RCI Bank 1.5% Instant Access Savings Account

1246

Comments

  • eskbanker
    eskbanker Posts: 30,401
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Forumite
    Anthorn wrote: »
    Believe it or not, plucking and misinterpreting a selective quote from a random and non-authoritative website doesn't actually win you the argument! Your assertion that FSCS protection only applies at group level was comprehensively rebutted by masonic at post #16 over a month ago, and this is readily endorsed not just by the MSE articles but also the FSCS and Bank of England websites, where it's clear that the FSCS coverage relates to banking licences, which may or may not be shared across all members of a banking group (there are examples of both in post #16).
  • Anthorn
    Anthorn Posts: 4,362
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    eskbanker wrote: »
    Believe it or not, plucking and misinterpreting a selective quote from a random and non-authoritative website doesn't actually win you the argument! Your assertion that FSCS protection only applies at group level was comprehensively rebutted by masonic at post #16 over a month ago, and this is readily endorsed not just by the MSE articles but also the FSCS and Bank of England websites, where it's clear that the FSCS coverage relates to banking licences, which may or may not be shared across all members of a banking group (there are examples of both in post #16).


    I'm not trying to win anything and I'm similarly not trying to make any sort of rebuttal. I'm not even saying that what I post is correct and all other posts are wrong. I'm asking for evidence. I checked post #16 and that is not qualified. In fact the only post I see in this thread which is qualified is mine. So where is your evidence.
  • masonic
    masonic Posts: 23,069
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 30 July 2015 at 5:31PM
    Anthorn wrote: »
    I'm not trying to win anything and I'm similarly not trying to make any sort of rebuttal. I'm not even saying that what I post is correct and all other posts are wrong. I'm asking for evidence. I checked post #16 and that is not qualified. In fact the only post I see in this thread which is qualified is mine. So where is your evidence.
    You are the one asserting nonsense. It is not the responsibility of anyone else to prove it is nonsense with evidence. The onus is on you to educate yourself about these matters. However, being the charitable person that I am, I gave you enough information to dispel the myth you have about banking groups and FSCS compensation in post #16. This was fully qualified (see below) and is also supported by the website you quoted in #28. FSCS protection is not per banking group. RBS and Natwest are part of the same banking group and have different banking licenses and separate limits. If you don't believe MSE on this, go and look it up for yourself on the FSCS or FCA websites, but whatever you do, please stop posting incorrect information that could lead others astray.
    masonic wrote: »
    I wasn't one of the people who disagreed with you, but the fact is that you are wrong when you say that £85k is always shared between banks that are part of a group. As colsten previously said, you should really familiarise yourself with how these things work before arguing against those who are more informed (and more experienced) in these matters than you are. You could start with the guide on this site: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/safe-savings

    Pay particular attention to point 4*. "The definition of 'institution' depends on a bank's licence and giant banking conglomerates make it complex. For example, sister banks Halifax and Bank of Scotland's accounts are only covered up to £85k combined. RBS and NatWest are also sisters, but their £85k limits are SEPARATE."

    * Edit: this is now point 5 owing to point 2 being inserted into the article since the time of posting the above message.
  • eskbanker
    eskbanker Posts: 30,401
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Forumite
    masonic wrote: »
    You are the one asserting nonsense. It is not the responsibility of anyone else to prove it is nonsense with evidence. The onus is on you to educate yourself about these matters. However, being the charitable person that I am, I gave you enough information to dispel the myth you have about banking groups and FSCS compensation in post #16. This was fully qualified (see below) and is also supported by the website you quoted in #28. FSCS protection is not per banking group. RBS and Natwest are part of the same banking group and have different banking licenses and separate limits. If you don't believe MSE on this, go and look it up for yourself on the FSCS or FCA websites, but whatever you do, please stop posting incorrect information that could lead others astray.
    Agree entirely with your views on this, but perhaps http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/authorisations/fscs/bankingandsavings.aspx will suffice to shut this down!
  • masonic
    masonic Posts: 23,069
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Anthorn wrote: »
    I have ignored the rest of your objections because they are pertaining to the value we personally place on them. I have banking in France and so I trust the French banking system and its government-backed compensation scheme. I will however add that just because something is not British doesn't mean that it's inferior.
    There you go again, trying to misrepresent the views expressed by others on this subject. I have not at any point suggested that there is anything wrong with foreign banks that are fully regulated by the FCA and part of the FSCS. There are plenty of examples of accounts from foreign banks from places such as Ireland, Cyprus, India, Nigeria, etc., which for all intents and purposes are all just as good as a British account.

