We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Cash ISAs: The Best Currently Available List
Comments
-
I will be in this position come April.
I have a 1 year fix with Kent Reliance ending in August 2025. I will probably add to it in April (because they let you, and it's paying 4.91%) and also open an EA ISA elsewhere. Or at least that's the plan.0 -
If anybody were in that position they would probably not want to own up/ admit to it even though Kent Reliance would have no way of discovering who they were.spreadsheeterapple said:for Kent Reliance, it states "Currently, you are unable to subscribe with Kent Reliance if you have already sIf anybody were in thaubscribed with another provider, unless you are transferring all current year funds to us."
Puzzled why they have such a restrictive condition, or if/how they could enforce it? How would they know? what if for instance, Kent was the first ISA opened, and later on an ISA was opened elsewhere? How could they make you close the second one?
(subject of course to the person staying within the max annual subscription limit).
Is anybody in this position, (for Kent Reliance, or other firms with same T&C), or had a closure enforced upon them or attempted?
curious, I would want to be free to place future deposits in the best easy access cash ISA if better than Kent R, whilst having already put some in a fixed Isa. That just seems natural to me; look for best rate each time making a deposit as money becomes available to save...3 -
This has been much discussed since the restrictions were changed this year. The consensus is that these restrictions are unenforceable (and undetectable) when applied across different ISA providers.subjecttocontract said:
If anybody were in that position they would probably not want to own up/ admit to it even though Kent Reliance would have no way of discovering who they were.spreadsheeterapple said:for Kent Reliance, it states "Currently, you are unable to subscribe with Kent Reliance if you have already sIf anybody were in thaubscribed with another provider, unless you are transferring all current year funds to us."
Puzzled why they have such a restrictive condition, or if/how they could enforce it? How would they know? what if for instance, Kent was the first ISA opened, and later on an ISA was opened elsewhere? How could they make you close the second one?
(subject of course to the person staying within the max annual subscription limit).
Is anybody in this position, (for Kent Reliance, or other firms with same T&C), or had a closure enforced upon them or attempted?
curious, I would want to be free to place future deposits in the best easy access cash ISA if better than Kent R, whilst having already put some in a fixed Isa. That just seems natural to me; look for best rate each time making a deposit as money becomes available to save...
If, however, a provider asks you to make a declaration that you have not (nor will not) made/make subscriptions to another ISA this year then that, of course, is down to an individual's attitude to making such declarations.1 -
Would it be reasonable or legal for a provider to ask someone to make such a declaration? In which case it's irrelevant if you lie, as it's a totally unreasonable condition, so therefore they couldn't take any actionflaneurs_lobster said:
This has been much discussed since the restrictions were changed this year. The consensus is that these restrictions are unenforceable (and undetectable) when applied across different ISA providers.subjecttocontract said:
If anybody were in that position they would probably not want to own up/ admit to it even though Kent Reliance would have no way of discovering who they were.spreadsheeterapple said:for Kent Reliance, it states "Currently, you are unable to subscribe with Kent Reliance if you have already sIf anybody were in thaubscribed with another provider, unless you are transferring all current year funds to us."
Puzzled why they have such a restrictive condition, or if/how they could enforce it? How would they know? what if for instance, Kent was the first ISA opened, and later on an ISA was opened elsewhere? How could they make you close the second one?
(subject of course to the person staying within the max annual subscription limit).
Is anybody in this position, (for Kent Reliance, or other firms with same T&C), or had a closure enforced upon them or attempted?
curious, I would want to be free to place future deposits in the best easy access cash ISA if better than Kent R, whilst having already put some in a fixed Isa. That just seems natural to me; look for best rate each time making a deposit as money becomes available to save...
