Cash ISAs: The Best Currently Available List

E_zroda

AspiringPensioner said:

pecunianonolet said:

AspiringPensioner said:

pecunianonolet said:

Kent Reliance Cash ISA - Easy Access - Issue 56 now  with a slight rate reduction to 4.51% (previous rate 4.56%)

Charter Savings BankEasy Access Cash ISA - Issue 57 now available at 4.59%

Thanks for this heads-up! They were a little late in coming out with these (I'm pretty sure they weren't there in the first 2-3 days of the new tax year because I looked, and already have other accounts with both). It's slightly irritating as these two providers are both among the ones who won't allow you to split your current £20k allowance between them and a different provider (and that info isn't always immediately obvious. Paragon is another one). I had already opened a Coventry fix with half my new allowance. So I'm going to transfer some previous years' funds into each of these, still undecided as to the best home for the rest of my 2025-26 money. 

You can open as many ISA's with as many providers as you want and you can split your current year allowance with them as you wish. As long as you not subscribe with more than 20k you are good to go.

You can basically ignore that stipulation as the ISA rules allow you to open multiple ISA's and providers do not exchange data between each other so they will never find out if you have any other ISA elsewhere. Only HMRC will have a conclusive picture.

If certain companies stipulate that they don't allow me to hold theirs plus another ISA in a particular tax year, then I'm not going to ignore that just because "they'll never find out". Maybe that's just me but it'd worry me to sign up while deliberately breaking one of the conditions they've clearly stated. 

Thanks for bringing this up. Due to an oversight on my part, had to ring them today and request my shiny new ISA with KR to be closed. The CS rep told me they still play by the 'old rules' - for some unfathomable reason. The CS was great, product was OK - it is just some management decision that stopped me from being a KR customer for this tax year...

etienneg

friolento said:

... You can safely ignore such stipulation, if it has indeed been made, as it would be against ISA rules. All an ISA provider can do is limit the number of ISAs you have with them. They cannot limit the number of ISAs you have with any other provider.

... They can also not force you that you transfer any existng ISA to them, although I see they are trying to do so on their application form. That's bang out of order.

... I won't get bullied by ISA providers who don't understand what the rules are.

Could you, or anyone else, please provide a link to the official "rule" that prohibits an ISA provider from applying such restrictions? I don't know of any such "rule", but I'm happy to be corrected by anyone posting such a link.

My understanding is that ISA rules are set by law (parliament, and statutory instruments made in the prescribed form under such law). These set out the framework within which ISA providers operate. So, for example, no ISA provider can accept a contribution greater than £20,000 in any tax year.

However, they don't say that every ISA provider must offer ISAs that cover the full range of what's permitted by law. For example, fixed period and easy access ISAs. They are free to do so, but not required to do so.

Within the law, they are free to offer ISAs with restrictions of their choosing. For example, they could offer an ISA similar to a regular saver account, paying a high rate of interest but on a restricted monthly subscription amount (e.g. £250 pm for 1 year, so £3,000 in total).

And, as we read frequently on this forum, no financial institution is forced to do business with everyone, as long as their refusal doesn't discriminate based on any of the legally-protected characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).

So I don't see why an ISA provider cannot impose restrictions within a required declaration such as have been discussed. We may not like it, but that doesn't mean they can't do it. (Personally I don't like accounts that can only be opened in branch or by post or using an app, but I don't deny that ISA providers can choose not to offer online opening if they so wish.) It may not be easily enforceable, and it may be a silly thing for them to do, but that's another matter. I'm just asking: Where is the rule that prohibits them from doing so?

slinger2

To me it's like Tesco saying that you can only shop with them if you promise not to shop at Asda for the next 12 months. Be a good laugh for everyone.

Is such a condition fair and reasonable?

