Bank closing Fixed Account early.

Sharpshooter_2

I have received a letter from my bank, saying they are to close their Fixed Accounts (mid November), and that this is allowed under their terms and conditions. My account has another 2 years to run.

Has anyone some idea as to how the regulator will view this? A fixed term is a fixed term. I cannot withdraw early, and the bank make this clear in their T&C. They stand to benefit greatly from this closure, which has a good interest rate saving for themselves. Their relevant clause says they can change their conditions "if we reasonably believe the change is necessary in the interests of our business as a whole...."

Can this be classed as "unfair terms and conditions" and hence invalid under contract - unless they pay out the proper interst due to maturity? Surely changing a "fixed term account" to anything else goes to the heart of the matter, and is a change beyond any reasonable intention of the T&C as a whole.

All thoughts and constructive opinion welcomed.

gozomark

are they paying you interest in full (to term end) ?

Archi_Bald

Which bank? What account?

atypical

Sounds like it's Co-op. Condition 13.1:
http://www.co-operativebankinggroup.co.uk/cfscombi/pdf/ftd_application.pdf

"if we reasonably believe the change is necessary in the interests of our business as a whole, for example to protect our financial strength"

opinions4u

Sharpshooter wrote: »

I have received a letter from my bank, saying they are to close their Fixed Accounts (mid November), and that this is allowed under their terms and conditions. My account has another 2 years to run.

Has anyone some idea as to how the regulator will view this? A fixed term is a fixed term. I cannot withdraw early, and the bank make this clear in their T&C. They stand to benefit greatly from this closure, which has a good interest rate saving for themselves. Their relevant clause says they can change their conditions "if we reasonably believe the change is necessary in the interests of our business as a whole...."

Can this be classed as "unfair terms and conditions" and hence invalid under contract - unless they pay out the proper interst due to maturity? Surely changing a "fixed term account" to anything else goes to the heart of the matter, and is a change beyond any reasonable intention of the T&C as a whole.

All thoughts and constructive opinion welcomed.

Hard to be constructive when you haven't given many clues about which bank is doing this.

Ologhai

Sharpshooter wrote: »

I have received a letter from my bank, saying they are to close their Fixed Accounts (mid November), and that this is allowed under their terms and conditions. My account has another 2 years to run.

Has anyone some idea as to how the regulator will view this? A fixed term is a fixed term. I cannot withdraw early, and the bank make this clear in their T&C. They stand to benefit greatly from this closure, which has a good interest rate saving for themselves. Their relevant clause says they can change their conditions "if we reasonably believe the change is necessary in the interests of our business as a whole...."

Can this be classed as "unfair terms and conditions" and hence invalid under contract - unless they pay out the proper interst due to maturity? Surely changing a "fixed term account" to anything else goes to the heart of the matter, and is a change beyond any reasonable intention of the T&C as a whole.

All thoughts and constructive opinion welcomed.

This sounds like the kind of thing that really gets my back up. I make some fuming post to one or other forum about the unjust asymmetry that seems to exist in the relationships between 'us' and 'them', and the forum usually seems to tell me to get over it, and that I should've just read the T&Cs more carefully.

So, for what it's worth, I feel that there ought to be something that can be done about this. It doesn't seem right that (probably) every institution's T&Cs gives them some get-out-of-gaol-free card that's simply not available to us, and that, if we don't agree with, then we run out of potential places to keep our money except for a shoebox under the bed.

Good luck! Fight the good fight--as long as you prepare yourself for the distinct possibility that the outcome will be frustratingly that they're holding all the cards.

Archi_Bald

Ologhai wrote: »

This sounds like the kind of thing that really gets my back up. I make some fuming post to one or other forum about the unjust asymmetry that seems to exist in the relationships between 'us' and 'them', and the forum usually seems to tell me to get over it, and that I should've just read the T&Cs more carefully.

May be read the forum more carefully, too

So far, nobody has offered any comment on the matter since we don't really have enough detail.

Ologhai

Archi_Bald wrote: »

May be read the forum more carefully, too

So far, nobody has offered any comment on the matter since we don't really have enough detail.

Agreed--more detail required. However, as you can see, I was only really commenting on the perceived principle at this stage in lieu of more solid info.

Ifts

If as posted by the OP is correct, then it does seem a little unfair.

"if we reasonably believe the change is necessary in the interests of our business as a whole, for example to protect our financial strength"

If only it was the same for the customer, i.e. you could get out of a fixed term account 2 years before maturity (penalty free) just because the rates have shot up and you can get a better rate moving your money elsewhere, after all you will be doing it to "protect your financial strength"!

Thrugelmir

Ologhai wrote: »

Agreed--more detail required. However, as you can see, I was only really commenting on the perceived principle at this stage in lieu of more solid info.

We are living through exceptional financial times. Hence why contracts have such clauses. As there are events which can never be foreseen.

Ologhai

Thrugelmir wrote: »

We are living through exceptional financial times. Hence why contracts have such clauses. As there are events which can never be foreseen.

There's still the asymmetry to consider.

Both the bank and the customer may experience their own unforeseens, but it's not clear to me why the customer should have to be the one to bear the brunt of the consequences of both kinds.