Correspondence: 17/05/2004 - Alex Henney to John Tiner
17 May '04 - Alex Henney to John Tiner
Mr. John Tiner,
Chief Executive Elect,
The Financial Services Authority,
25 The North Colonnade,
Canary Wharf,
London E14 5HS.
|
38 Swains Lane
London N6 6QR.
|
|
Dear Mr. Tiner,
I write further to my letter dated 6 April. As I predicted the Board is not behaving in a straightforward manner. It published a statement opposing EMAG's resolution, which is of course its prerogative. But in doing to is grossly misrepresented both EMAG and its position. I attach the statement which it sent out to members. It is notable that the Society's website publishes many pages of propaganda about the board rejecting EMAG's resolution and the legal opinion of Herbert Smith whilst neither reproducing the actual resolution nor the 1,000 words of explanation supplied by EMAG.
First, EMAG is not promoting "groups and lawyers proposing to sue the Society". The basis of this assertion was that we have links on our website to such groups and lawyers. The links on our website include the FSA, the FOS, Equitable, EPHAG and others (including ELTA and ELCAG). They are all there as part of our objective of providing information. (The Equitable Life Members Help Group similarly provides links to both ELTA and ELCAG). The legal link includes a reference to Clarke Willmott under the heading "A suggestion for those seeking Legal Advice in Connection with Equitable Life". We mention that they provided EMAG with helpful advice on the GAR rectification scheme, and state "This is neither advice nor a recommendation from EMAG". The Oxford dictionary defines "promote" as "support or actively encourage". EMAG has done neither. The claim is as specious as claiming that because the BBC website about Burma has a link to The State Peace and Development Council, the BBC is promoting the military junta whose website it is.
Second, the Board is in error in suggesting that the purposes for which the grant is requested by EMAG are unclear and that EMAG's expenditure would duplicate expenditure by the Society. EMAG's objectives in this regard are:-
- To persuade the Parliamentary Ombudsman that there has been maladministration such as should lead to the payment by the Government of compensation (an area in which to date only EMAG, rather that the Society, has made any progress). Part of the money would go to pursuing the application for judicial review. As the Society has no locus in this matter, there is no duplication
- To get the European Commission to take up with the British Government the issue of breaches by the United Kingdom of the 3rd Directive (a point which the Society's lawyers have recognised can usefully be taken, if at all, only by policyholders and not by the Society) via:-
- possibly a Francovich case
- a petition to the European Commission
The Society has no locus in either of these approaches, and thus there is no duplication. Furthermore we do not think that Herbert Smith's letter accurately reflected the euro situation.
We asked the Board for a meeting at which we would have explained all our thinking Treves, however, refused, because (he alleged) EMAG has "attempted to destabilize the Society; and they have resulted in significant, unnecessary costs being incurred by the Society's continuing members, costs they can ill afford to bear". We deplore the board's behavior in failing to accept EMAG's repeated written requests to meet, then claiming we are not being clear in our objectives and procedures.
Turning to the procedural aspects, EMAG supplied the required 1,000 member requisition, resolution and 1,000 word explanation on March 24th. The Society refused to answer whether the resolution was to be put and we only learned that it was going forward by reading it in the Sunday Telegraph on April 18th. Unless the Board is aware from the postal votes that it has defeated the resolution, I expect that Treves will attack the resolution at the AGM, our representative is not allowed to make a statement, but has been allotted 10 minutes at the end of the meeting (by which time some members will have left) to answer any questions.
The Board's statements lack integrity - they are shoddy manipulative trickery and should be below standards acceptable to the FSA. Clearly, if a plc were to publish such equivalently misleading material about an issue of concern to its shareholders, I imagine that you would take an interest. I hope you will do so in this case.
I copy this letter to Paul Myners. He can observe the continuation of the abuse of mutuality which Penrose pointed to and which Michael Foot agreed was a significant issue.
Yours sincerely,
ALEX HENNEY
c.c. Board Members
EMAG Committee
|
