Lambeth BS windfall for members

ReportInvestor

That's my understanding. And the same goes for

Universal BS (being swallowed by Newcastle BS)&
Mercantile BS (being swallowed by Leeds BS)

nomorekids

We have lots of kids, all of them have accounts with the lambeth. We completed the application forms in the presence of our local branch staff who dictated what to put where on the application forms. These accounts have all been set up with me or hubby named first. Our last (really honestly definately our last) born just recently, off we went to same branch opened same lambeth account for her also again dictated what to put where on the application forms by branch staff. This account set up with her named first.

Now we have kids with no windfall and kid with windfall? We have complained to lambeth who have said we should have read the small print but surely the branch staff have duty as agents to point out the difference between naming the child first on the account or the parent. This has cost us a great deal of money and we are very angry. Both me and hubby have accounts anyway.

Where do we go now? Financial omsbudsman or forget it and lick our wounds. What do you think?

lipidicman

That's harsh, but you really should fill in the form the way YOU want, not the way the member of staff points to. It is an expensive lesson and I know you don't want to hear this but I think there is little you can do. If it any consolation I have managed to miss out on every single windfall (too young for most of them really but I have had lots of BS accounts)

Edna_Bucket_2

nomorekids wrote:

We have lots of kids, all of them have accounts with the lambeth. We completed the application forms in the presence of our local branch staff who dictated what to put where on the application forms.

and...

Now we have kids with no windfall and kid with windfall? We have complained to lambeth...

Have quoted your relevant bits.

Definitely DONT "forget it" in view of this. What you wanted is absolutely clear and the Lambeth hasn't exactly had a shining record of good administration procedures in the past. The fact that you have one child with the right admin strengthens your case rather than the reverse.

Who at Lambeth said you should have "read the small print"? Branch staff again? If I heard that from any of them, I suspect Portman might find themselves inheriting less staff than anticipated...

No seriously - LBS has stated they'll look individually at other cases - such as joint named accounts where the first named is now deceased.

So - now go straight to the top. Get in touch directly with Chris Radford the CEO and put your case. As always with these sorts of issues it is better to "start at the top."

Edna_Bucket_2

How are you getting on, nomorekids?

I've just come across a similar problem "elsewhere", and am wondering if it is a widespread problem?

Any more cases welcome -please post.

ReportInvestor

ReportInvestor wrote:

For those of you who have children who have accounts at the Lambeth.

The wording on the proposal suggested to me that children might only get a separate windfall if their parents were not members in their own right.

i.e. just one windfall for the parent since the parent was the "first named member" on each account as Lambeth kid's accounts are trustee accounts.

So I phoned up Lambeth who said that children would get separate windfalls, even in these circumstances .

Never trust a phoneline operative, always get it in writing . My quoted "good news" above now appears to be wrong.

I think that you are OK if your child's account reads something like "Miss ReportInvestor held by Mr. ReportInvestor" - but if it begins "Mr. ReportInvestor....... [in trust for Miss ReportInvestor]" there appears to be a problem.

The second may be OK as long as the adult has not got another Lambeth account [unfortunately not the case with "nomorekids" above ].

Investors' Association will talk to the societies involved, to see if this unfair anomaly can be corrected.

To nomorekids
Check your private messages for a press contact e-mail.

ReportInvestor

Lucky Lambeth members.

They will also pocket an extra £200 before tax now that the Nationwide is taking over the Portman :eek:.

ReportInvestor

ReportInvestor wrote:

Investors' Association will talk to the societies involved, to see if this unfair anomaly [re children's accounts] can be corrected.

In fact we went all the way to the FSA Portman/Lambeth merger hearing, but our representations were formally rejected last month .

See this FSA ruling

The relevant sections are 4.7 and 5.5.vi

Lorian

ReportInvestor wrote:

I think that you are OK if your child's account reads something like "Miss ReportInvestor held by Mr. ReportInvestor" - but if it begins "Mr. ReportInvestor....... [in trust for Miss ReportInvestor]" there appears to be a problem.

The second may be OK as long as the adult has not got another Lambeth account [unfortunately not the case with "nomorekids" above ].

In this second situation the Adult is the member and they get the windfall if they have no account of their own.

This is the situation I'm in. I have no Lambeth account. My daughter will get no bonus (she is second named) but I will, as I'm the member. Trouble is I have to pay tax on it.

Presumably she won't get the subsequent (if agreed) Nationwide "takeover" bonus, as I already have an account with them.

Edna_Bucket_2

ReportInvestor wrote:

In fact we went all the way to the FSA Portman/Lambeth merger hearing, but our representations were formally rejected last month .

BUT the case is due to be put to the Financial Ombudsman I think? Didn't I hear that the former Chief Executive who set up these accounts stated at the FSA that you couldn't have an adult put first? Forms filled in that way should have been sent back for correction?