MSE News: Santander scraps packaged accounts – check if you should ditch and switch

JuicyJesus

bellsblm wrote: »

my folks have this over 50 thing and received the letter. holiday booked for next year, mum has to have a knee op. all declared but if hospital bring appointment forward can they claim. because they won't be able to move as its now pre existing? where do they stand?
:mad:

They may be able to get new insurance, but it may be more expensive as a result. It's worth calling some travel insurers and asking.

As for claiming from Santander: not a hope in hell. Your parents won't be covered but then they won't be paying for the cover either, and the holiday hasn't actually taken place yet so they haven't lost out in the slightest.

nrc_2

Herbalus wrote: »

You also didn't pay for the travel insurance for these years, so why is it miss-selling? It's not like you paid for something you didn't get, as you have been paying for the insurance and been getting the insurance. If you only wanted it when you were 75 plus (or similar), why did you open it before then?

If you are still a fair way off 79, Nationwide do travel insurance for up to 75, and Bank of Scotland Gold is up to 79. There are other options.

Missed point entirely. This is about investing for the future. In the same way that I might take out a savings policy to fix a good rate now even with little money to invest, in case I want to invest more to take advantage of the rate at a future date, when rates generally may have fallen. So would I be happy if that rate was not honoured in the future on the basis of what was stated at the time I opened the account? I think not, or would you argue that I had the advantage of the rate when it started and if I don't invest more I won't get the advantage or have invested so I haven't lost anything.
Incidentally, I had a substantial payout awarded by the ombudsman many years ago because an insurance company withdrew a policy that had guaranteed cover until a certain age and would not renew my cover to that age.

Herbalus

nrc wrote: »

Missed point entirely. This is about investing for the future. In the same way that I might take out a savings policy to fix a good rate now even with little money to invest, in case I want to invest more to take advantage of the rate at a future date, when rates generally may have fallen. So would I be happy if that rate was not honoured in the future on the basis of what was stated at the time I opened the account? I think not, or would you argue that I had the advantage of the rate when it started and if I don't invest more I won't get the advantage or have invested so I haven't lost anything.
Incidentally, I had a substantial payout awarded by the ombudsman many years ago because an insurance company withdrew a policy that had guaranteed cover until a certain age and would not renew my cover to that age.

Yes, I would argue exactly that. A current account is not about investing and is not similar to savings. Especially not fixed savings where you can't make additional investments.

If you had agreed with the bank that the savings account would have the same rate guaranteed when you want to invest more, then you would have grounds for complaint. But this isn't what happened. Or did Santander promise you that the account would still be open when you reached 70/75+? I doubt it, as nobody in a bank would be able to tell you if the account is still going to be available in x number of years.

You weren't investing in the future. You had an account years before you wanted it. Not months, but years. It is not designed that you take it out now to 'access' the benefits in future years. A current account is, well, current, which means you pay a monthly fee for the benefits in that month, not future months. If you stop paying, you don't get the benefits.

You weren't paying for the account to be available in future years - you were paying for benefits that applied in the months you had the account.

Your case with the ombudsman is different because this is withdrawing a product from everyone, not refusing it to you. You can't take a company to court because they no longer want to be in a particular market or industry.

bfgun

JuicyJesus wrote: »

They were charging you for a period when you were covered. Now they won't cover you, they also won't charge you. You get nothing, so you will pay nothing. You are also able to switch should you choose.

Really don't see what your issue is. If you want to get angry, get angry at the whingers who'll "reclaim" anything that costs money as "mis-sold" so banks can't have reliable sales processes for these things.

My "Problem" is that I signed up to an account that cost me £20 per month for the services provided which includes an authorised overdraft.

So now those services will be taken away and I'll still be expected to pay up to £20 per month for the overdraft but I will receive but no services.

That was the offer and benefits provided for the agreed price. So that's my argument and dissatisfaction with the changes.

I've never claimed for anything as "Mis-Sold" but if I could claim for this I would!

DigiGuru_2

bfgun wrote: »

My "Problem" is that I signed up to an account that cost me £20 per month for the services provided which includes an authorised overdraft.

So now those services will be taken away and I'll still be expected to pay up to £20 per month for the overdraft but I will receive but no services.

I have exactly the same problem.

Does anyone know if it is possible to agree a freeze to interest and charges while I pay off the overdraft as I no longer want this account due to a change to their terms and conditions... surely this counts as material detriment?