One Account rates cut

harryskinters

Lisyloo is correct. The product only ever had an implied aim to track base. Under Virgin I am sure it always did and fast too.

The real gripe is that RBS have increased the margin on the OA by a full 1% since early this year. The small print no doubt allows this but it shows tremendous bad faith based on how this product was originally marketed. Their refusal to give an indication of how they would react to the last cut demonstrated breathtaking contempt for customers who were contacting them in droves regarding this matter.

The lesson we can learn from the past month is that when rates inevitably fall again this week, we can assume that another protracted "review of rates" may herald a further stretching of this margin. They did not hide their intentions regarding the previous 0.5% cut which was passed on in full. If they front up with an announcement soon after Thursday, then speculation is put to bed. If they start stalling us all again, then I think we can expect a further shafting and yet more growth to their margin. All this while Libor to BofE differential continues to narrow.

We can still pursue them for the 1% margin or at least a portion of it but lets hope the whole saga of doublespeak and procrastination of the last month is not about to start all over again with this weeks MPC decision.

aobr31569

There is an article in todays Money Mail about the one account not cutting its rate by the full amount, so emailing the various papers is having some affect.

stevem999

I've emailed my MP about the profiteering and the huge premium they are now making over LIBOR (especially with the unilateral rise a few months ago). He has replied that he will be taking it further this week - keep trying people!!

camz2008

Not sure if this has been posted in the thread or not:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/columnists/article.html?in_article_id=458662&in_page_id=19&in_author_id=3

"it is now more than three weeks since the base rate was cut by 1.5 percentage points, with Gordon Brown letting all lenders know that they should pass on the full cut to mortgage borrowers as quickly as possible. It is disappointing that some mainstream lenders remain defiant.

The procrastinators among the banks - current standard variable rate in brackets - include Coutts & Co (5.85%), First Direct (5.5%), RBS One Account (6.1%), Standard Life (6.59%) and Woolwich (6.64%). "


So at least it is being reported.

musicegbdf

OK just had a "standard form " response to my letter, It was clearly aimed at the majority of complaints they had received about the BOE rate , etc. It did not answer my point that I had in writing a claim (including worked examples ) of how the OA would be below other providers SVR .

I have written back and asked them to pay me the common decency to at least reply to my specific letter and not send a standard form response. I am sure sending me such a response will not help their case if it goes to the FSA.
Let's see what happens tomorrow and if Gordon Brown will have a bite as good as his bark. I am sure there are a number of Tory MP's that would like to latch onto a 57% government owned company ignoring his strong words made today !!!!

taurusgb

musicegbdf wrote: »

OK just had a "standard form " response to my letter, It was clearly aimed at the majority of complaints they had received about the BOE rate , etc. It did not answer my point that I had in writing a claim (including worked examples ) of how the OA would be below other providers SVR .

I have written back and asked them to pay me the common decency to at least reply to my specific letter and not send a standard form response. I am sure sending me such a response will not help their case if it goes to the FSA.
Let's see what happens tomorrow and if Gordon Brown will have a bite as good as his bark. I am sure there are a number of Tory MP's that would like to latch onto a 57% government owned company ignoring his strong words made today !!!!

I have also written to follow up my complaint and have lent heavily on how annoyed I felt at being sent a form letter that did NOT answer my questions.

DickDastardly_2

harryskinters wrote: »

Lisyloo is correct. The product only ever had an implied aim to track base. Under Virgin I am sure it always did and fast too.

I am sorry but I don't think she is (sorry Lisyloo for third party reference!;)).

Essentially as the letters above show, VIRGIN sold the account on the understanding that it would track the base rate. Looking into the agreements with a microscope, I grant you it doesn't say that BUT then it doesn't say it won't either, so our only reference is back to the advertising, the promises made in letters and other correspondence and in my view it has been simply mis-sold, no argument.

I am more curious and annoyed at why money savers on this forum seem to take slightly smug glee in the fact that they are clever enough to read and understand all the minute detail of contracts and offer no help to other mere mortals who maybe don't and have other things to do instead. I feel that Virgin sold me a product that RBS is now not honouring and I feel gipped by that. Why are you defending them???:mad:

Either way, we are now looking at First Direct........

harryskinters

DickDastardly wrote: »

I am sorry but I don't think she is (sorry Lisyloo for third party reference!;)).