If, however, a provider asks you to make a declaration that you have not (nor will not) made/make subscriptions to another ISA this year then that, of course, is down to an individual's attitude to making such declarations.I consider myself to be a male feminist. Is that allowed?3 -
I’ve just received an email that the rate will be changing to 4.45% from 17 December, plus any introductory bonus rateChewyyBacca said:0 -
With the bonus of 0.47% giving 4.92% ?GlasgowExpat2 said:
I’ve just received an email that the rate will be changing to 4.45% from 17 December, plus any introductory bonus rateChewyyBacca said:0 -
Well that's the email I have too, so yes, 4.92%Middle_of_the_Road said:
With the bonus of 0.47% giving 4.92% ?GlasgowExpat2 said:
I’ve just received an email that the rate will be changing to 4.45% from 17 December, plus any introductory bonus rateChewyyBacca said:1 -
Kent Reliance don't decide the ISA rules - the Chancellor and Parliament do. The rules allow you to invest in multiple cash ISAs across multiple providers up to your £20k allowance - individual providers can determine what you invest with them but no one else.surreysaver said:
Would it be reasonable or legal for a provider to ask someone to make such a declaration? In which case it's irrelevant if you lie, as it's a totally unreasonable condition, so therefore they couldn't take any actionflaneurs_lobster said:
This has been much discussed since the restrictions were changed this year. The consensus is that these restrictions are unenforceable (and undetectable) when applied across different ISA providers.subjecttocontract said:
If anybody were in that position they would probably not want to own up/ admit to it even though Kent Reliance would have no way of discovering who they were.spreadsheeterapple said:for Kent Reliance, it states "Currently, you are unable to subscribe with Kent Reliance if you have already sIf anybody were in thaubscribed with another provider, unless you are transferring all current year funds to us."
Puzzled why they have such a restrictive condition, or if/how they could enforce it? How would they know? what if for instance, Kent was the first ISA opened, and later on an ISA was opened elsewhere? How could they make you close the second one?
(subject of course to the person staying within the max annual subscription limit).
Is anybody in this position, (for Kent Reliance, or other firms with same T&C), or had a closure enforced upon them or attempted?
curious, I would want to be free to place future deposits in the best easy access cash ISA if better than Kent R, whilst having already put some in a fixed Isa. That just seems natural to me; look for best rate each time making a deposit as money becomes available to save...
If, however, a provider asks you to make a declaration that you have not (nor will not) made/make subscriptions to another ISA this year then that, of course, is down to an individual's attitude to making such declarations.
So I would just ignore this condition. Even the esteemed Kent Reliance is not above the law.
Of course perhaps best not to advertise the fact by asking for a partial current cash ISA transfer in from another provider to them.3 -
Of course it's an unreasonable condition, but if an institution wants to have an unreasonable, illogical, stupid (or any other legal) condition imposed before it allows you to be a customer then it can do so.surreysaver said:
Would it be reasonable or legal for a provider to ask someone to make such a declaration? In which case it's irrelevant if you lie, as it's a totally unreasonable condition, so therefore they couldn't take any actionflaneurs_lobster said:
This has been much discussed since the restrictions were changed this year. The consensus is that these restrictions are unenforceable (and undetectable) when applied across different ISA providers.subjecttocontract said:
If anybody were in that position they would probably not want to own up/ admit to it even though Kent Reliance would have no way of discovering who they were.spreadsheeterapple said:for Kent Reliance, it states "Currently, you are unable to subscribe with Kent Reliance if you have already sIf anybody were in thaubscribed with another provider, unless you are transferring all current year funds to us."
Puzzled why they have such a restrictive condition, or if/how they could enforce it? How would they know? what if for instance, Kent was the first ISA opened, and later on an ISA was opened elsewhere? How could they make you close the second one?
(subject of course to the person staying within the max annual subscription limit).
Is anybody in this position, (for Kent Reliance, or other firms with same T&C), or had a closure enforced upon them or attempted?
curious, I would want to be free to place future deposits in the best easy access cash ISA if better than Kent R, whilst having already put some in a fixed Isa. That just seems natural to me; look for best rate each time making a deposit as money becomes available to save...
If, however, a provider asks you to make a declaration that you have not (nor will not) made/make subscriptions to another ISA this year then that, of course, is down to an individual's attitude to making such declarations.
Is the imposition of a geographical restriction on an application unreasonable?
How about if the institution were to only offer a product to persons over 6 ft tall?
Their product, their rules.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards