Anyone here moving their Santander savings?

i8change

Originally Posted by chucky
Why have Santander got a bad reputation?

We have never had a problem (been with them since they were Abbey) so don't know the actual reasons why.

But I have noticed they always seem to have a large base of disgruntled customers compared to other companies so there must be problems.

They are the only Bank listed by Which? magazine under the "Warning: Poor customer satisfaction." heading and they comment "Always at the bottom of our satisfaction tables."

Another example where many have voted against them (third worst):-

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2084868/Customer-service-TalkTalk-gets-Wooden-Spoon-award-AGAIN.html

The top three in the Wooden Spoon in 2011 are also the same as in 2010 — with Santander and HMRC swapping position. This reflects poorly on each of their commitments — made this time last year — to make major improvements.

And a few more poor reviews, including some of the detail:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/feb/26/santander-britains-worst-bank

The evidence suggests we're not alone. Last November, the JD Power & Associates annual survey into customer satisfaction levels named Santander as the worst-performing UK bank. In each survey it carried out since 2007, Santander was bottom.

http://www.moneywise.co.uk/banking-saving/current-accounts/why-santanders-service-so-poor

MrRee_2

Stick your heads in the sand if you must - but please do not kid yourself that there is enough money in any pot to pay you your savings back!!

Did I hear this morning that a Spanish Bank has had a run on it?

IveSeenTheLight

pqrdef wrote: »

When we were bailing out the S**ttish banks,

Hmmmm.

http://www.halifax.co.uk/contactus/contactushome.asp

Halifax is a division of Bank of Scotland plc. Bank of Scotland plc, HBOS Investment Fund Managers Limited, Halifax Life Limited and Halifax Share Dealing Limited and St Andrew’s Life Assurance plc are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS. They are entered in the Financial Services Authority’s Register and their Register Numbers are 169628, 119223, 171881, 183332 and 189101

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/about

As the financial regulator for the UK, we use a wide range of rule-making, investigatory and enforcement powers to fulfill our statutory objectives.
Our powers and objectives are given to us by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA). We also aim to promote efficient, orderly and fair financial markets and follow our principles of good regulation.

We are an independent body and we receive no government funding – we are funded entirely by the firms we regulate. However, we are accountable to the Treasury and, through them, Parliament.
Find out more about who we are, what we do and how we work with you

grizzly1911

oldvicar wrote: »

Why would the UK government try to bail out Santander (UK) at all?

The government may well back the £85K depositor guarantees, but beyond that it will be best to let this bank fail - at least if things get sticky a subsidiary of a foreign bank will be well back in the queue for being 'rescued' after all British banks and building societies.

The difference with NS&I is the government effectively owns it 100% already and as long as the government owns a printing press money will be 'safe' (i.e. repayable at face value) there. To put it another way, if NS&I were to collapse it would be the last to do so, and all the other significant banks would have gone first.
.

If the Government can't foot the guarantee amount I would suggest that it has run out of money and that would include NS&I too.

StevieJ

chucky wrote: »

Why have Santander got a bad reputation?

Well they are charging me 1.45% on my mortgage and paying me 4% on my deposits, hardly a sustainable model, I quite like them

thor

oldvicar wrote: »

He said this was why he was urging banks to not pay any dividends, not to pay staff any cash bonuses (or pay staff cash at all unless they really had to!) and to keep as much money as they could 'in the bank'.

Presumably he must be the one who also told them to offer bottom of the barrel scraping saving rates as well!

DervProf

StevieJ wrote: »

Well they are charging me 1.45% on my mortgage and paying me 4% on my deposits, hardly a sustainable model, I quite like them

Hardly sustainable if all their customers get the same deal, which I doubt.

oldvicar

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If the Government can't foot the guarantee amount I would suggest that it has run out of money and that would include NS&I too.

I would suggest you are wrong.

Firstly the government does NOT provide the depositor guarantee - the banks do through the independent FSCS. Whilst the government has said it will lend the bank guarantee scheme money to meet the £85K guarantee, and I presume it will ('printing' as much as it needs if it has to), that is not the same as rescuing a failing bank. With NS&I the government owns the lot and is responsible for its debts and for repaying depositors in full - this is a much stronger guarantee than a promise (with NO obligation in legislation to actually do so) to lend sufficient money to a guarantee scheme funded by the banks.

Secondly my original comment did suggest that the government probably would back the £85K depositor guaranteees. I am pretty sure it would for the first bank to collapse, and the second, and the third, and the fourth, and the fifth, etc. At some stage it would become clear that there is no way the remaining banks could afford to pay the ever increasing levies needed to repay the government. But the government would continue lending the scheme enough for the guarantee long after it is obvious it will never be repaid. And then at some point the government would effectively nationalise what is left of the UK banking system - at least those 'too big to fail', but with foreign subsidiaries and possibly any UK minnows allowed to collapse. Throughout the process NS&I would remain safe, other than being forced to close its doors to new deposit(or)s.

Finally, presuming as I do that the government would back the depositor guarantees (even though it doesn't have to) if it had 'run out of money' as you suggest it would firstly back NS&I commitments in full. But there might be some wiggle room on the FSCS depositor guarantees at other banks through, for example:
(a) Delaying payment - although the FSCS aims to pay out quickly it is not an obligation. If the government were providing the funds I expect it would actually provide them immediately, but it could if it wished say "we will fund the guarantee as soon as we can and everyone will get their £85K ... but not just yet". Although it could 'print' enough to fund the guarantee at the press of a button, it might deliberately delay as a means to try to keep the lid on hyperinflation ... and the £85K when paid a few months later wouldn't be worth quite so much.
(b) Reducing the £85K guarantee. Remember the guarantee is there because of EU legislation requiring a guarantee of EUR 100K. The £85K is only an approximate equivalent, with the clear intention to reset the equivalent from time to time. So the guarantee is really a guarantee in Euros. Now suppose the Euro were to collapse against the Great British Pound because of e.g. all those spanish banks failing (unthinkable, isn't it) the guarantee in £££s would be reset downwards, just when you would least want it to be.

Sorry to go on. Perhaps I could summarise in the words of some more frequent posters: "Doomed, we're all doomed" . But then I think we will actually survive. However because we are pinning so much on Sir Mervyn & Co.'s nautical and meteorological skills to chart a course through the storm, I would rather be wearing a lifejacket and sitting in a lifeboat than be left clinging to the wreckage of the Armada.

noodle_doodle

See the UK arm of Santander was specifically downgraded by Moody's, the only non-spanish banking operation on the list. mmmm......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/17/spain-denies-bankia-customers-rushing-to-withdraw?newsfeed=true

michaels

Or alternatively read the full release on the Moody's website. The UK arm was downgraded because it previously had an above par rating because it was felt that the parent co would be in a position to support the UK are should it get in to trouble. As the Spanish parent has been downgraded it is deemed less able to offer support hence the downgrade of the UK bit.

But the important point is the UK bit remains as highly rated as its UK competitors and higher rated than the Spanish parent. In other words previously Santander UK was a better bet than its UK competitors as it could also draw on support from Santander International, now it is merely as strong as every other local bank. Still I guess that doesn't make as good headlines does it.

noodle_doodle wrote: »

See the UK arm of Santander was specifically downgraded by Moody's, the only non-spanish banking operation on the list. mmmm......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/17/spain-denies-bankia-customers-rushing-to-withdraw?newsfeed=true