Natwest/RBS 2.85% esaver

SnowMan

h176 wrote: »

I see on the AOL money news section & The Daily Mail (p28) today (Wednesday) that the NatWest TV advert highlighting how the company opens branches on a Saturday has been banned by the Advertising Standards Agency for being misleading.

It claims: "It's why, when you told us to open on Saturdays, we did", misleadingly implying that ALL NatWest branches open on Saturdays, which is NOT the case.

If an advertiser refuses to comply with the ASA, then the ASA can refer the advertiser to the OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING.

NatWest obviously withdrew the e-saver bonus advert on the 20/21 October 2010, but I'm wondering whether it's worth contacting the Office Of Fair Trading anyway about the NatWest e-saver misleading advert?!.....

It won't be covered by the Advertising Standards Authority remit. Information on webpages is not treated as advertising until next March, only banner adverts which this wasn't, see this ASA page.

I think the FSA are probably the only relevant organisation to deal with this one.

h176

Thanks Snowman & Miller!

My loyalties lie with this thread, if I hadn't come across it last month I would never have been able to locate the original advert to throw in NatWest's face!

You'll think I'm greedy or mad, but I may well not accept the offer & still go to the Ombudsman, the Daily Mail money section, & possibly the Office Of Fair Trading if they're interested.

The Head of Savings himself actually phoned me last Friday and offered the difference in interest plus £1000. I said I wanted it in writing, hence I've not posted it until now on the Forum. Of course, his letter now states a total of £1000!...

More than anything, I'm determined to make NatWest admit they changed the advert to all of their e-saver account holders, before everyone forgets about it & this thread dwindles away....

Hoping more people will see this in the morning!

afwone

h176 wrote: »

"£1,000 (one thousand pounds) in settlement of this matter"

Well done h176! I was satisfied with simply getting my bonus interest for the month it wasn't applied to the account. I get the impression that NatWest are now happy to give you whatever you ask to keep you quiet...

The product was unnecessarily complicated and was promoted in a misleading way, and I expect that most of those who took out the account will have lost out (and in most cases probably do not even realise this).

This has been a useful thread.

SnowMan

h176 wrote: »

Thanks Snowman & Miller!

My loyalties lie with this thread, if I hadn't come across it last month I would never have been able to locate the original advert to throw in NatWest's face!

You'll think I'm greedy or mad, but I may well not accept the offer & still go to the Ombudsman, the Daily Mail money section, & possibly the Office Of Fair Trading if they're interested.

The Head of Savings himself actually phoned me last Friday and offered the difference in interest plus £1000. I said I wanted it in writing, hence I've not posted it until now on the Forum. Of course, his letter now states a total of £1000!...

More than anything, I'm determined to make NatWest admit they changed the advert to all of their e-saver account holders, before everyone forgets about it & this thread dwindles away....

Hoping more people will see this in the morning!

I don't think you are greedy or mad at all.

The thing that has impressed me about the thread is that the main motivation has always been to get Natwest to admit they got things wrong.

I am still wondering what the motivations here are from the Natwest side. Perhaps the Head of Savings thinks that were he or she to admit (as a senior person at Natwest) that they had put wrong information on their website, then that would mean that Natwest would automatically have a responsibility to contact all savers who had opened this account and funded it with non-trivial amounts before 15th (regardless of whether they complained).

So maybe this is a "nudge nudge wink wink say no more" offer to say accept the £1,000 and we'll agree between us that it was just a teeny bit misleading but not blatantly wrong.

May be completely wrong about that of course.

Maybe the tack is to say you are happy with the monetary offer of compensation but not happy with the non-admission as to what they have done.

SimonM_2

SnowMan wrote: »

The thing that has impressed me about the thread is that the main motivation has always been to get Natwest to admit they got things wrong.

That's all I've ever been interested in with my complaints - admit that they are wrong and then correct the issue. NatWest lately seem more willing to admit that they are wrong (and to accept and uphold a complaint) but then what? It's no good saying "yes you're right, it's wrong" and not correcting it and doing something about it. Fact is the information was wrong (which they accept) and they didn't correct it soon enough or haven't notified people about the printed errors which have been notified to them, and from what I can tell, aren't prepared to contact people in a durable medium to advise of that being the case.

So for me, it isn't resolved at all yet.

SimonM_2

Just spoken with NatWest in relation to my complaint, and they still say that they didn't advertise it as "first 12 months" and apparently have screenshots proving they didn't.

All at odds with the screenshot and printout of the signup process which I've got that proves differently, and all of the information posted in this topic at the time and since then from numerous people who all saw the information.

h176

They will simply not admit that they changed the bonus 'earning' dates, i.e. from 'the first 12 months', to 'the 15th of the month after the month in which the a/c is opened'.

The best I've got out of them (as per post 478) is "the website was reviewed and the information detailing when the bonus commences and how it is paid was amended to make it more prominent".

I had to chase this letter up, I was told that there was a delay in sending it, as their legal team were 'finalising the wording'.

Think I'll take it to the Ombudsman & get an official verdict & official compensation, rather than a 'gesture of goodwill ex-gratia offer'......

SimonM_2

h176 wrote: »

They will simply not admit that they changed ....

Thing is, they're not saying that they didn't change it, they're saying that it simply never existed.

All evidence proves completely the opposite though.

How did you get your complaint handled by the head of eSavings, did you write to him directly or did NatWest raise it to him?

h176

My case was investigated individually by no less than FOUR different Customer Service Advisors @ Customer Care Team, Manchester, who were all unable to uphold my complaint. That was after two people in the general customer services had already knocked me back.

The fifth Customer Services Advisor realised I wasn't giving in, & so he referred my complaint to the Head of Savings Dept.. It stayed with them & their legal dept. for a few days, & then I received a suprising phone call last Friday afternoon. It was the Head of Savings himself, Mr P--- S

---

(not sure where I stand legally mentioning actual names!), from RBS Retail Products/ Savings, Southwark Street, London. He was very cautious in what he said, was apologetic for the way I had been treated by NatWest, & then in his words 'wanted to cut to the chase & agree a settlement offer with me'. He mentioned £400, I said no, he raised it to £1000, I said no, & that I wanted a settlement offer figure of 10% of the funds I had placed in the account after opening, which I couldn't then withdraw because they hadn't provided me with a card & reader. He then said that wasn't possible & would send his offer in writing.

I have been instructed this morning by telephone to refer any further communication directly to the Head of Savings dept. & not the customer care team.

miller

SnowMan wrote: »

I am still wondering what the motivations here are from the Natwest side.

The first thing that came to my mind was protecting their customer charter and the £££ they have spent advertising that. In my opinion those promises would look tarnished should this debacle make it to the newspaper(s).