£50,000 limit.

justaquickie

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Well back in the real world, when there was talk of LTSB and Halifax merging, people brought up this exact point, and it was pointed out by quite a few financial media, that the merger would take sufficiently long that anyone who acquired a year long FRSB would have had it mature by the time one of the licences ceased to be.

Are there any cases where less than a year has gone by between announcement and cessation of one of the two licences concerned?

I think the Nationwide/Derbyshire 'merger' on track for December 1 may come into that category, but I'm not sure if break clauses are included in, or will be added to, affected fixed bonds. (I'm not suggesting DBS customers should be ungrateful for the intervention, btw).

grnglide

I suppose what is needed is for the FSCS to increase the amount it guarantees from £50,000 to it's real, at present, value which is "unlimited".

Presumably the current "we will recompense everybody" situation will come to an end. The money is mainly at risk with the smaller banks - the Government would have real difficulty if Barclays, LTSB or even Santander went under but the smaller building societies are a different matter.

Currently I would worry if HBOS merged with ICICI!

dunstonh

I suppose what is needed is for the FSCS to increase the amount it guarantees from £50,000 to it's real, at present, value which is "unlimited".

Something that is not affordable. The FSCS doesnt have the pot to draw on to begin with and the Govt cannot afford to guarantee such a thing.

treecity

dunstonh wrote: »

None at all I would think. However, the warnings about not being able to access funds regardless of events would have been given. Its a standard risk warning.

If you enter into a contract which states the funds are inaccessible apart from death, then later on an unpredicted event occurs that you personally dont like then cant really expect them to make the funds available.

If you didnt know that they were not inaccessible then its not a case of not reading the small print but not reading any print at all. Is that the fault of the bank?

Who is going to pay the costs to the bank for you exiting early? Perhaps that is the solution. You can exit but you have to cover the financial loss to the bank. Maybe get 95% of your original depost back if you want to do it.

You are totally missing the point. It's okay to keep banging on about contracts and T&Cs but what people are saying is that the whole scenario is just wrong an unethical and that it needs to change.

The OP was complaining about one minute having 100K guaranteed and the next only 50K guaranteed. They only want to withdraw to get that safety net back.

Primrose

Solomon4222 - I don't know whether you're married, but if you are, have you considered contacting the institutions with whom you hold these fixed term accounts and enquiring whether if they could be converted into joint accounts? If this is possible, you would be able to double the compensation limit for which you are covered.

dunstonh

You are totally missing the point. It's okay to keep banging on about contracts and T&Cs but what people are saying is that the whole scenario is just wrong an unethical and that it needs to change.

You are missing the point. The terms are fair. Its not unethical. The terms allowed an extra 0.1 or 0.2% to be given on the interest rate (or the provider margin). That is why they had the "you cannot access your money" clause.

There are plenty out there who dont care that the money is tied up and want the higher rate. Should they lose out because a tiny minority didnt read the booklet? Lets lower their interest rate and give them a get out clause and see if they are happy with that. I doubt it.

How about sticking with the option of being able to choose. That way everyone is happy apart from those that dont read before committing £100,000 into a product.

treecity

dunstonh wrote: »

You are missing the point. The terms are fair. Its not unethical. The terms allowed an extra 0.1 or 0.2% to be given on the interest rate (or the provider margin). That is why they had the "you cannot access your money" clause.

There are plenty out there who dont care that the money is tied up and want the higher rate. Should they lose out because a tiny minority didnt read the booklet? Lets lower their interest rate and give them a get out clause and see if they are happy with that. I doubt it.

How about sticking with the option of being able to choose. That way everyone is happy apart from those that dont read before committing £100,000 into a product.

Groan...

The OP loses out becuase the building society they invested in has lost its sole status due to being taken over by another bank. That IS unfair.

The OP did not commit 100K into a product. They put 50 in two seperate ones that suddenly became, effectively, one.

I don't care what anyone says, IMO, this is not ethical or fair and should be challenged and changed.

If I was the OP I would make as much noise about this as possible as it is just not fair what is happening to people's guarantees when two insitutions become one.

Primrose

Well, if we want anything to change regarding the maintenance of separate registrations with organisations which have merged, it's time to start writing to our MP's and putting on the pressure. You can find your MP and contact him/her on a pro-forma e-mail form at WriteToThem.com