Essentially as the letters above show, VIRGIN sold the account on the understanding that it would track the base rate. Looking into the agreements with a microscope, I grant you it doesn't say that BUT then it doesn't say it won't either, so our only reference is back to the advertising, the promises made in letters and other correspondence and in my view it has been simply mis-sold, no argument.

I am more curious and annoyed at why money savers on this forum seem to take slightly smug glee in the fact that they are clever enough to read and understand all the minute detail of contracts and offer no help to other mere mortals who maybe don't and have other things to do instead. I feel that Virgin sold me a product that RBS is now not honouring and I feel gipped by that. Why are you defending them???:mad:

Either way, we are now looking at First Direct........

Beleive me I am on your side! I am OA holder myself and really hope this promise angle has some substance as far as the FSA is concerned . I wouldn't dream of defending them but we must be careful not to suggest it is a tracker product if it patently isn't according to their carefully prepared paperwork. It will only weaken our argument if we are shot down on detail. I have already written to my MP an had a supportive response that he will take this matter further. Fingers crossed that RBS OA don't start their nonsense again tomorrow.

Yorkshire_Bred

DickDastardly wrote: »

I am sorry but I don't think she is (sorry Lisyloo for third party reference!;)).

Essentially as the letters above show, VIRGIN sold the account on the understanding that it would track the base rate. Looking into the agreements with a microscope, I grant you it doesn't say that BUT then it doesn't say it won't either, so our only reference is back to the advertising, the promises made in letters and other correspondence and in my view it has been simply mis-sold, no argument.

I am more curious and annoyed at why money savers on this forum seem to take slightly smug glee in the fact that they are clever enough to read and understand all the minute detail of contracts and offer no help to other mere mortals who maybe don't and have other things to do instead. I feel that Virgin sold me a product that RBS is now not honouring and I feel gipped by that. Why are you defending them???:mad:

Either way, we are now looking at First Direct........

This was from a knowledgeable user elsewhere in relation to mortgage agreements............maybe another angle to look at?

"Basically, the powers that be are looking closely at mortgage agreements. Especially in relation to how the difference between the Bank of England base rate and the standard variable rate (SVR) is actually calculated. Dependant upon the wording of the agreement this could also impact upon certain tracker products.

If it is not clear how a change in base rate effects the SVR or tracker rate, it may be deemed an unfair term and condition under the UTCCR 1999"

woodam1963

DickDastardly wrote: »

I am sorry but I don't think she is (sorry Lisyloo for third party reference!;)).

Essentially as the letters above show, VIRGIN sold the account on the understanding that it would track the base rate. Looking into the agreements with a microscope, I grant you it doesn't say that BUT then it doesn't say it won't either, so our only reference is back to the advertising, the promises made in letters and other correspondence and in my view it has been simply mis-sold, no argument.

I am more curious and annoyed at why money savers on this forum seem to take slightly smug glee in the fact that they are clever enough to read and understand all the minute detail of contracts and offer no help to other mere mortals who maybe don't and have other things to do instead. I feel that Virgin sold me a product that RBS is now not honouring and I feel gipped by that. Why are you defending them???:mad:

Either way, we are now looking at First Direct........

Spot on !!!!!! D. In my view it's a massive mistake if we end up getting sidetracked into focusing on the stuff RBS want us to focus on - i.e. the small print and their cynical legal chicanery. Admittedly those areas would be very relevant if this issue were to end up in a court of law, but we need to bear in mind that the 'judge and jury' that we need to convince in practical terms are the FSA and the government (acting for the interests of the taxpayer). As the regulator and owner of RBS respectively, they are the bodies with the real power to influence RBS actions over the coming weeks and months, which is surely what we're all interested in.

For this reason, the way, the product was sold and the clear promises / commitments that customers have bought into over the years, are 100% relevant to this argument. The whole point of modern regulatory principles such as the six 'Treating Customers Fairly' criteria are surely designed to be applied to the real experiences of real people, in real situations, not stuff that two sets of lawyers are going to have to sort out in five years time.