Kim_13

AspiringPensioner said:

friolento said:

AspiringPensioner said:

pecunianonolet said:

AspiringPensioner said:

pecunianonolet said:

Kent Reliance Cash ISA - Easy Access - Issue 56 now  with a slight rate reduction to 4.51% (previous rate 4.56%)

Charter Savings BankEasy Access Cash ISA - Issue 57 now available at 4.59%

Thanks for this heads-up! They were a little late in coming out with these (I'm pretty sure they weren't there in the first 2-3 days of the new tax year because I looked, and already have other accounts with both). It's slightly irritating as these two providers are both among the ones who won't allow you to split your current £20k allowance between them and a different provider (and that info isn't always immediately obvious. Paragon is another one). I had already opened a Coventry fix with half my new allowance. So I'm going to transfer some previous years' funds into each of these, still undecided as to the best home for the rest of my 2025-26 money. 

You can open as many ISA's with as many providers as you want and you can split your current year allowance with them as you wish. As long as you not subscribe with more than 20k you are good to go.

You can basically ignore that stipulation as the ISA rules allow you to open multiple ISA's and providers do not exchange data between each other so they will never find out if you have any other ISA elsewhere. Only HMRC will have a conclusive picture.

If certain companies stipulate that they don't allow me to hold theirs plus another ISA in a particular tax year, then I'm not going to ignore that just because "they'll never find out". Maybe that's just me but it'd worry me to sign up while deliberately breaking one of the conditions they've clearly stated. 

You can safely ignore such stipulation, if it has indeed been made, as it would be against ISA rules. All an ISA provider can do is limit the number of ISAs you have with them. They cannot limit the number of ISAs you have with any other provider.

They can also not force you that you transfer any existng ISA to them, although I see they are trying to do so on their application form. That's bang out of order.

 

Ummm, the stipulation HAS indeed been made. I've scrutinised the Ts & Cs and FAQs of all the banks I'm referring to about this particular point.  

From the Kent Reliance Easy Access Cash ISA Ts & Cs  (my addition of bold):

If you choose to open multiple Kent Reliance products in the same tax year, these will be treated as a single ISA under HMRC regulations. Under HMRC regulations and where a provider allows, you are permitted to subscribe with multiple cash ISA providers within the same tax year. Currently, you are unable to subscribe with Kent Reliance if you have already subscribed with another provider, unless you are transferring all current year funds to us.

From Charter Savings Bank ISA FAQs 31 March 2025:
Under HMRC regulations, you’re permitted to subscribe with multiple Cash ISA providerswithin the same tax year, 6 April to 5 April. However, this is only where a provider allows this. Currently you’re unable to subscribe with us if you’ve already subscribed with another provider, unless you are transferring all current year funds to us.

And these aren't the only two doing this. Paragon is another, and Marsden Building Society.

I would be more relaxed about opening with KR and then opening elsewhere later (as you won’t have already subscribed.) I wouldn’t make a false declaration that a transfer included all current year funds when it didn’t, though - and that term is even more unreasonable given that complying with it might incur a subscriber a penalty from another ISA provider when there is no reason for it from HMRC’s perspective.

friolento

etienneg said:

friolento said:

... You can safely ignore such stipulation, if it has indeed been made, as it would be against ISA rules. All an ISA provider can do is limit the number of ISAs you have with them. They cannot limit the number of ISAs you have with any other provider.

... They can also not force you that you transfer any existng ISA to them, although I see they are trying to do so on their application form. That's bang out of order.

... I won't get bullied by ISA providers who don't understand what the rules are.

Could you, or anyone else, please provide a link to the official "rule" that prohibits an ISA provider from applying such restrictions? I don't know of any such "rule", but I'm happy to be corrected by anyone posting such a link.

My understanding is that ISA rules are set by law (parliament, and statutory instruments made in the prescribed form under such law). These set out the framework within which ISA providers operate. So, for example, no ISA provider can accept a contribution greater than £20,000 in any tax year.

However, they don't say that every ISA provider must offer ISAs that cover the full range of what's permitted by law. For example, fixed period and easy access ISAs. They are free to do so, but not required to do so.

