MSE News: Yorkshire Building Society axes high-interest regular savings accounts 13 October 2017 at 5:20PM in Savings & investments 13 replies 4.5K views

Former_MSE_Rosie

More than 66,000 people with a high interest Yorkshire Building Society regular savings account will have their accounts shut in December...

Read the full story:
'Yorkshire Building Society axes high-interest regular savings accounts'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

ctdctd

Story said "If you're accounts being closed, ......."

Proof reader on holiday?

EarthBoy

There's already an existing thread on this subject, it's been there for nearly a week, so MSE news are rather slow to catch up. Why do MSE create their own thread for existing topics?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5722669&page=3

Yorkshire_Pud

Why didn't someone tell me!;)

Bitteswell

Yorkshire Building Society still offers a 2 year Regular Saver paying 1.75%. You can pay £500 a month into it. They call themselves "A Society where You really matter" but it's all about profits really. Nowhere in the letters announcing the closure of Regular Savers does it mention their current Regular Saver. Instead they are pushing people to carry on saving at 1.5% and then 0.6% after a year. They even say in a box on the letters that you don't need to do anything. By doing nothing you lose out and they gain. They have breached their FCA obligation to "Treat Customers Fairly". So get complaining and demand compensation for this breach. The same thing happened at the Leeds Building Society 2 years ago and their CEO was forced to apologise publicly at their AGM for the Regular Saver closure program and their failure to tell customers about the better alternatives than the account being offered. Treating customers fairly is now an obligation. It is not optional.

System

Why should a small section of members be subsidised by the membership as a whole? They should have closed them ages ago.

As they've given the requisite 60 days notice then you've not got a leg to stand on.

Bitteswell wrote: »

They have breached their FCA obligation to "Treat Customers Fairly". So get complaining and demand compensation for this breach. Treating customers fairly is now an obligation. It is not optional.

eskbanker

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Why should a small section of members be subsidised by the membership as a whole? They should have closed them ages ago.

As they've given the requisite 60 days notice then you've not got a leg to stand on.

Different point I believe - as I read it the poster wasn't objecting to the closure of the old accounts as such, but saying that the best of the currently-available alternatives should have been offered rather than an inferior one.

Ashen

eskbanker wrote: »

Different point I believe - as I read it the poster wasn't objecting to the closure of the old accounts as such, but saying that the best of the currently-available alternatives should have been offered rather than an inferior one.

The currently available alternative Bitteswell spoke of (a 2 year Regular Saver at 1.75%) isn't one you can immediately deposit up to £20,000 into from the closed regular saver - in fact, nowhere near, so it's not an alternative, with the 1.5% they're giving for a year on the whole amount probably being better. The demand of compensation from Bitteswell is pretty nonsensical/entitled.

Paul_DNAP

I think you're both right, as there are two aspects to consider with the demise of this account.


a) What to do with the balance built up in the account - this has been thought about by YBS and their offer of the 1.5% addresses this.


b) What to do with the regular contributions you were making - this aspect wasn't thought about by YBS - and I think they have missed a trick there as if they'd have offered something around 2% for a 2year saver I'd have bitten their hand off.


What it has meant though is that my £300 a month is now going to Virgin, and I will be moving the capital out if anyone offers anything like a decent ISA rate at the end of May.


(And I will pre-empt the "why May?" questions - I have two fixed term ISAs maturing at the end of May, so I will be looking to re-home them, I have half a thought of combining them together and adding the 18/19 allowance all at the same time, but that could be complicated.)

Paul_DNAP

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Why should a small section of members be subsidised by the membership as a whole? They should have closed them ages ago.

You are probably right, we have been riding our luck for far too long and this was bound to happen sooner or later. In fact, I was surprised that they didn't withdraw it a while back when they slashed the base rate to 0.05%.

Bitteswell

Spot on. The Society is encouraging savers to carry on paying their monthly deposit into the account that pays 1.5% when they offer a Regular Saver account that pays more. This is detrimental to the saver and the Society gains. The Society refuses to engage with me on this topic, and its Final Response is about closing the accounts, which it has every right to do, so the Financial Ombudsman is now ruling on it. Given the Leeds failed in this respect too, and was held to account, I am sure the Yorkshire will be held to account too. Treating customers fairly is not optional. It is required. On £500 a month for 2 years, the 0.25% difference in interest amounts to £15. If the average loss was say, £7.50 per customer, it amounts to £495,000 in favour of the Society for the 66,000 customers whose accounts are being closed. No small amount.