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

MarkyMarkD

Sorry, masonic, but you are wrong.

AFAIK all savings account terms and conditions state that interest will be paid until the account is closed. Like it or not, an account is closed when the account closure cheque is issued, irrespective of how long that cheque takes to clear.

So, banks and building societies which pay interest up to the date an account is closed are complying with their agreement with their customers.

This whole issue is a storm in a teacup. The OFT's opinion counts for nothing. The OFT reckoned bank charges were unlawful ... and then it lost in court. The OFT reckons that there should be no loss of interest on ISA transfers ... so what?

The industry has agreed that the institution receiving the funds will pay interest from two working days after receipt. Which most of them did anyway. Another bit of great work by the OFT (not). The only circumstance in which I can imagine this didn't happen anyway, was if the institution receiving the funds (let's say, Nationwide, for example) had a huge processing backlog and failed to bank the cheques. I absolutely agree that the date should be backdated for this delay, and I am sure that Nationwide, in practice, always did this. (In fact, Nationwide unilaterally backdates to the date the other institution closed the ISA, but that's a different matter).

What was agreed between the OFT and the industry was a guarantee of what should already have been good practice. Apart from that, in this regard, the OFT achieved nothing at all.

Consumerist

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Like it or not, an account is closed when the account closure cheque is issued, irrespective of how long that cheque takes to clear.

Well we don't like it.

It is the banks, not the customers, who determine when an account is closed without expressing it in terms & conditions. The banks have been dishonest for many years now but, since we have been forced to use them by government and employers alike, doesn't mean they should continue to cheat us indefinitely.

MarkyMarkD, you would have a promising career at the BBA who have always been able to defend the indefensible obscenities of banks while the cowardly banks themselves which they represent stand well out of sight cheering them on.

I don't think you and your ilk belong on this site except to stand as a constant reminder of what the site is really about. No one would believe the underhand grubbiness of the banking fraternity without the likes of you and dunstonh.

masonic

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Sorry, masonic, but you are wrong.

AFAIK all savings account terms and conditions state that interest will be paid until the account is closed. Like it or not, an account is closed when the account closure cheque is issued, irrespective of how long that cheque takes to clear.

I disagree. Aside from the fact an account need not be closed whilst the existing ISA manager is still in possession of the clients funds, I've received backdated interest from my new ISA manager to cover the whole period of an ISA transfer without even asking for it. That was a from an ISA manager who had essentially the same generic T&Cs regarding account opening and closure as most others. If there are some providers going the extra mile and offering a service that exceeds their obligations, and those providers look exactly the same as others who don't, it's reasonable to expect to be able to negotiate with those who don't in the interest of raising their standards.

masonic

Consumerist wrote: »

I don't think you and your ilk belong on this site except to stand as a constant reminder of what the site is really about. No one would believe the underhand grubbiness of the banking fraternity without the likes of you and dunstonh.

I think the huge number of posters who have been helped by the likes of MarkyMarkD and Dunstonh would disagree with you.

This issue is somewhat unique. A customer is forced to go through this rather unusual transfer process and once they have submitted their transfer form, they can't reasonably know what to expect. Some customers get lucky and their ISAs are transferred quickly and the their new ISA manager consistently backdates interest to the date on the transfer cheque. With other ISA managers, interest is backdated for some people but not others, some who complain are successful while others are not. Some ISA managers will not entertain any notion of bridging the gap between a cheque being issued and the money clearing the new account. There is no consistency at all, and nothing to distinguish the different practices in the terms of the ISA accounts.

The situation above is obviously going to leave people wanting the best possible outcome, which is that there is no period of time where they earn no interest on their funds. While this is happening for some people, IMHO the others are perfectly reasonable in trying to achieve the same outcome for themselves. If the banks decide to put their collective feet down and decide on a fixed outcome that is documented within their terms, then customers will just have to accept that and factor it in when considering their transfers. We have not yet reached that point though.

le_loup

Consumerist wrote: »

I don't think you and your ilk belong on this site except to stand as a constant reminder of what the site is really about. No one would believe the underhand grubbiness of the banking fraternity without the likes of you and dunstonh.

