£50,000 limit.

Paul_Herring

Your 'kite mark' scheme idea has been tried before with financial products.

Google 'CAT Standard' (Stands for 'Charges - Access - Terms' if it'll help weed out some of the non-matches.)

Used with mortgages, pensions and savings. Never took off for some reason.

Then it was replaced with (Ron?) Sandler schemes (Google 'sandler savings'.) Again, something that never took off.

Then it was Stakeholders...

justaquickie

dunstonh wrote: »

Or perhaps go back to the time when fixed term deposit meant fixed term deposit.

Well, that would certainly make the saver's commitment clearer and more consistent: interest and capital both at risk.

justaquickie

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Your 'kite mark' scheme idea has been tried before with financial products.

Google 'CAT Standard' (Stands for 'Charges - Access - Terms' if it'll help weed out some of the non-matches.)

Used with mortgages, pensions and savings. Never took off for some reason.

Then it was replaced with (Ron?) Sandler schemes (Google 'sandler savings'.) Again, something that never took off.

Then it was Stakeholders...

Yes, I'm familiar with some of these these, and I would agree few were particularly successful. I think a lot of it was seen as unnecessary nannying, and often the accompanying conditions were pitched at the wrong level. But I think the world has changed and people are a lot more aware of external risks now - just too time-poor to do anything about them.

Getting the balance right of protecting the genuine, but not bailing out the reckless and greedy, is a fine one. But anything that can be done to help busy people help themselves, should be (thinks I).

treecity

Something has to change in the banking industry as, no matter how much anyone tells me about having my cake and eating it or read the T&Cs, the bottom line is that this is not ethical practice, IMO.

The OP is being penalised for acting in good faith. I would love to see a legal challenge to this situation and maybe we will see a change in the interest of savers.

Most savers are bewildered by saving in banks and building societies now. There is a total lack of education coming from the banks. After all, where is the official list of which banks come under one institution? I have to refer to Martin's list on this site to make sure I don't have my hard earned cash tied up in banks that all come under the same roof.

Classic example being:

AA
BOS
BM
Saga
Halifax
IF

being 1 institution. I wonder what % of the population are aware of this?

soulsaver

There is a point being lost here amongst the amateur lawyers and sanctimonious posts that have stirred this discussion.
This is not about Ts & Cs for me. I am quite capable of reading them. It's not about the law of contract, clearly the effect is legal.
But, the FSA's reason for existence is (or least should be) essentially to protect the consumer, and that includes not only your typical MSE postor but also your 80 year old granma. She isn't expected to be a sophisticated investor, and isn't expected to get legal advice before depositing her savings in an FSA regulated financial institution; but is trying to get the best out of her savings. So we/she's always at a disadvantage to those institutions who do use Professionals to write their products Ts & Cs.
So when 2 institutions merge and allow themselves one licence they reduce the Financial industries exposure to compensation, at the increased exposure of the consumer/ depositor - your gran. And while it is legal it's not 'right'.
What should happen is that in the case where these merger circumstances create exposure where there was none before, the FSA should insist that either the licences are all maintained; or some sort of additional insurance is provided; or those with fixed accounts that fall into an exposure risk due to a merger are allowed to exercise a 'no cost' dispensation to break the bond.
Nothing to do with Ts & Cs.

soulsaver

treecity wrote: »

Something has to change in the banking industry as, no matter how much anyone tells me about having my cake and eating it or read the T&Cs, the bottom line is that this is not ethical practice, IMO.

The OP is being penalised for acting in good faith. I would love to see a legal challenge to this situation and maybe we will see a change in the interest of savers.

Most savers are bewildered by saving in banks and building societies now. There is a total lack of education coming from the banks. After all, where is the official list of which banks come under one institution? I have to refer to Martin's list on this site to make sure I don't have my hard earned cash tied up in banks that all come under the same roof.

Classic example being:

AA
BOS
BM
Saga
Halifax
IF

being 1 institution. I wonder what % of the population are aware of this?

Totally agree - and given that this is a consumer champion site, people arguing on here that it's your own fault for not reading the T&Cs have lost the plot at best... if you weren't already put off, you'd never go to an IFA would you?

dunstonh

given that this is a consumer champion site

Really? I thought it was a money saving site. It may exert pressure in some areas at times but that doesnt make it an excuse to create financial instability and cause financial institutions to suffer a loss.

people arguing on here that it's your own fault for not reading the T&Cs have lost the plot at best

Why? Shouldnt you know something about the products you buy? If you buy a tin of beans, you shouldnt complain later that its a tin of beans and not a tin of soup.

if you weren't already put off, you'd never go to an IFA would you?

An IFA recommending a fixed term deposit would make you aware of the tie in and accessibility. I remember giving out warnings like that back in the 90s. Especially on those that are only accessible on death.

Thre is a point being lost here amongst the amateur lawyers and sanctimonious posts that have stirred this discussion.

You are not a very nice person are you. You are rude to those that have a different opinion. You are no more aware of law than anyone else here. People are allowed to have different opinions.

This is not about Ts & Cs for me. I am quite capable of reading them.

So, what part of not accessible is difficult for you to understand?

your 80 year old granma. She isn't expected to be a sophisticated investor, and isn't expected to get legal advice before depositing her savings in an FSA regulated financial institution

The onus to know what you are buying exists whether you are 18 or 80.

So we/she's always at a disadvantage to those institutions who do use Professionals to write their products Ts & Cs.

She isnt using a professional though. She is choosing to buy a product without advice off her own back based on the product literature issued. Accessibility information isnt hidden in some small print but is printed in the normal brochures.

soulsaver

dunstonh wrote: »

Really? I thought it was a money saving site. It may exert pressure in some areas at times but that doesnt make it an excuse to create financial instability and cause financial institutions to suffer a loss.



Why? Shouldnt you know something about the products you buy? If you buy a tin of beans, you shouldnt complain later that its a tin of beans and not a tin of soup.



An IFA recommending a fixed term deposit would make you aware of the tie in and accessibility. I remember giving out warnings like that back in the 90s. Especially on those that are only accessible on death.


You are not a very nice person are you. You are rude to those that have a different opinion. You are no more aware of law than anyone else here. People are allowed to have different opinions.



So, what part of not accessible is difficult for you to understand?



The onus to know what you are buying exists whether you are 18 or 80.



She isnt using a professional though. She is choosing to buy a product without advice off her own back based on the product literature issued. Accessibility information isnt hidden in some small print but is printed in the normal brochures.

Not very nice? It wasn't me who was saying 'tough luck pal, you should have read the t&cs...' I repeat: If you weren't already put off IFAs....

treecity

soulsaver wrote: »

If you weren't already put off IFAs....

Exactly, couldn't agree more!

dunstonh

I see. So a number of people disagree who are not IFAs but you decide to go anti IFA because one of them is an IFA.

All I can say is that there IFAs are lucky not to have clients like you.