    It is those accounts (either British or foreign) that are not fully regulated by the FCA, or are not subject to FSCS protection, that are higher risk and should not be treated as equivalent to the fully regulated and FSCS protected varieties.
  • Anthorn
    Anthorn Posts: 4,362
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    eskbanker wrote: »
    Agree entirely with your views on this, but perhaps http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Pages/authorisations/fscs/bankingandsavings.aspx will suffice to shut this down!

    From the page you linked to:
    A PRA-authorised firm may own several banking and building society brands. This means that anyone with eligible deposits in more than one account under a single brand, or multiple accounts under different brands owned by a single PRA-authorised firm, is protected up to a total of the relevant deposit protection limit (£85,000 or £75,000) with that PRA-Authorised firm.
  • eskbanker
    eskbanker Posts: 30,401
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Forumite
    Anthorn wrote: »
    From the page you linked to:
    A PRA-authorised firm may own several banking and building society brands. This means that anyone with eligible deposits in more than one account under a single brand, or multiple accounts under different brands owned by a single PRA-authorised firm, is protected up to a total of the relevant deposit protection limit (£85,000 or £75,000) with that PRA-Authorised firm.
    Your point being?

    Do you accept that a saver with £85K in Lloyds and another £85K in Halifax has full FSCS coverage of all £170K, even though they're in the same banking group, because they operate under different PRA authorisations (as per the brand listing on the BoE website, and the MSE page about this)? Same for RBS and NatWest, as pointed out many weeks ago by masonic in post #16....
  • Anthorn
    Anthorn Posts: 4,362
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 31 July 2015 at 3:15PM
    eskbanker wrote: »
    Your point being?

    Do you accept that a saver with £85K in Lloyds and another £85K in Halifax has full FSCS coverage of all £170K, even though they're in the same banking group, because they operate under different PRA authorisations (as per the brand listing on the BoE website, and the MSE page about this)? Same for RBS and NatWest, as pointed out many weeks ago by masonic in post #16....
    https://www.halifax.co.uk/fscs/
    Your eligible deposits
    with Bank of Scotland plc are protected up to a total of £85,000 by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the UK's deposit guarantee scheme. This limit is applied to the total of any deposits you have with the following: Halifax, Intelligent Finance (IF), Birmingham Midshires (BM Savings), Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland Private Banking, Bank of Scotland Germany, Lloyds Bank (in the Netherlands only), Bank of Wales and St James’s Place Bank. Some savings accounts under the AA Savings and Saga brand names are also deposits with Bank of Scotland plc. Any total deposits you hold above the £85,000 limit between these brands are unlikely to be covered.
    We can exhaustively search individual banks and find exceptions but in general they are exceptions which prove the rule. I'm done. Off to France. Back in 3 months or thereabouts. Luckily I won't be going through the tunnel.
  • colsten
    colsten Posts: 17,597
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Anthorn wrote: »
    We can exhaustively search individual banks and find exceptions but in general they are exceptions which prove the rule.

    The point is that the rule, without any exception, is that the £85K (/£75K) FSCS protection applies by banking licence. Not by banking group.

    Very easy to understand for most people, particularly so as the good folks at the BoE and at MSE are providing lists of which companies share which banking licence. So no exhaustive search of any kind is necessary, just a quick lookup.
  • Anthorn
    Anthorn Posts: 4,362
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 31 July 2015 at 4:00PM
    colsten wrote: »
    The point is that the rule, without any exception, is that the £85K (/£75K) FSCS protection applies by banking licence. Not by banking group.

    Very easy to understand for most people, particularly so as the good folks at the BoE and at MSE are providing lists of which companies share which banking licence. So no exhaustive search of any kind is necessary, just a quick lookup.


    Except of course that as I've proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that FSCS is often shared by a banking group across all banks in the group, even examining a bank which has previously in this thread been described as having individual authorisation and individual FSCS and proved to be untrue. The main exception could be banks that were previously independent and were bought by banking groups. There are also those exceptions of foreign owned banks which have FSCS such as TSB and Santander mainly because they had such authorisation before they were bought.


    I wonder, has it crossed your mind that published lists might be outdated, superceded or just plain wrong?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards