Query Abbey cash isa,dubious agreement

Pssst

A friend has opened one of these. In the paperwork sent i pointed out a dubious paragraph as follows;

"I apply to subscribe for a cash ISA for the tax year 2009-2010 and each subsequent year until further notice"

My reading of this is that they will automatically open a cash isa every tax year without further consultation.

This seems like sharp practice since many people may not spot this.

Will them automatically opening an ISA each year prevent you from shopping around ? My answer YES

If they automatically open an ISA will you be able to open another one somewhere else ? My answer NO

Even if they auto open an isa in subsequent years and you put no money in it,will you be able to open an isa somewhere else? My answer NO

Am i right?

simon_templar_2

Pssst wrote: »

A friend has opened one of these. In the paperwork sent i pointed out a dubious paragraph as follows;

"I apply to subscribe for a cash ISA for the tax year 2009-2010 and each subsequent year until further notice"

My reading of this is that they will automatically open a cash isa every tax year without further consultation.

This seems like sharp practice since many people may not spot this.

Will them automatically opening an ISA each year prevent you from shopping around ? My answer YES

If they automatically open an ISA will you be able to open another one somewhere else ? My answer NO

Even if they auto open an isa in subsequent years and you put no money in it,will you be able to open an isa somewhere else? My answer NO

Am i right?

YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL THREE COUNTS.

They will not automatically open a new ISA each year. You keep the same account number. If you put money in for 09-10 tax year but not in 10-11 then you will be able to open ISA elsewhere.

Baldur

It's normal wording on virtually all Cash ISA applications, having been used as an example in the HMRC Guidance Notes for ISA Managers:

4.11 Applications must specify the first tax year to which they relate. They must also include a declaration by the applicant that the application is to subscribe to a cash ISA or a stocks and shares ISA, as the case may be;

For example the application could read

“I apply to subscribe for a cash ISA for the tax year 20 / and each subsequent year until further notice.”

simon_templar_2

So you see it is not 'dubious', it is in fact the wording that HMRC want. Nor is it 'sharp practice'. Does the OP wish to retract his/her unwarranted attack on Abbey?

Pssst

Baldur wrote: »

It's normal wording on virtually all Cash ISA applications, having been used as an example in the HMRC Guidance Notes for ISA Managers:

Thanks Baldur..it just seemed a little strange. But surely they will automatically open an isa for you in subsequent years becuase thats what it says?

Why put this in at all since it does seem a little confusing and misleading?

Why not simply, "I consent to opening an isa for the year 2009-210" ?

Simon Templar seems to be taking this personally.. i'm simply querying something which seems questionable.

Baldur

Pssst wrote: »

But surely they will automatically open an isa for you in subsequent years becuase thats what it says?

A Cash ISA isn't a Cash ISA until it's funded in the relevant tax year - they could open a million accounts but none of them would be a new Cash ISA until you actually pay new money into it. No institution actually 'opens' a new Cash ISA account each tax year in the vague hope that you will subscribe to it - it would be an administrative nightmare.

Why put this in at all since it does seem a little confusing and misleading?

Why not simply, "I consent to opening an isa for the year 2009-210" ?

Presumably because institutions are playing safe and following the example employed by HMRC.

simon_templar_2

You accuse them of 'sharp practice' and being 'dubious'. You then make a further 3 accusations which were all WRONG. These 5 things were unwarranted and therefore you should apologize for your comments.

talana

simon_templar wrote: »

You accuse them of 'sharp practice' and being 'dubious'. You then make a further 3 accusations which were all WRONG. These 5 things were unwarranted and therefore you should apologize for your comments.

Oh chill a bit, why so argumentative/hostile when the OP is querying what is a misleading paragraph at best, especially to someone not up to speed with the ISA rules? I too would call the paragraph in question dubious (see definition below)

(1) Note, seems like sharp practice.

(2) And one simple definition of dubious = "open to doubt or uncertainty", which it clearly is to the OP. Note, no connotation in the word itself of anything necessarily underhand, that's your interpretation. So how is that an unwarranted attack?

(3-5) And for "further 3 accusations" read 3 understandable (though wrong) misinterpretations based on a poorly worded, potentially misleading paragraph.

5 heinous crimes I'm sure we all agree

:rolleyes:

Pssst

simon_templar wrote: »

You accuse them of 'sharp practice' and being 'dubious'. You then make a further 3 accusations which were all WRONG. These 5 things were unwarranted and therefore you should apologize for your comments.

ROTFL....i dispute that i made accusations, i merely questioned what seemed like a strange and unfamiliar procedure. I have nothing to apologise for nor do i have anyone to apologise to !

simon_templar_2

People are quick to point the finger and slag off banks, sometimes they deserve it but in this case they dont. Nothing is dubious and there is no sharp practice, yet you claim there is. If you dont have the balls to apologize would you retract your incorrect aspertions?

Pssst

simon_templar wrote: »

People are quick to point the finger and slag off banks, sometimes they deserve it but in this case they dont. Nothing is dubious and there is no sharp practice, yet you claim there is. If you dont have the balls to apologize would you retract your incorrect aspertions?

Are you a banker by any chance Simon..?