I think this gross calumny shows you for what you are. Someone incapable of holding a decent discussion. The timing of your post, as well as the content, may indicate that you had just emerged from the pub looking for a fight!

4$£&*(£$&*(!

le_loup wrote: »

I think this gross calumny shows you for what you are. Someone incapable of holding a decent discussion. The timing of your post, as well as the content, may indicate that you had just emerged from the pub looking for a fight!

Can we stop the slurs please? What is going on, have people emerged from the playground grouchy because they are tired? Le loup, you have nothing to substantiate that comment and it's asking for trouble.

Aside from if people think what I have done is morally right or wrong, what I have done is all inside the law and all within my bank's published guidelines for making a complaint. Whether or not you think I was entitled to the interest, the fact is I have followed the bank's complaints process.

And I won.

jem16

CitySlicker wrote: »

Le loup, you have nothing to substantiate that comment and it's asking for trouble.

I take it you also feel that this comment is unsubstantiated and asking for trouble?

Consumerist wrote: »

I don't think you and your ilk belong on this site except to stand as a constant reminder of what the site is really about. No one would believe the underhand grubbiness of the banking fraternity without the likes of you and dunstonh.

Just wondered why you berated LeLoup but not Consumerist?

dunstonh

At the end of the day you can do what you like.

There is pressure on the authorities to change the complaints system so that try-it-on and fraudulent complaints can be penalised (at one extreme) or allow the firm to not incur the £500 FOS fee. The more people that abuse the fact that there is a fee to go to the FOS, the more likely it will be that option will be changed.

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.

I have told people to use the fact there is a £500 charge at times to aid with their complaint. However, that is where there has been a valid complaint. There were two issues in this thread in my eyes.

1 - the bank had done no wrong. So, was it fair to threaten them to pay the OP money when no wrong doing had taken place?

2 - the OP was accusing them of profiteering based on an incorrect assumption. However, the OP was using blackmail to get paid the money. So, morals were brought into it by the OP. To claim one party is being immoral but then act the same way back is double standards.

The banks do lots wrong and the old cash ISA transfer system was a disgrace. Lets pick on them with the things that they do wrong. Not the things they do right.

4$£&*(£$&*(!

I'll be quite honest, I only singled out the most recent of quotes and everyone who has just piled in onto each other is wrong regardless of whether they support my issue or not. I've been labelled a blackmailer, we've had someone else effectively labelled a drunken brawler, this is not the behaviour I would come to expect of members of this board who on the whole are a good, helpful bunch of people.

There is absolutely no call for any of this fighting, so in the interests of not getting this thread locked can people just stop it, ignore what remarks have been made and move on? The fight for me here is between me and a bank, not FM's against other FM's.

Edit - I'm going to give Dunstonh the benefit of the doubt as he just posted his last message a minute before this, but Dunstonh can I respectfully but plainly put it to you that I find the term 'blackmailing' to be inappropriate and slanderous. I am asking you to stop.

jem16

CitySlicker wrote: »

The fight for me here is between me and a bank

What do you feel would have been the bank's decision had you followed the correct procedure by complaining but not mentioning the FOS?

I find the term 'blackmailing' to be inappropriate and slanderous. I am asking you to stop.

What term would be appropriate?

blackmail [ˈblækˌmeɪl]
n
1. (Law) the act of attempting to obtain money by intimidation, as by threats to disclose discreditable information
2. the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone's actions
vb (tr)
1. (Law) to exact or attempt to exact (money or anything of value) from (a person) by threats or intimidation; extort
2. to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats

Is this not what you were doing - i.e threatening what would happen next if they didn't uphold your claim?

The problem, as Dh points out, is that the more people who do this the more likely it is that the FOS will stop this option of going to the FOS and people who have a real claim will lose out. It may well come about that you have to pay a fee upfront to get the FOS to look at your complaint thus putting off many who can't afford this fee in the first place.