I transferred an ISA and demanded no gaps in interest - I won!

Consumerist

dunstonh wrote: »

Many would say that blackmailing them into paying it is not right either.

At what point does a negotiation become blackmail, I wonder.

Some people around here just don't really get the point of this site, if you ask me. They would rather we all rolled over and let the banks walk all over us.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Consumerist wrote: »

At what point does a negotiation become blackmail, I wonder.

Some people around here just don't really get the point of this site, if you ask me. They would rather we all rolled over and let the banks walk all over us.

Couldn't agree more on that point, does the phrase 'consumer revenge' not appear directly under the website title on each of this site's page?

I am truly astounded I have been accused of blackmail for suggesting I involve the correct parties in a complaint, particularly being as it is someone who works in the industry. Oh wait, that may be why, someone's wages are paid by that industry.

Poor Barclays, who own Standard Life. They must be ready to sell up that hugely expensive, well lit building in Canary Wharf because I am 'blackmailing' them. How terrible I am for stating they still had my money up until the new institution did, and how awful of me for suggesting I want my interest in that period.

(What dunstonh still neglects to comment on is even though he states the OFT have only made recommendations, and the actual non-interest period should be two days, is whether or not I had a gap at all I was still without interest for six days. So would it have been more acceptable for me to argue for interest over four days instead of six?)

For the more consumer-oriented amongst us, please don't forget this site is about 'consumer revenge' not 'please be nice to the banks as they need our money'. Sounding like a blooming Tory.

dunstonh

What dunstonh still neglects to comment on is even though he states the OFT have only made recommendations, and the actual non-interest period should be two days, is whether or not I had a gap at all I was still without interest for six days. So would it have been more acceptable for me to argue for interest over four days instead of six?

How do you make that 6 working days? I make it 2 working days after they received the money. the 25th was a saturday (not a working day). So, it would be processed on the 27th, the next working day. Interest was applied two working days after that. Exactly what the agreed rules state.

I am truly astounded I have been accused of blackmail for suggesting I involve the correct parties in a complaint, particularly being as it is someone who works in the industry. Oh wait, that may be why, someone's wages are paid by that industry.

Please can you explain how my "wages" are paid by the "industry"? I must be missing out on something here and would like to know how I can get Principality to pay me a wage.

I am truly astounded I have been accused of blackmail for suggesting I involve the correct parties in a complaint

Look at what you said.

I said fine, let's not be emotional about this. We can go one of two ways. You can either write this off as a goodwill gesture, it'll cost you a few quid, send me a cheque, end of the matter. We'll resolve it quite low level, I'll be happy, you won't have hassle. Or we can go the other way, which is you say no, I escalate, you still say no, I go to the Ombudsman

So, what do you call it when you [STRIKE]blackmail[/STRIKE] threaten a firm that if they dont pay you a few pound that you are not entitled to that you will ensure they suffer a £500 charge?

You said:
It's not right and someone is profiteering from money that is yours.

I'm sorry but you are doing exactly the thing that you are accusing them of doing.

If you want to blackmail them then that's up to you but to then to make that accusation when you are doing the same thing smacks of double standards.

Consumerist

dunstonh wrote: »

So, what do you call it when you [STRIKE]blackmail[/STRIKE] threaten a firm that if they dont pay you a few pound that you are not entitled to that you will ensure they suffer a £500 charge?

Sounds rather like the [STRIKE]blackmail[/STRIKE] threat all banks make if you go overdrawn.

Consumerist

dunstonh wrote: »

So, what do you call it when you [STRIKE]blackmail[/STRIKE] threaten a firm that if they dont pay you a few pound that you are not entitled to that you will ensure they suffer a £500 charge?

By what yardstick do you consider that a bank which has my money should not pay the interest they have agreed to pay?

A banker's yardstick, perhaps?

dunstonh

Sounds rather like the blackmail threat all banks make if you go overdrawn.

I dont see the similarity. If you go into unauthorised overdraft you do know the consequences as they are published. Don't necessarily agree with the level of charges but thats a different thing.

By what yardstick do you consider that a bank which has my money should not pay the interest they have agreed to pay?

They have not agreed to pay it. The ruling was 2 working days after the money was received. This is what occurred here.

Where banks have done something wrong then go for the complaint. Where there is no wrong doing but you feel hard done by then you could still complain if you want. Thats up to the individual.

However, where there is no wrong doing and you are accusing them of profiteering when its actually the individual that is profiteering, then that is wrong. Blackmail, bribe, threat, whatever. The OP clearly laid it out as blackmail. Whats next, pay me some money or I will punch your face?

Consumerist

dunstonh wrote: »

They have not agreed to pay it. The ruling was 2 working days after the money was received. This is what occurred here.

With respect, you are wrong.

If the bank had not agreed to pay me interest on my saving then I would not have given them my money. The bank merely chooses to ignore that agreement when it suits them and it becomes necessary to remind them of their obligations. The OP found it necessary to give them a reminder. Quite rightly, in my view. The banks, of course, are aware that they cheat their customers of interest to which they are duly entitled but will continue to ignore that for as long as they can.

The FSA has also reminded them with the implied [STRIKE]blackmail[/STRIKE] threat that they may take action if the banks refuse to transfer ISAs without loss of interest. Then there will be some justice.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

Dunstonh, I am not sure if you are intentionally being confrontational or if you genuinely think you are trying to make an impartial observation, but your comments are perceived certainly by me and I get the impression of others also that you are being antagonistic. I think there is frankly little mileage going into further debate with you on this matter so I don't intend to.

For others who are a little less hostile, as has been mentioned already this site is about ***CONSUMER REVENGE***, I'd love to hear tales of others who challenge institutions on lost interest. The banks must be raking in thousands of pounds each month in the interest they're not paying you during the transfer process and it is simply unacceptable this is going on unchallenged. Even if it is only a couple of quid, if enough of us do it the banks have to sit up and take notice.

le_loup

Your points are well made about banks taking advantage when they can, but, Dunstonh is only making the point that the bank IS sticking to the agreement it made with you and you agreed to when you put your money in! If you don't like the terms don't agree to them.

masonic

le_loup wrote: »

Your points are well made about banks taking advantage when they can, but, Dunstonh is only making the point that the bank IS sticking to the agreement it made with you and you agreed to when you put your money in! If you don't like the terms don't agree to them.

The agreement was between the BBA/BSA and the OFT. It did not involve any accountholders. I've yet to see any T&Cs specifying what happens with respect to interest during an ISA transfer, so AFAIK nobody agrees to forgo any period of interest during an ISA transfer by agreeing to the terms of their account.

In any case, if it is morally wrong to threaten to bring any complaint before the FOS knowing the cost to the bank will be greater than the cost of resolving the matter to your satisfaction, I guess there will be a lot of people who will not measure up to Dunstonh's standards, myself included.