HBOS ISA Direct Reward is a trick. If you transfer out you lose 6 months' interest

bobthedambuilder

pressuredrop wrote: »

Fixed ISAs = Loss of interest on withdrawal.

Variable ISAs = No loss of interest on withdrawal.

What's so hard to understand?

Are you talking about generally, or just HBOS?

Anyway, the OP wasn't talking about withdrawals, he was talking about transfers. You've got to look very hard to find out whether a transfer is classed as a withdrawal - or perhaps you didn't check that.

talana

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

No! The OP was right to highlight it because the way he read it meant there was a problem.

Granted. However the OP was then corrected in his reading by several posters about as clearly and emphatically as possible (and without being rude).

Apparently that makes those posters bank apologists spouting hot air though. Go figure....
If you can't understand the T&Cs then ask for clarification before accusing the bank of dirty tricks. Seems common sense to me, but what do I know I'm just a bank apologist apparently...

pressuredrop_2

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

Are you talking about generally

You mean every ISA available in the UK? Yup.

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

or perhaps you didn't check that.

It's a variable ISA becoming a variable ISA. What's to check?

opinions4u

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

I still don't see why they can't publish separate T&C's for each account. It's not as if we're all going to print off each 30 page document every time - you can look at it on the screen.

These documents also have to be printed up as brochures and distributed to branches and call centres.

There is then the risk of the wrong brochure being handed out to a customer opening the account. By combining the T&Cs it removes that risk.

Additionally, if a customer requires a Fixed Rate ISA transferring funds in from elsewhere, they are initially sold an ISA Saver and the account is converted (backdated) to a FRISA when the funds are received. So combined T&Cs for those products are required.

The ISA Direct Reward also becomes an ISA Saver Direct after 12 months, so combined T&Cs are relevant there.

Additionally, ISA customers can transfer from one type of ISA to another without changing account. If the T&Cs have already been issued there is reduced cost.

While it's reasonable to argue that it could be done differently, I can't honestly see that one way has significant advantages over the other.

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

Anyway, the OP wasn't talking about withdrawals, he was talking about transfers. You've got to look very hard to find out whether a transfer is classed as a withdrawal - or perhaps you didn't check that.

A transfer out is a withdrawal. It says so on page 26 of the terms and conditions.

Lokolo

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

As for lokolo's post (yesterday 5.46pm - sorry I don't know how to paste a second quote:o), I still don't see why they can't publish separate T&C's for each account. It's not as if we're all going to print off each 30 page document every time - you can look at it on the screen.

Quite easy to quote. Just open up a quote with [ quote], and then copy and paste whatever was said, then close it using [ /quote] without the gap between the square brackets.

You can also have [ quote=NAME] and [ /quote], which will have a bold name, e.g. [ quote=Lokolo] will give my name on top of the quote.

I have a picture here you can see me doing it.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y2/Lokolo/quoting.png

opinions4u

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I have a enormous sympathy for the OP.

I had a little sympathy. But when it was pointed out that he was reading the wrong part of the T&Cs and they related to a different product he didn't back down.

As a recent ISA Direct Reward 4 customer I also have been reassured by one post only in this thread so far and that is by gilly_dc which was succinct and which I do hope is correct.

It was a good post. But certainly not unique. Several posts clearly stated that what he was saying was wrong. My own (#20) clearly stated there were no withdrawal penalties. The Halifax web site also summarises the account well.

The other hot air expended by the usual crew of bank apologists telling good MSE'ers to go back and read the Ts&Cs again is useless to the majority.

Well if he's reading it wrong, going back and reading it again more carefully is probably a good idea. Apologists? Whatever. But when a bank has a product that is a decent rate, allows transfers in, does the decent thing around backdating interest and is easy to move out of should the customer need to it doesn't really deserve a thread on a forum telling the world it's got a nasty catch when it patently hasn't.

Had the OP chosen to highlight the underwhelming rate at the end of 12 months, fine, but he cross referenced a condition that applied to a different product and refused to accept he was wrong even when it was clearly pointed out to him where and why he was wrong.

It is a minefield out there and it doesn't help one jot or iota for a bunch of minelayers to be shouting directions at someone caught in the middle with his foot on the wrong peg like he should have known what was in store when he got out of bed this morning and got tempted to walk this way or that by the prevailing wind on MSE.

Of course, the first bit of shouting came from the OP. Who wasn't big enough to then accept the mistake.

jennifernil

talana wrote: »

Granted. However the OP was then corrected in his reading by several posters about as clearly and emphatically as possible (and without being rude).

Apparently that makes those posters bank apologists spouting hot air though. Go figure....
If you can't understand the T&Cs then ask for clarification before accusing the bank of dirty tricks. Seems common sense to me, but what do I know I'm just a bank apologist apparently...

Quite!

Several posters pointed out his error, but it seems some people just cannot accept they might be wrong.

jennifernil

bobthedambuilder wrote: »

No! The OP was right to highlight it because the way he read it meant there was a problem. Don't get down on the guy just because he saw it differently than you. It can't be 100% transparent if even one person can misinterpret it. It certainly wasn't immediately transparent to me - it took several readings until I was satisfied of the meaning.

As for lokolo's post (yesterday 5.46pm - sorry I don't know how to paste a second quote:o), I still don't see why they can't publish separate T&C's for each account. It's not as if we're all going to print off each 30 page document every time - you can look at it on the screen.

He didn't see it differently, or misinterpret it.......he was reading the wrong bit, a bit that applied to a different account.

Andystriker

2sides2everystory wrote: »

The other hot air expended by the usual crew of bank apologists telling good MSE'ers to go back and read the Ts&Cs again is useless to the majority.

What a ridiculous thing to post. The OP has had many replies telling him he's got it wrong and he still would not accept it. So going back and reading to T&Cs again is the most logical thing to do.

2sides2everystory

Take your banker hat off for a moment Andystriker, and set yourself the impartial task of establishing exactly how a Halifax ISA Direct Reward 4 actually works.

Start with Google perhaps, and come back and tell us the steps you take to actually obtain unambiguous information about that product.

Then for example, you may wish to tell us where the product title "Halifax ISA Direct Reward 4" (as opposed to 1 2 or 3 or indeed any other of Halifax's ISA or Saver offerings) appears in any unique set of formal Ts & Cs.

Then you might be qualified to spout on MSE about what is ridiculous and what isn't