Cash ISAs: The Best Currently Available List

flaneurs_lobster

surreysaver said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

subjecttocontract said:

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 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.

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.

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.

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 action 

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.

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.

surreysaver

flaneurs_lobster said:

surreysaver said:

flaneurs_lobster said:

subjecttocontract said:

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 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.

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.

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.

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 action 

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.

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.

Its not illegal to impose a geographical restriction though. It's probably not even illegal to impose a restriction against people under 6' tall.
But to impose a restriction that goes against an allowance allowed by legislation?  They don't have the power to do that, it would require an Act of Parliament.
It could even be viewed as unlawful under anti-competition law.

CuparLad

HMRC's Guidance to ISA Managers is always a useful read:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manage-isa-subscriptions-for-your-investors

It does state "Managers do not need to establish the amount subscribed to ISAs held with other managers. Investors who subscribe to ISAs held with different managers are responsible for ensuring that they do not exceed the overall subscription limit." Therefore, there is no need to prevent a subscriber from subscribing to multiple ISAs because the obligation is with the investor, not the ISA Manager.

This is further made clear here:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/who-can-invest-in-an-isa-if-youre-an-isa-manager

It states "It is not possible for you to know if investors are subscribing, or have subscribed, with other ISA managers, or the amount of subscriptions they have. The individual investors remain responsible for managing their overall subscription limits."

However, ISA Managers are allowed to impose terms on any ISA Account that they wish, as long as that term does not breach the ISA rules. The system permits subscriptions across multiple accounts with multiple ISA Managers, but that does not mean that every ISA Manager must provide for that. In the same way, the system allows ISA Managers to offer both Cash and Stocks+Shares ISAs, but not all Managers do. It's their commercial choice.

As the HMRC guidance makes clear, it's highly unlikely that an individual ISA Manager would know how many ISAs an individual investor had subscribed to in any given year. An investor could take the risk and subscribe to an account that did not permit subscriptions with other ISA Managers, but if found out, the ISA Manager would be perfectly within their right to close the account for breach of terms.

TooOrangeyForCrows

Hi. Does anyone know if this site is legit? There are some strangely names banks . . 

moneyfactscompare (dot) co (dot) uk/isa/

PRAISETHESUN

@TooOrangeyForCrows Money facts are legit and are usually a good choice for comparing rates. Similar to MSE they focus on rates not service, so I'm not surprised to see smaller or lesser known providers in their listings.

Ultimately up to you to do some research on the institutions you want to deposit money with, and if you have any questions about specific providers then ask away and the people here will be more then happy to try to help 👍

flaneurs_lobster

TooOrangeyForCrows said:

Hi. Does anyone know if this site is legit? There are some strangely names banks . . 

moneyfactscompare (dot) co (dot) uk/isa/

This link?

https://moneyfactscompare.co.uk/isa/

It's kosher.

By "strangely names" do you mean unfamiliar? Lots of institutions out there with no High Street presence or mainstream advertising so quite likely that there are some that you may not have heard of. 

The important thing is whether deposits made with them have FSCS protection.

slinger2

from the moneybox web site "The rate on this product will decrease from 5.17% AER (variable) to 4.92% AER (variable) on 17 December 2024. This includes an introductory bonus rate of 0.47% AER for the first 12 months."

Aidanmc

Paragon Double Access Cash ISA 4.8%

https://www.paragonbank.co.uk/savings/cash-isas/double-access-cash-isa

TooOrangeyForCrows

flaneurs_lobster said:

TooOrangeyForCrows said:

Hi. Does anyone know if this site is legit? There are some strangely names banks . . 

moneyfactscompare (dot) co (dot) uk/isa/

This link?

moneyfactscompare dot co dot uk/isa/

It's kosher.

By "strangely names" do you mean unfamiliar? Lots of institutions out there with no High Street presence or mainstream advertising so quite likely that there are some that you may not have heard of. 

The important thing is whether deposits made with them have FSCS protection.

Yes. Exactly that, they kinda sound like the names of banks that Nigerian princes mention. 

Like Habib Bank Zurich plc which is currently listed as their top 'Fixed rate bonds'. Kinda strange how you can only manage your account there by snail mail and phone. I must admit I do actually like to be able to view an online or mobile app account.

But just so long as they are legit.

TooOrangeyForCrows

As for the FSCS protection. Is that supposed to be easily visible or do I have to go searching in the TLCs?