on air passenger duty, they want a £100 million taxpayer loan. They can afford to inject fresh equity. Without that, no bank would lend to a loss-making airline whose wealthy owners were up to these sorts of capers. And neither should the government. Indeed, the money would be far better spent subsidising essential routes. Not minted owners intent on looking after thems
Just read[Times] that the consortium, who took over last year secured their investment with Flybe assets - so their 'injection of cash' was nothing more than more borrowing . Disgraceful and as many predicted -so why did'nt the previous bod do that?
Stationhouse - What a nasty little man you are!
I assume you’re on this board because you’re a loser so you’ll understand why your judgement on the matter is unlikely to be considered valuable.
Hi all ,I think I was in and out of Flyb so many times it`s not worth claiming. I only lost £250 in the end but good luck to all who claim. I`d personally pay a lot to see the BOD in the dock! answering questions about their appalling management of the company and misleading statements.
Hi Taverham, well I have not received my money just yet, however a very nice young lady from Halifax Share dealing has called me each day including today to let me know they are still looking into it with the team, I sense that they are just lining up their ducks in readiness for an offer, as you know they will be aware of the FSO ruling in your case so have little wiggle room, guess it is just damage limitation now really for them. I will let you know when I get the outcome, if they say no, then I will document the rationale and send in a claim as you did, but hoping we can avoid that palava!
Many sincere thanks again.
962, my broker argued that the meeting was not a corporate action and therefore not one they needed to tell me about .Frankly it was the best excuse they could come up with imv. The ombudsman decided the broker should have understood the importance of the meeting and informed their clients. Frankly I think a junior member of staff did not read the documentation thoroughly and decided to do nothing , which given we pay them fees is not good enough. If you read the ombudsmans explanation on their web site it explains in more detail. For broker to say they did not know is simply not good enough for a regulated stockbroker - a laughable excuse imv.
Tav,thks for quick reply
Again I know this topic was well questioned at the time,did your broker admit to knowing about the meeting,and just not bother advising you,or did, as mine did,admit to being advised of a meeting,but not knowing the agenda or reasons for the meeting being called did not advise.
ie we know there is a meeting,we don't what it is for or about,so we can't really tell you anything we don't know ourselves.
962, I am doing fine thanks. The ombudsman ruling refers to item 1 . It is not 'compensation for a loss' rather payment for distress [£150] caused by the broker failing to inform me of an important event [egm] as announced by the company. The ombudsman ruled that any subsequent loss could not be directly linked to the egm notification failing. Hope that helps and you also get £150 per broker.
Tav.How are you doing mate.We had many chats on this board late 2018/early 2019,re broker failings.Just so i am clear,thre are 2 isssues that raised concern for all holders.
1.The failure to advise holders of the move from a premium to standard listing circa mid December 2018
2.The recomended offer of 1p per share circa 11 Jan.
Which of the above,or was it both,that your ombudsman ruling/compensation payment refers to