Instant Access Savings Accounts Article Discussion Area

mike7

Hi guys i have 4000 that i want to save for my children. I only live on benefits now, as i have a brain injury. Could somebody please tell me what to do with it please. Mike

murphydavid

mike7 wrote:

Hi guys i have 4000 that i want to save for my children. I only live on benefits now, as i have a brain injury. Could somebody please tell me what to do with it please. Mike

Wow, we all have our own opinions, thats why there are so many companies viaing for our buisiness. Me I like to be safe and you could do worse than clicking on Savings and investments (over to the left) and reading Martins first two articles on the subject.
P.S. Don't forget to claim tax relief at source (R85) if you do decide to go for saveing. I presume you don't pay tax.

tonyg_2

MarkyMarkD wrote:

I've not been well, so I haven't had chance to follow this up with anyone at A&L. But I agree with valiant - there is no such term and condition. I can only suspect that the person SRL talked to at A&L hadn't been trained on the new account, or had misunderstood their training.

Banks simply can't make up Ts & Cs and seek to enforce them, so I wouldn't worry about something which isn't there.

I have just spoken to a CS representative - she was so awful I took her name. She also said that a CS manager was not available. (Typical A&L service!)

This CS representative said that when I withdraw some money then I will get no interest for the following month. I said to her that this was totally different from my understanding of the A&L headed letter right in front of me at which point she asked me if there was anythinbg else she could help me with...

I am considering a reasonable size deposit but I need some sense from Alliance & Leicester....

MarkyMarkD

She's sort of right, but it depends how you interpret the words.

If you withdraw some money, you'll get no interest for the remainder of the month (or the part of the month that's already elapsed). It is "no interest for the following month" only if you withdraw on the first working day.

But as MSE Dan has posted on the other thread on this topic, A&L have confirmed that it operates as the terms and conditions state (not exactly surprisingly) - no interest is paid, at all, in respect of any month in which there is any withdrawal.

whambamboo

The latest email has just been sent out with new account recommendations.

ICICI is touted as 'number one', and no mention at all of Icesave in the email.

This doesn't look too good.

In the article, ICICI is recommended above Icesave, even though there have been a lot of hassles reported with ICICI, and also the Icesave guarantees are clearly far superior - ICICI is only guaranteed to be 0.25% above base rate till end of 2007, whereas Icesave is guaranteed to 2009, with a further base-rate guarantee till 2011.

The obvious difference between the two is that ICICI has a * next to it (it pays commission), and Icesave does not.

At the bottom of the article it says

Two types of contacts are listed. The first (which all have a * within the main body of the articles) help MoneySavingExpert.com stay ad-free and free to use, as they’re ‘affiliated links’ which invisibly take you usually via commercial price comparison services like Moneysupermarket, Uswitch or Find, which then pay this site. The second type doesn’t help (and don’t have a *).

You shouldn’t notice any difference, the links don’t impact the product at all and the editorial line (the things I write) is NEVER impacted by the revenue. If it isn’t possible to get an affiliate link for the best product, it is still recommended and still included in exactly the same way. For more details read how this site is financed.

The problem is ICICI is clearly being promoted over Icesave, even though Icesave is a much better account that will stay highly competitive for 5 years to ICICI's 1.

So it seems like Icesave is much better, but ICICI is the one being recommended, to the detriment of the users of the site.

This might be wholly innocent of course with no ulterior motive, but it's very obvious that ICICI are going to get more clicks than Icesave even though Icesave is better, so why is it being pushed ahead, and it does call into question the claim that the editorial line is "NEVER impacted by the revenue". Why would Icesave not be mentioned in the email at all, and placed second in the article? Please let me know if there is an innocent explanation.

MrsMillar

I was under the impression that ICICI was recommended above Icesave due to the fact that the minimum balance is £1 rather than £250. Could be an important factor for a lot of people.

However, with more than £250 to deposit it seems a lot of people will prefer Icesave, about which (it seems to me) very few people have made complaints.

whambamboo

MrsMillar wrote:

I was under the impression that ICICI was recommended above Icesave due to the fact that the minimum balance is £1 rather than £250. Could be an important factor for a lot of people.

However, with more than £250 to deposit it seems a lot of people will prefer Icesave, about which (it seems to me) very few people have made complaints.

If you only have £249.99 to save it's not really worth switching, as it's going to make you an extra £1 or £2 a year, which isn't really worth the effort.

The article really should recommend Icesave as is the clear best buy, and then say if you don't have £250, then try ICICI, just as it says if you don't want an internet account go with A&L.

pksaraf

i completely agree with whambamboo. Moreover (if I am not wrong), Icesave subscribles to the banking code as well which ICICI doesnt, which makes icesave the choice. Probably Martin could clarify the reason of not including Icesave as the best savings account along with ICICI, if not better than ICICI?

MSE_Martin

I had originally included both in the email, but frankly the note in the tip was too long to explain the differences, so I cut it down. I always see the tip note as a primary headline and ask people to read the article, as it says,

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Loads of other rates have shifted too, so do read the Updated Article: [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Top Instant Access Savings Account[/FONT]"

As for why ICICI over Icebank

1. ICICI is available to everyone from £1, and encouraging people to start saving is important. Icesave requires a minimum £250.

2. ICICI has been running 18 month and while initial feedback was bad, over the last year most of the feedback has been very strong. However as yet Icesave has almost no feedback or track record. Both are FSA protected.

3. Icesave of course does have a longer guarantee, which is why in the 'guarantee your savings ' section it is covered again and recommended as a prime account.

However I take on board your point - next week this will go into the don't forgets section of the tip and i will make sure both ICICI and IceSave are listed

Martin

foggytown

Pardon me but I get easily confused when considering things like savings. (I had a heart attack 2 1/2 years ago and my mental acuity is a lot less than it was.) Certainly I want to maximise my interest but there are so many loopholes . . .
My situation is simple. I have retired at 60 and taken a lump sum of about £35,000. My plan is simply to put it in an instant access account and use that to supplement my monthly pension income as required. Therefore there won't be any deposits, it will be a case of slow, erratic erosion. How do my circumstances and requirements affect my choice of instant access account?

Thanx,
Mike G