Within the law, they are free to offer ISAs with restrictions of their choosing. For example, they could offer an ISA similar to a regular saver account, paying a high rate of interest but on a restricted monthly subscription amount (e.g. £250 pm for 1 year, so £3,000 in total).

And, as we read frequently on this forum, no financial institution is forced to do business with everyone, as long as their refusal doesn't discriminate based on any of the legally-protected characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).

So I don't see why an ISA provider cannot impose restrictions within a required declaration such as have been discussed. We may not like it, but that doesn't mean they can't do it. (Personally I don't like accounts that can only be opened in branch or by post or using an app, but I don't deny that ISA providers can choose not to offer online opening if they so wish.) It may not be easily enforceable, and it may be a silly thing for them to do, but that's another matter. I'm just asking: Where is the rule that prohibits them from doing so?

There is nothing in the law which authorises an ISA provider to remove the right of the consumer to contribute to as many ISAs as they like in the same tax year.

There is probably also nothing in the law that prohibits any ISA provider from trying to take that consumer right away, because nobody expected any ISA provider to be that stupid.

In any case, it is easy enough to bypass the stupid stipulation because you don’t have to tell anyone that you have ISAs with other providers. It’s a shame that some people let themselves get bullied by providers who don’t understand the rules.

1spiral

slinger2 said:

To me it's like Tesco saying that you can only shop with them if you promise not to shop at Asda for the next 12 months. Be a good laugh for everyone.

Is such a condition fair and reasonable?

It's not so much is it reasonable and fair but more a how would they know.

ToastLady

friolento said:

etienneg said:

friolento said:

... You can safely ignore such stipulation, if it has indeed been made, as it would be against ISA rules. All an ISA provider can do is limit the number of ISAs you have with them. They cannot limit the number of ISAs you have with any other provider.

... They can also not force you that you transfer any existng ISA to them, although I see they are trying to do so on their application form. That's bang out of order.

... I won't get bullied by ISA providers who don't understand what the rules are.

Could you, or anyone else, please provide a link to the official "rule" that prohibits an ISA provider from applying such restrictions? I don't know of any such "rule", but I'm happy to be corrected by anyone posting such a link.

My understanding is that ISA rules are set by law (parliament, and statutory instruments made in the prescribed form under such law). These set out the framework within which ISA providers operate. So, for example, no ISA provider can accept a contribution greater than £20,000 in any tax year.

However, they don't say that every ISA provider must offer ISAs that cover the full range of what's permitted by law. For example, fixed period and easy access ISAs. They are free to do so, but not required to do so.

Within the law, they are free to offer ISAs with restrictions of their choosing. For example, they could offer an ISA similar to a regular saver account, paying a high rate of interest but on a restricted monthly subscription amount (e.g. £250 pm for 1 year, so £3,000 in total).

And, as we read frequently on this forum, no financial institution is forced to do business with everyone, as long as their refusal doesn't discriminate based on any of the legally-protected characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).

So I don't see why an ISA provider cannot impose restrictions within a required declaration such as have been discussed. We may not like it, but that doesn't mean they can't do it. (Personally I don't like accounts that can only be opened in branch or by post or using an app, but I don't deny that ISA providers can choose not to offer online opening if they so wish.) It may not be easily enforceable, and it may be a silly thing for them to do, but that's another matter. I'm just asking: Where is the rule that prohibits them from doing so?

There is nothing in the law which authorises an ISA provider to remove the right of the consumer to contribute to as many ISAs as they like in the same tax year.

There is probably also nothing in the law that prohibits any ISA provider from trying to take that consumer right away, because nobody expected any ISA provider to be that stupid.

In any case, it is easy enough to bypass the stupid stipulation because you don’t have to tell anyone that you have ISAs with other providers. It’s a shame that some people let themselves get bullied by providers who don’t understand the rules.

If you want two or more ISAs and really want to go with one stipulating no others allowed, open that one first, and then you will have a clear conscience that at the time you hadn't subscribed to any other ISAs. It's a really stupid and unfair policy, but up to them how they deal with things I suppose. They will never know anyway. Just so long as you don't go over your 20K allowance between however many ISAs you open.

