Wrong calculation of interset?

derrick

bendix wrote: »

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

Right back at you, muppet.

derrick

YorkshireBoy wrote: »

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?

No because if I did take out a FRB in another leap year I do not have recollection of the interest being wrong, nor do I have any paperwork relating to them.

sloughflint wrote: »

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

Yes I did.

sloughflint

derrick wrote: »

Yes I did.

Ah so you were expecting more then. The plot thickens.

derrick

Re my post #57 where I quoted from the T&Cs, those T&CS are general and not specific to my FRB, a couple more quotes from them are as follows; -

"The terms and conditions which apply to your account are contained in the leaflet which explains the product you are buying and this account terms leaflet. The terms and conditions applying to your account include;
our Investment Conditions, please see page 11 of this leaflet.
the special conditions for the product you are buying in the product leaflet.
any detailed special conditions for the account contained in this leaflet.
The terms and conditions are variable"

Well there is nothing in the leaflet about leap years being different!
The T&Cs cannot be variable as it is a FRB for a fixed term!

Another paragraph extra to the T&Cs I quoted earlier; -
"(different rules may apply to Time Deposits and Capital Reserve)"

Now surely a FRB is a "Timed Deposit"? and when these institutions say "may" they usually mean "will".

Therefore dead simple calculation; -
£15000 x 7.01% for 1 year = £10515 gross interest.

derrick

sloughflint wrote: »

Ah so you were expecting more then. The plot thickens.

Why would I?

To be honest last years bond was for about 14½ months, so the calculation would have been more difficult, although on my minor calculations it was right.
This time it is so easy even I can do it!

sloughflint

derrick wrote: »

Why would I?

To be honest last years bond was for about 14½ months, so the calculation would have been more difficult, although on my minor calculations it was right.
This time it is so easy even I can do it!

Ok, Derrick so it wasn't an identical bond but the point remains.

Had it been a rolled over 12 month bond ( without complications of compounded interest etc), you should have expected to receive £ 10527.04 last year and £ 10502.96 this year totalling £21030 ie double your expected £10515.

You have not lost out.

derrick

sloughflint wrote: »

Ok, Derrick so it wasn't an identical bond but the point remains.

Had it been a rolled over 12 month bond ( without complications of compounded interest etc), you should have expected to receive £ 10527.04 last year and £ 10502.96 this year totalling £21030 ie double your expected £10515.

You have not lost out.

I never said it was, I just said I rolled it over which I did, but added extra funds.

The bond last year was for a smaller amount.
The bond this year was a new bond,(rollover or not), with extra funds added and I am not sure if same T&Cs applied, however they are two separate products, 2008-2009 was a stand alone bond with the T&Cs I have quoted and I have lost out to the tune of £12.05!
Now whilst I admit it is not a lot, I don't see why I should lose it, if the scenario had been the other way round, the Derbyshire would be after me!

All debates have two sides and with respect yours and some others are differing from mine, whilst some agree with me.
The end game will lay with the FSO.

samizdat

In my opinion, it is a disgrace to waste the time and money of the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Derbyshire over an issue of so little importance.

The OP's attitude is revealed by his self-professed willingness to use the costliness of an ombudsman enquiry to sway the Derbyshire into giving in to him.

Very selfish.

Robert_Sterling

In a normal year 7.01% per annum means 7.01% interest for 365 days .
In a leap year 7.01% per annum means 7.01% interest for 366 days.
So the interest rate is lower in a leap year than in a normal year.
So although a loan is expressed as a percentage rate per annums all annums are not equal.
Where a loan has some days in a leap year and some not in a leap year the the days which are in a leap year have interest at leap year rates and the rest have interest an normal year rates.
The building Society has a cast iron case.

sloughflint

:wall:

derrick wrote: »

I never said it was, I just said I rolled it over which I did, but added extra funds.

The bond last year was for a smaller amount.
The bond this year was a new bond,(rollover or not), with extra funds added and I am not sure if same T&Cs applied, however they are two separate products, 2008-2009 was a stand alone bond with the T&Cs I have quoted and I have lost out to the tune of £12.05!
Now whilst I admit it is not a lot, I don't see why I should lose it, if the scenario had been the other way round, the Derbyshire would be after me!

I do hope you will check since it would be rather hypocritical to complain about your £12.05 'loss' but keep quiet about your 'gain' with your other bond even if it was for a smaller amount.

Robert_Sterling wrote: »

In a normal year 7.01% per annum means 7.01% interest for 365 days .
In a leap year 7.01% per annum means 7.01% interest for 366 days.

Not all banks do this.

There will be the Derricks of this world unhappy with the Derbyshire method and then there will be others unhappy at losing a day's interest in a leap year with the other method.

It's bad enough having to work an extra day in a leap year, for no additional pay, but I now discover that our savings sit in limbo every February 29. The vast majority of banks and building societies conveniently ignore this day, meaning savers are potentially losing out on millions of pounds of unpaid interest.
A spokesman for Halifax helpfully explains that savings rates are worked out on an annual basis, so customers get the same interest paid on their account in a leap year as they do in any other year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/2785312/Extra-interest-is-a-leap-too-far.html

Apparently the FSCS calculate the interest on Icesave bonds a la Derbyshire. I wonder if anyone is going to complain about that?