We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Virginmoney regular saver - unable to open due to very poor service
Comments
-
I know. But you said we should all be walking to the bank or building society.Even if you don't live near one, some allow postal application, like Yorkshire Building Society, Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, Saffron Building Society.
The payee typo was the building society's fault. It was a building society cheque and they spelt my name wrong. My bank wouldn't accept it. On another occassion, paying a cheque into an account, the cashier entered too many zeroes. The payee's account was debited by four thousand pounds instead of forty pounds. There incurred many charges and hassle getting this resolved. Wouldn't have happened if they made a Faster Payment online.You can't blame payee typos on cheques on the branch, it's the person who gave it to you who's at fault, and that's not something you can key yourself anyway. You'd have to do it over the counter at at the ATM. The branch is only doing their job and they'd be right to reject it if it's not formatted correctly.
But instead of shipping one box contaianing 500 items, they have to ship 500 boxes containing one item. There is more labour involved in that.High street shops do have warehouses which they keep their stock in, nothing new there. They've always been there. Only difference is buying online, it goes direct from the warehouse do your house.
I could. But why, when I could do it online at home in the evening or at lunchtime? And then I wouldn't have to wait up to 6 days for the transaction to actually happen.Couldn't you go to the post office on a Saturday. They are all usually open until at least 12 or 1, even later. But again, everyone has worked Mon-Fri, 9-5 for decades. People have always gone in lunch break or on a Saturday. We are becoming lazy now.0 -
I'm not sure why you assume the OP doesn't already have all the 5% regular savers as well.
Fair enough, but there is a high chance that they don't, and if they do then that's fine.
It isn't exactly unreasonable on a board intended to help people maximise their returns to point out that there are other, better paying, options available, and particulalrly so when they are dissatisified with the customer service they have received.As glider3560 says, Virgin ask you this if you apply online as well. In fact I'd need to think very hard to name a bank/account where there hasn't been a question about the source of funds and/or purpose of saving.
So that would be a point I have already responded to, but you thought you'd reiterate it anyway because I had challenged your assumption about Know Your Customer. About which, I would add, you were wrong.
The source of funds and the purpose of saving are two very different things! You appear to be conflating the two and making an error as a result. The source of funds is a legitimate question for Know Your Customer, but the purpose of savings is not. You will note that I said nothing about being asked as to the source of funds, but rather, only about the purpose of savings.0 -
glider3560 wrote: »I'm not going to drive from Hampshire to Leeds to open a Leeds Building Society account.
Would be a bit mental given that they have a branch in Southampton!0 -
-
I know, so have I. But if that person above doesn't want to switch or is happy, then those regular savers aren't an option. Plus, they'd have to meet the minimum pay ins and direct debit requirements on each of them too, which is impossible for 99% of people.
Seriously? 99%? Have you any evidence to back up such a wild claim? Your figure would suggest that only those in the top 1% of income earners could do this. I can assure you that I am not in the top 1% and yet I manage it. What it actually takes is a bit of planning.
You don't need any direct debits on a First Direct, HSBC or Nationwide current account. Most people pay their utility bills and council tax using direct debit, so the other accounts can be opened.
Minimum funding requirements can be met by using standing orders to move money around the different accounts. You don't have to pay your salary/wages in. You don't even need to pay the full minimum in one go, so you can deposit and withdraw the same money multiple times in the month to meet the requirement. All it takes is some thought and a few standing orders.
You don't need to switch an account to open any of these current accounts. You can just open them without switching, so they are an option for people who do not wish to switch their main current account.
You really need to think this through a bit more.0 -
Not sure of what point you are trying to make. You previously said this:-Yes but I think Virgin Money is almost exclusive in allowing you both the Online and the Branch Regular Saver as they offer both options. Pretty much all Regular Savers by Building Societies are in branch, passbook based. Banks offer one which can be opened and managed either in store or online. No where else offers two regular savers which you can both of.
...to which I was saying that the popularity of the passbook based account probably has more to do with the fact it exists and is available rather than being preferred to the online version.This shows that more people want the Branch passbook based account instead of the online equivalent. I'd rather have the passbook.
Strange response, not quite sure how to respond. :huh: I personally enjoy being outside and doing things, including going to bank branches when it makes sense to do so. But i wouldn't make a special trip to the bank solely to keep people employed since I know it would be futile to do so.If you want to do everything from home like a hermit and not get exercise and go outside to go things, then thats great. A lot of people don't want to be doing stuff on the computer all the time where it can go wrong. Those people at home doing it are doing people out of jobs in branches, which means less income and spend productivity and less taxation collected, and lower level quality services which you then use and receive. We have a moral duty to use the high street. It's usually the people that do everything online who complain about it ironically.