Eirambler

Has anyone with a Zopa ISA 0.5% bonus due to expire around the end of the tax year found that it's still there? Had a 0.5% bonus due to expire on 6/4, got an email saying the rate would revert down at that point, but a week on the account is still showing 4.5% including a 0.5% bonus. Can't find a more recent email confirming a new bonus?

masonic

etienneg said:

friolento said:

... You can safely ignore such stipulation, if it has indeed been made, as it would be against ISA rules. All an ISA provider can do is limit the number of ISAs you have with them. They cannot limit the number of ISAs you have with any other provider.

... They can also not force you that you transfer any existng ISA to them, although I see they are trying to do so on their application form. That's bang out of order.

... I won't get bullied by ISA providers who don't understand what the rules are.

Could you, or anyone else, please provide a link to the official "rule" that prohibits an ISA provider from applying such restrictions? I don't know of any such "rule", but I'm happy to be corrected by anyone posting such a link.

My understanding is that ISA rules are set by law (parliament, and statutory instruments made in the prescribed form under such law). These set out the framework within which ISA providers operate. So, for example, no ISA provider can accept a contribution greater than £20,000 in any tax year.

However, they don't say that every ISA provider must offer ISAs that cover the full range of what's permitted by law. For example, fixed period and easy access ISAs. They are free to do so, but not required to do so.

Within the law, they are free to offer ISAs with restrictions of their choosing. For example, they could offer an ISA similar to a regular saver account, paying a high rate of interest but on a restricted monthly subscription amount (e.g. £250 pm for 1 year, so £3,000 in total).

And, as we read frequently on this forum, no financial institution is forced to do business with everyone, as long as their refusal doesn't discriminate based on any of the legally-protected characteristics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.).

So I don't see why an ISA provider cannot impose restrictions within a required declaration such as have been discussed. We may not like it, but that doesn't mean they can't do it. (Personally I don't like accounts that can only be opened in branch or by post or using an app, but I don't deny that ISA providers can choose not to offer online opening if they so wish.) It may not be easily enforceable, and it may be a silly thing for them to do, but that's another matter. I'm just asking: Where is the rule that prohibits them from doing so?

That would be found in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

In part 2, s62 (4) "A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer."

Consider the example where a contractual term is preventing someone who only wishes to save £5k under the contract from using the remaining £15k of their allowance with another provider, despite having this right granted to them by the Individual Savings Account (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

Such a clause in a consumer contract would clearly be rendered unfair, unenforceable and contrary to the CRA as it does indeed cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer, and there is no plausible good faith reason for any firm to interfere with the lawful commercial activity of a consumer and third party firm. The only way to make such a term fair is to make it reciprocal. You should ask for an amendment such that that the ISA provider also must not open ISA accounts for any other consumer but you in the tax year in question and see if they think that balanced term is fair or reasonable.

If that wasn't bad enough, the practice is prohibited under s2 of the Competition Act 1998, which covers agreements preventing, restricting or distorting competition. It includes practices such as to "make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts." and states that "Any agreement or decision which is prohibited by subsection (1) is void."

So I would suggest anyone who is presented with such a contract makes a formal complaint to the firm and also reports the unfair contract term to the FCA and OFT.

If financial institutions were really allowed to do this, do you not think they would have used this power much more broadly by now? It is true that they would never find out about an ISA opened elsewhere, but a current account or credit card? They could require your exclusivity for those and check via credit search for your compliance.

flobbalobbalob

Eirambler said:

Has anyone with a Zopa ISA 0.5% bonus due to expire around the end of the tax year found that it's still there? Had a 0.5% bonus due to expire on 6/4, got an email saying the rate would revert down at that point, but a week on the account is still showing 4.5% including a 0.5% bonus. Can't find a more recent email confirming a new bonus?

I got the email that the 0.5% bonus was ending leaving the base of 3.8%. Then I got the email that the base rate was increasing to 4% when the bonus expires. I am now on 4% with no bonus from the 6th.