Dear Sir or Madam,

Deposits (non retail) in Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander UK have been frozen.

I would like to have precise details of the basis upon which Dave Whelan was refunded his considerable deposit with KSF UK. If a claim was made for compensation and payment was made through the FSCS, on what basis precisely.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Davison

Dear Enquiries, CEU,

I refer to my Freedom of Information request made on 9 April 2009.

Your response is overdue, please forward a comprehensive and factual response by return.

May I remind you that by law the deadline for your response was no later than 8 May 2009. I suggest you escalate this to senior HM Treasury staff as appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Davison

Dear Jenkins, Kate,

FOI Request - your reference IRU/9/312

I refer to your reply dated 11/05/09.

The fact that Mr Whelan had funds held in Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander UK (KSF UK)released was widely reported in the UK press (see link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f45d2280-17fa-...
- various others available if of interest).

I assure you that contrary to what you suggest, I have absolutely no interest in knowing more about Mr Whelan´s or anybody else's personal affairs.

My question related to the basis of release of funds from KSF UK that was widely reported by the mainstream and regional UK press.

1) In respect of retail or non retail deposits in KSF UK, would you please confirm whether or not there have been any exceptions of whatsoever nature made to the defined published rules for release of funds / compensation. Whether by way of release of funds by KSF UK, payments through FSCS, or compensation / advances of any nature paid by the Government to any company or individual due to their deposits with KSF UK.

2) Have any special arrangements been made outside the scope of the defined published rules regarding release of funds, compensation or advances of funds to any individual or company that had deposits with KSF UK.

3) If there have been exceptions or special arrangements please fully detail the reasons and basis for the exception(s). (Note that I have no interest in knowing the name of the individual or company involved).

Direct answers to these questions are requested.

I note that ´By law public authorities must respond "promptly", and in any event not later than 20 working days after receiving your request´. Perhaps this time I could request you, in the spirit of the act, respond to this simple matter with some facts `promptly´. It is after all a very simple matter.

Please confirm that the above is clear and if there is a need to do a formal appeal please advise by return.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Davison

Dear Jenkins, Kate,

FOI Request - your reference IRU/9/312

Further to my response on 11th May, please confirm that the matter is receiving attention.

I look forward to receiving direct answers shortly.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Davison

Dear Sirs,

FOI Request - your reference IRU/9/312

Please advise when I can expect a response to my FOI request above. I note that you unilaterally determined to treat it as revised request, but please note that the act actually stipulates responses must be sent ' promptly' and within a maximum of 20 working days.

I appreciate that you may well have to escalate the issue, as HMT do seem to be rather unwilling to release any information concerning Government involvement and position concerning the KSF IOM debacle.

I would, notwithstanding the above, request an honest and comprehensive response as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Davison

Dear Sir or Madam,

FOI Request - your reference IRU/9/312

Please note that I am still awaiting a response to the FOI request above. Your response is overdue under the terms of the act.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Davison

Dear responses, FOI

Your ref: IRU/9/426

I refer to your response dated 10 June 2009.

Your response is entirely inadequate.

You state that you do not hold information that answers the specific questions I raised, however then state that the FSCS cannot make exceptions to the published rules. That being the case, if no exceptions have been made by HMG, why the reluctance to respond to my questions. Please review my questions again and address this in a serious manner.

The history of my request makes it abundantly clear what clarification I am seeking. Various national newspapers reported that at least one exception had been made as a result of intervention by HMG, were these reports correct?

Yours sincerely,

Ian Davison

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your ref: IRU/9/426

Please acknowledge receipt of my note of 15 June regarding the above, and advise when I can expect to receive an informative response.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Davison

Dear Sir or Madam,

Repeating my previous chaser on this below. Please acknowledge.

Your ref: IRU/9/426

Please acknowledge receipt of my note of 15 June regarding the
above, and advise when I can expect to receive an informative
response.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Davison

Dear Sir or Madam,

Repeating my previous chaser on this below. Please acknowledge.

Your ref: IRU/9/426

Please acknowledge receipt of my note of 15 June regarding the
above, and advise when I can expect to receive an informative
response.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Davison

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please note that I am still awaiting a response regarding my request (Your ref: IRU/9/426)

Yours faithfully,

Ian Davison