Wrong calculation of interset?

Lokolo

derrick wrote: »

T&Cs are not always lawful, (see bank charges), you are entitled to your opinion, as am I, they had it for 1 year as per their leaflet,therefore they should pay up 1 years interest, it seems to me that they are trying to get away with keeping savers monies, if it had bee 366 days they had my money why should I not be claiming an extra day as they would gain interest for 366 days!

We will see what the FSO say!

Well I doubt that because if you had taken out a bond to end between 1st Jan 08 and 28th February you would have ended up with more interest rather than less.

Also bank charges imo are lawful and fine by me.

Good luck, tell us what they say.

YorkshireBoy

Of course you're entitled to complain as you see fit Derrick, but I don't think you'll get anywhere with this one (now you've reproduced the EXACT wording from the T&C's)...except helping to lengthen the wait time for others' (perhaps genuine, but don't take it the wrong way ) FOS referred complaints to be dealt with).

This question is not intended to rub you up the wrong way (merely to make you think), but why didn't you tell them you were unhappy with their interest rate calculation method for leap years when you rolled the bond over IN A LEAP YEAR? That's the question I, if I was a Derbyshire complaints handler or a FOS adjudicator, would put to you if your complaint landed on my desk.

derrick

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

Of course you're entitled to complain as you see fit Derrick, but I don't think you'll get anywhere with this one (now you've reproduced the EXACT wording from the T&C's)...except helping to lengthen the wait time for others' (perhaps genuine, but don't take it the wrong way , FOS referred complaints to be dealt with).

This question is not intended to rub you up the wrong way (merely to make you think), but why didn't you tell them you were unhappy with their interest rate calculation method for leap years when you rolled the bond over? That's the question I, if I was a Derbyshire complaints handler or a FOS adjudicator, would put to you if your complaint landed on my desk.

Because I never thought about it, more than likely just like most others who use this type of savings vehicle, it wasn't in the leaflet provided when they sent the invite to roll over 2-3 weeks before the bond matured, and I would assume 1 year is 1 year! It is also likely that this may have happened to me on previous years, although doubt it as for a fixed rate of interest over a fixed period is easy to work out even for me and I cannot remember this type of bond coming up short before. Besides, at the risk of repeating myself, they had it for 1 year, it is simple maths to make the calculation on this event.

derrick

Lokolo wrote: »

Well I doubt that because if you had taken out a bond to end between 1st Jan 08 and 28th February you would have ended up with more interest rather than less.

Also bank charges imo are lawful and fine by me.

Good luck, tell us what they say.

As I said earlier attempting a hypothetical illustration doesn't help in this case.

The courts may find different , but it won't bother me either way as I don't incur them.

Will do, but as I said earlier there is an 8-9 month waiting, so see you next year.

YorkshireBoy

derrick wrote: »

It is also likely that this may have happened to me on previous years...

I'd say it was certain if you had one (with any provider) in 2004, being as the code of practice, in it's current guise, on the BBA site dates back to at least 2001.

Will you be checking the interest paid on previous bonds or just this one?

sloughflint

derrick wrote: »

I cannot remember this type of bond coming up short before.

Did you get the amount you expected when it matured last year then?;)

derrick wrote: »

I am not after some sort of compensation, just what I feel I am owed.

Or to put it another way and removing the hypothetical that you do not like, would you still feel the same way when you work out the answer to the following?

(153/365)+(213/366)+(153/366)+(212/365)

bendix

derrick wrote: »

Nobody asked you to read or respond, if you don't like the thread go read another one, this is an open forum money saving site, not one where we should allow these companies to rip us off!

But I do like the thread - I find it hilarious and a rather telling insight into human psychology that people can sweat the small stuff so much.

But you're quite right. It is an open forum, and by posting such a ridiculous post you have implicitly requested responses, even those that you don't want.

One of those responses - which seems quite prevalent on here, given the underlying tone of many of them - is that you are a pedant.

Hungerdunger

bendix wrote: »

But I do like the thread - I find it hilarious and a rather telling insight into human psychology that people can sweat the small stuff so much.

But forgetting the relatively small amounts involved for a moment, wouldn't you agree that it's very unsatisfactory that in identical circumstances, I appear to have received more than I should and derrick has received less. Surely for a relatively simple one year bond, there should be no problem working out the figures correctly.

Gwhiz

Hungerdunger wrote: »

But forgetting the relatively small amounts involved for a moment, wouldn't you agree that it's very unsatisfactory that in identical circumstances, I appear to have received more than I should and derrick has received less. Surely for a relatively simple one year bond, there should be no problem working out the figures correctly.

Of course it should be no problem. But hey, life is not prefect and there are far more things to worry about than this paltry amount. IMHO of course

sloughflint

Hungerdunger wrote: »

But forgetting the relatively small amounts involved for a moment, wouldn't you agree that it's very unsatisfactory that in identical circumstances, I appear to have received more than I should and derrick has received less. Surely for a relatively simple one year bond, there should be no problem working out the figures correctly.

You didn't reply to my question so cannot comment on your figure but Derrick's interest calculation is correct according to the society's rules.

And as I pointed out above, the two years balance each other out.