Going to a high street bank branch to open an online only version of an account will lead to disappointment.
I'm not sure if you've been following the news about bank branch closures.....Nearly every bank has a branch in a town, and all building societies do postal. You can even do it at the Post Office, and everywhere has those. So it's not that laborious. And walk, and don't drive.
It isn't a question of being 'laborious' it is a question of economics. The maximum one of these accounts is likely to generate in interest is in the region of £40 to £50. Deduct from that the interest which could be earned if the money were left in an instant access account at ~1.4%. Then (assuming you don't have a branch within a walkable distance) deduct the cost of travel (bus/train/car) (including parking if applicable). For many people once they have done that they are perilously close to making no gain by opening the additional account.
As I said in a previous post, I'm lucky to have a Virgin Money store reasonably close by in a town I visit on a regular basis. There are a few streets where parking is free so I walk from there to the branch. I'm happy to use Virgin Money store based accounts.
I don't live near a Kent Reliance branch. It is too far to walk and the cheapest off-peak rail fare to my closest branch is just under £26. Their regular saver pays 3% interest, but there is no way I could open one and still generate more income than leaving my money where it currently is.
The fact that you 'doubt' suggests you might not fully understand how this all works. And again it also comes down to economics. It makes more sense for me to open a Virgin Regular Saver at 2.25% than it would to open a Kent Reliance one at 3%.If you have every other regular saver (which I doubt, as a lot of current account linked now), then yeah, use it. But you'd actually get more from 3, 4 or 5 year bonds or savings accounts as the Virgin Money Regular Saver is 12 months fixed term.
Looking at the MSE best buy tables right now, I'd need to go to a 4 year fix to match 2.25% - thats an online account with Vanquis. To beat 2.25% I'd need to go with a 5 year fix. I'm simply not interested in tying my money up for that length of time to match or marginally beat Virgin's 2.25% instant access rate. If it was money I was happy to lock away for that length of time then it would be invested."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
Oh, I think there is a pretty good chance that they do. ashteadgirl says she has 13 Virgin Regular Savers, that doesn't sound like a novice to meValiantSon wrote: »Fair enough, but there is a high chance that they don't, and if they do then that's fine.
It isn't exactly unreasonable on a board intended to help people maximise their returns to point out that there are other, better paying, options available, and particulalrly so when they are dissatisified with the customer service they have received.
Any basis for that assertion other than what follows?ValiantSon wrote: »So that would be a point I have already responded to, but you thought you'd reiterate it anyway because I had challenged your assumption about Know Your Customer. About which, I would add, you were wrong.
You appear to be making some assumptions about what I think.ValiantSon wrote: »The source of funds and the purpose of saving are two very different things! You appear to be conflating the two and making an error as a result. The source of funds is a legitimate question for Know Your Customer, but the purpose of savings is not. You will note that I said nothing about being asked as to the source of funds, but rather, only about the purpose of savings.
Source of funds and purpose of savings are different things, but both potentially relevant to KYC. Moreover, being able to demonstrate that the customer has been asked about the purpose of savings may be useful to the financial institution in the event of a complaint a product has been mis-sold.
You say "that it isn't any of their business" why you are saving, whereas they may feel it entirely their business to know if the 5 year fixed rate product you are applying for is intended for 'rainy day' savings."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
Oh, I think there is a pretty good chance that they do. ashteadgirl says she has 13 Virgin Regular Savers, that doesn't sound like a novice to me
Pure specualtion. She could quite easily simply be opening repeated regular savers with the same bank because she has a long standing relationship with them.
You've also ignored the second clause in the sentence.Any basis for that assertion other than what follows?
Any basis for your speculation about the OP?
Yes, it isn't a requirement of money laundering regulations to know the purpose for which someone is making deposits into a savings account because they will have already ascertained the source of those deposits. You can't launder money that is coing from a "clean" and traceable source. The purpose of saving is irrelevant. Furthermore, you don't have to tell the bank why you are saving, but you do have to tell them what the source of funds is.You appear to be making some assumptions about what I think.
That's how commuication works; you say something and I draw conclusions from it.
