Santander 123 Account

atypical

rb10 wrote: »

Current account balances are more likely to drop in a stressed scenario, as they are more easily accessed than savings accounts. So on average the current account liquidity requirements would be higher than those for savings accounts (unless you have read something that indicates otherwise?).

If you look at the rules here, page 21:
http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs238.pdf

"Transactional accounts (eg accounts where salaries are automatically deposited)" are considered stable rather than unstable. Kind of makes sense in that people rarely change where their salary is paid so it's a reliable cashflow.

eskbanker

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Please publicise and tell other people that the FSCS will not get your money back straight away. It can takes months. If you don't make this clear, you could advise/ lead people into a situation where they could lose a house purchase if things do go bad with the banks leading to no access to a lump sum of cash needed for a deposit.

Although there are some IFAs who post on here, it's impractical for anyone on a public website to be in a position to offer genuine financial advice, hence the disclaimer at the foot of each page about "This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service".

You were obviously badly burned by the Icesave collapse but it's not necessarily realistic to extrapolate that out to "the FSCS will not get your money back straight away" - in that particular case there were considerable complications arising from the complex relationship between the UK and Icelandic schemes and all the resultant politics.

Of course, any bank could collapse and yes, it could take time for the FSCS to fulfill all claims, but the fact that the compensation scheme may not be perfect shouldn't necessitate prominent warnings all over these general discussions comparing products, etc!

G_M

My beef with this account is the need to have a mobile phone to operate (many) internet transactions.

Yeah yeah - I'm a minority (not Ludite - I internet bank!) but I don't have a mobile!

rb10

atypical wrote: »

If you look at the rules here, page 21:
http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs238.pdf

"Transactional accounts (eg accounts where salaries are automatically deposited)" are considered stable rather than unstable. Kind of makes sense in that people rarely change where their salary is paid so it's a reliable cashflow.

Interesting ... I do still wonder whether banks would be able to treat £20k as 'stable' just because it's in a current account. Although the salary is likely to keep coming in, and bills will keep being paid, people could surely quickly withdraw the excess.

G_M wrote: »

My beef with this account is the need to have a mobile phone to operate (many) internet transactions.

Yeah yeah - I'm a minority (not Ludite - I internet bank!) but I don't have a mobile!

You can always phone up to set up new payments, then use internet banking thereafter.

innovate

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Please publicise and tell other people that the FSCS will not get your money back straight away. It can takes months.

If you are concerned about how long it could take for the FSCS to pay out in the case of a bank collapse, don't bury the issue in a thread about a current account. FSCS is there for all UK regulated banks and Building Societies. Create a new thread for it.

However, I think you may have a somewhat irrational fear about it because of your ICESAVE experience. You should remember that this was an extremely unusual case because for many people FSCS only covered part of their deposits, whilst the rest was meant to be covered by the icelandic scheme. That scheme promptly defaulted for non Iceland residents, as you will remember. So by definition things took somewhat longer - 6 weeks I seem to remember before I got my money back.

There have since been many instances in which the FSCS had to leap into action. You can find details about this on the FSCS website. No complaints that I have seen from anybody about how the FSCS scheme has been working, from a speed or other point of view.

Stompa

innovate wrote: »

However, I think you may have a somewhat irrational fear about it because of your ICESAVE experience.

Indeed, according to:

http://www.fscs.org.uk/your-claim/how-long-will-it-take/

The FSCS will aim to pay compensation in the majority of cases within seven days of a bank, building society or credit union failing. Any remaining claims, which are likely to be more complex, will be paid within 20 working days.

eskbanker

innovate wrote: »

If you are concerned about how long it could take for the FSCS to pay out in the case of a bank collapse, don't bury the issue in a thread about a current account. FSCS is there for all UK regulated banks and Building Societies. Create a new thread for it.

I agree with the sentiment in the context of relevance to this thread but would question whether there's actually any value in reopening an old issue from five years ago when there doesn't really appear to be anything new to say about it!

dzug1

rb10 wrote: »

You can always phone up to set up new payments, then use internet banking thereafter.

You can set up new payments in branch - no need for a phone then

TickersPlaysPop

Thank you to all who have commented.

I feel much better about Santander now, who might be fudging their financial company vital statistics based on number of current accounts active receiving regular payments in? But, if that is the case I guess other banks are guilty of that as well.

Many thanks again all, I fancy booking a holiday in Spain now.....

Freepost

G_M wrote: »

My beef with this account is the need to have a mobile phone to operate (many) internet transactions.

Yeah yeah - I'm a minority (not Ludite - I internet bank!) but I don't have a mobile!

Same here, I have had a real go at them this morning!

Why they can't use a card reader?