My original point is self-explanatory.Source of funds and purpose of savings are different things, but both potentially relevant to KYC. Moreover, being able to demonstrate that the customer has been asked about the purpose of savings may be useful to the financial institution in the event of a complaint a product has been mis-sold.
No, purpose of saving isn't relevant to Know Your Customer, as I've aready explained.
Seriously? Mis-selling of savings accounts? The transaction is: I put money into this account and you agree to pay X% interest. Where in that transaction is there a risk of mis-selling?
Hold on a minute, I have a few straws in my kitchen drawer that you might like to clutch at also.You say "that it isn't any of their business" why you are saving, whereas they may feel it entirely their business to know if the 5 year fixed rate product you are applying for is intended for 'rainy day' savings.
Well, we weren't actually talking about fixed rate savings, but even so it still isn't their business. The terms of the account are clear. If someone is too stupid to understand them that is not the bank's problem and they could not face any claims for mis-selling (or at least, not any that stood any chance whatsoever of being upheld).0 -
Let's say 'educated guess' then.ValiantSon wrote: »Pure specualtion. She could quite easily simply be opening repeated regular savers with the same bank because she has a long standing relationship with them.
Any basis for your speculation about the OP?ValiantSon wrote: »Yes, it isn't a requirement of money laundering regulations to know the purpose for which someone is making deposits into a savings account because they will have already ascertained the source of those deposits. You can't launder money that is coing from a "clean" and traceable source. The purpose of saving is irrelevant. Furthermore, you don't have to tell the bank why you are saving, but you do have to tell them what the source of funds is.Customer due diligence measures
28.—(1) This regulation applies when a relevant person is required by regulation 27 to apply customer due diligence measures.
(2) The relevant person must—
(a)identify the customer unless the identity of that customer is known to, and has been verified by, the relevant person;
(b)verify the customer’s identity unless the customer’s identity has already been verified by the relevant person; and
(c)assess, and where appropriate obtain information on, the purpose and intended nature of the business relationship or occasional transaction.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/692/made
A customer complains to the ombudsman. The bank advised them in branch to open a 5 year fixed rate bond with money they intended to save for a 'rainy day'. Three months later their boiler broke down and had to be replaced. The penalty charged for withdrawing their rainy day savings exceeded the interest earned, leaving the customer with less money than they originally deposited. They had to take out a loan to make up the shortfall in the cost of a replacement boiler.ValiantSon wrote: »Seriously? Mis-selling of savings accounts? The transaction is: I put money into this account and you agree to pay X% interest. Where in that transaction is there a risk of mis-selling?
...
Well, we weren't actually talking about fixed rate savings, but even so it still isn't their business. The terms of the account are clear. If someone is too stupid to understand them that is not the bank's problem and they could not face any claims for mis-selling (or at least, not any that stood any chance whatsoever of being upheld).
You work for the bank - would you write to the FoS saying "If someone is too stupid to understand [the T&C's] that is not the bank's problem"?
I believe the ombudsman might feel it was your job to explain the T&C's to the customer, to ensure they understood the penalty for withdrawing money early, and that the product was reasonably suited to their requirements. You cannot do that unless you have an understanding of the customers needs. And if you don't have a record that the customer was asked why they are saving then it would be difficult to demonstrate that the product was sold to an informed customer. That's why many banks now run through a computer script, even for savings products, to protect themselves against the potential for claims."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
glider3560 wrote: »I know. But you said we should all be walking to the bank or building society.
The payee typo was the building society's fault. It was a building society cheque and they spelt my name wrong. My bank wouldn't accept it. On another occassion, paying a cheque into an account, the cashier entered too many zeroes. The payee's account was debited by four thousand pounds instead of forty pounds. There incurred many charges and hassle getting this resolved. Wouldn't have happened if they made a Faster Payment online.
But instead of shipping one box contaianing 500 items, they have to ship 500 boxes containing one item. There is more labour involved in that.
I could. But why, when I could do it online at home in the evening or at lunchtime? And then I wouldn't have to wait up to 6 days for the transaction to actually happen.
Or bus, or however you want to get there.
Those kind of mistakes on cheques are so rare. When I think of how many I have used, I've never had such problems or mistakes. You can't say a FP mistake wouldn't have happened, you could easily type the wrong number or someone could mistype it giving to you.
More labour involved, but that's what the job is.
If you want to do it online, then fine. You said you couldn't go Mon-Fri, so I suggested other options. I wasn't aware that making payments or paying someone took 6 days. Pretty sure if you do something on a Saturday, like transferring money, it goes through in under two hours.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards