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
-
ValiantSon wrote: »That doesn't actualy rebutt the point made.
You don't need to bank in branch to take exercise. It is entirely possible to bank online and take exercise separately.
Do you honestly believe that nothing ever goes wrong with in branch transactions? :eek: You do also realise, I hope, that all transactions online use 128-bit encryption.
No they aren't. Branch closures have been going on for quite some time, including a period well before the large scale adoption of internet banking. Branch closures are further enabled by the availability of internet banking, but this is not a primary cause. The significant reduction in cash and cheque transactions is just as much to blame as internet banking, but in truth, the real reason is that branches are an expensive part of the business set up and one which can be rationalised without losing any real custom.
Put simply, society has changed dramatically over the last 20 years and the old-style branch based model simply doesn't meet the needs of the modern world. If you were able to roll back the last twenty to thirty years, and then stop all societal development, then you might be able to keep all those branches open. You can't, however, do this, so criticising people who predominantly bank on line and blaming them for people losing jobs due to branch closures and business rationalisation is just silly.
We do not have a moral duty to, "use the high street". What nonsense. It makes no sense to try and prop up unproductive industries. Banks are not like specialist retailers or public libraries. There are still plenty of branches around, but people may have to travel a little to access one.
Thanks for further proving my point and exposing additional logical flaws in your own!
I agree the Virgin Money regular saver is not a particularly attractive proposition, but those using it (and other regular savers) may well want access to the money sooner than in three, four, or five years. The products just aren't comparable. Furthermore, putting money into fixed rate savings bonds over that time period significantly increases the chances of earning interest at below the easy access market rate in only a short timeframe. Interest rates are likely to rise further in that period and this would make those products uncompetitive well before the date at which the money could be accessed.
1) I wasn't trying to offer a rebuttal, I was just making a comment... Didn't realise I needed your permission to make one.
2) I didn't say you couldn't bank online and not exercise... again not sure what point you're trying to fabricate here.
3) I didn't say branch transactions can't go wrong. Do you honestly believe that all transactions online are correct?
4) Branch closures have been going on since online banking has been heavily promoted... by the banks. You say it's because of "significant reduction in cash and cheque transactions" yet whenever I am in a branch, it is primarily cash and cheque transactions by every customer, but you bank online so how would you know?
5) You say branches don't fit into a modern model of banking, yet why are there ways people in them. There is always someone at the counter and someone, or many people, waiting behind. There are people with appointments. But again, you don't go to them. If you had a problem, you'd go to a branch.
6) How is a banking industry unproductive? They are swelling with money and profit. There are branches everywhere, a minority need to travel, but if they choose to live remotely that's up to them. I have a choice of 10 banks in my town, and the same in the towns around me.
7) I don't see how me explaining how you could access your bank via counter service is exposing logical flaws? If anything, I've proved that you seem to know little about branch banking considering you don't use them but claim to know a lot.
8) Not really, because of compounding interest. You don't get compounding in regular savers, you have to start over every 12 months, so it's capped.
:beer:0 -
ValiantSon wrote: »Yes, they would, but it isn't impossible to open a current account. I know that it is entirely possible because I have done it myself on many occasions.
I didn't say it was impossible, and so have I. Not sure why you and others are getting on your high horse. It's just a forum guys, jeez.0 -
ValiantSon wrote: »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.
I think, as my other replies demonstrate, you need to think through a bit more. You seem to be a branch connoisseur but never actually go to one. I never said anything about top 1%, you did.
I said it is virtually impossible for most people to have five or six current accounts with varying minimum monthly pay in requirements and minimum active direct debits paid out each month and make use of each of their accompanying link regular savers. I know I couldn't, I don't know anyone who could either. I don't need evidence for that, it's fact. Most people have one, perhaps two, current accounts, and they act as saving accounts at the same time. If you've got time to set up a load of SO's then great, go for it. It's there and nothing prohibits it from doing so, if you can. Some actually require it to be a one time paid monthly salary deposit, so they are wising up to it. I never said you had to switch either. You really need to stop making stuff up, it's embarrassing to read.0 -
Not sure of what point you are trying to make. You previously said this:-
...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.
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.
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.....
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%.
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.
1) If I previously said, does it matter? Not really.
2) Most of the building societies report that their passbook branch accounts are more popular than their online accounts.
3) I didn't say I make special trips to the bank to keep people employed, and I wasn't referring directly to you about people being stuck indoors, so it shouldn't be strange to reply to. I walk into town on a Saturday, meet up with friends, browse, maybe buy things, go to the banks. I ask the cashiers to do my transactions, and they do it, it's their job. I don't go everyday or make up things for them to do. I didn't say going to branch to open an online account, I was referring to opening an account in branch and managing it online, if you choose.
4) Yeah I have been following, and many banks/BS's are actually opening more branches because their feedback is that their customer base want more branch based contact. Technology only goes so far before people realise that it was perhaps easier before.
5) Obviously it would be stupid to travel to Kent to open their account as that would cost more than the interest. Again, I didn't say anything about doing that. Open the Virgin one if you like. I only said that others are better. Go for YBS or N+P, 2% on £500 a month for 2 years, and you can open by postal or online. Sorted. More than what Virgin offers.
6) I didn't say you should do the 5 year, it's up to you. But depending on how much you deposit, if a lot, you'd get more. And I'm not doubting myself, I was using hyperbole. :beer:0 -
Let's say 'educated guess' then.
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.
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.
If someone asks to open a savings account there has been no advice. It hasn't been mis-sold.
Nothing you posted from the regulations contradicts anything that I wrote.0 -
I'm not aware of a single current account provider (let alone "some") who, as a condition for the paying of interest or rewards or access to a decent regular saver, demands a "monthly salary deposit".Some actually require it to be a one time paid monthly salary deposit, so they are wising up to it.
For a start, that would preclude:
1. A very high number of weekly paid people.
2. Those no longer working and drawing pensions.
3. Those on benefits.
4. Stay at home parents.
5. Bank employees whose salary must be paid into a current account provided by their employer.
So, please, could you list "some" of those banks demanding a "monthly salary deposit"?0 -
That's simply not true. And I'm not saying that to be argumentative, it's just that you appear to be missing out on many good opportunities to get the best interest rates. This forum is full of threads with people discussing how to have multiple current accounts and meet all the T&C's.I said it is virtually impossible for most people to have five or six current accounts with varying minimum monthly pay in requirements and minimum active direct debits paid out each month and make use of each of their accompanying link regular savers. I know I couldn't, I don't know anyone who could either. I don't need evidence for that, it's fact.
I'm not aware of any of the main banks that have this condition on normal accounts. Some banks have premium accounts requiring an income of a certain size to be paid in, but all the best interest paying current accounts have no such restriction.Some actually require it to be a one time paid monthly salary deposit, so they are wising up to it.
Possibly because the building societies tend to limit their best products to 'local' customers so offer them as branch-based passbook accounts. The online offerings of most building societies are not very attractive.2) Most of the building societies report that their passbook branch accounts are more popular than their online accounts.
Nationwide and some of the smaller building societies have opened new branches, sometimes taking over the former premises of a recently closed bank. I've not seen any news about the high street banks opening new branches, and would be interested if you could point to any examples.4) Yeah I have been following, and many banks/BS's are actually opening more branches because their feedback is that their customer base want more branch based contact.
I have a YBS account already. Four months after opening that one I opened my first Virgin Regular Saver.5) ...Open the Virgin one if you like. I only said that others are better. Go for YBS or N+P, 2% on £500 a month for 2 years, and you can open by postal or online. Sorted. More than what Virgin offers.
I now have over £26,000 with Virgin @2.25% compared to just over £7,000 with YBS @2% (until recently 1.75%). In what sense does the YBS account offer more than Virgin?
Next month my first Virgin account will mature with a balance of circa £2800. That money will immediately be redistributed to other Virgin accounts, and along with a top up of £700, my balance with Virgin @2.25% will be pushing on to £30,000. The YBS account will still only be a miserly £7500.
I don't think the comments about compounding are relevant. Although each individual account matures, the proceeds - including interest - will immediately be recycled back into other Virgin accounts and will be for as long as they continue to release new issues.
There are no fixed rate deposit accounts paying an interest rate to match the effective rate of my collection of regular saving accounts.6) I didn't say you should do the 5 year, it's up to you. But depending on how much you deposit, if a lot, you'd get more. And I'm not doubting myself, I was using hyperbole.
"In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
ValiantSon wrote: »If someone asks to open a savings account there has been no advice. It hasn't been mis-sold.
Nothing you posted from the regulations contradics anything that I wrote.
Fair enough. Next time I open a branch-based account I'll ask them why they are telling lies."In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"0 -
1) I wasn't trying to offer a rebuttal, I was just making a comment... Didn't realise I needed your permission to make one.
You were, or if you weren't then your "comment" was meaningless.
I never said that you needed my permission. I simply pointed out that your "comment" did not rebut the point you were responding to. Don't be silly.2) I didn't say you couldn't bank online and not exercise... again not sure what point you're trying to fabricate here.
I'm not trying to "fabricate" anything. I was responding to your silly comment about people who banked online: "If you want to do everything from home like a hermit and not get exercise and go outside to go things, then thats great."3) I didn't say branch transactions can't go wrong. Do you honestly believe that all transactions online are correct?
Did I say that there were no errors ever made online? No, I didn't. You, however, did say, "A lot of people don't want to be doing stuff on the computer all the time where it can go wrong." This very clearly implies that you believe transactions carried out in branch are not liable to go wrong. That's nonsense.4) Branch closures have been going on since online banking has been heavily promoted... by the banks.
Branches have been closing over a sustained period of time which predates the wide availability of online banking, indeed it predates the period in which most people have had access to a computer connected to the internet.You say it's because of "significant reduction in cash and cheque transactions" yet whenever I am in a branch, it is primarily cash and cheque transactions by every customer, but you bank online so how would you know?
Yes, the whole point is that a lot of what branches deal with is cash and cheque transactions, but these are declining, so the need for branch services is increasingly reducing.
When did I say that I only banked online? This your erroneous assumption. I was, in fact, in a branch today.5) You say branches don't fit into a modern model of banking, yet why are there ways people in them. There is always someone at the counter and someone, or many people, waiting behind. There are people with appointments. But again, you don't go to them. If you had a problem, you'd go to a branch.
I didn't actually say that at all. What I said was, "Put simply, society has changed dramatically over the last 20 years and the old-style branch based model simply doesn't meet the needs of the modern world. " This is not the same thing. I'll interpret for you, seeing as you don't seem capable of doing so for yourself. The old-style branch model doesn't meet the needs of the modern world, but a modified banking model that includes some branch access does.
If there was a problem with my account I certainly wouldn't go into a branch! Doing so would require me to wait until the next working day (assuming I could actually get to a branch during the working day - no I can't go in my lunchtime because I am actually on duty during my lunchtime) and then deal with someone who can't actually do anything about it. Instead, I would phone the 24 hour customer services number and speak to someone who can do something about the problem. Indeed, this is exactly what I have done in the past.6) How is a banking industry unproductive? They are swelling with money and profit.
Where did I say that, "a banking industry [was] unproductive"? If you'd like to re-read my posts you will find that I didn't. What I actually commented on was the unproductive nature of the old-style banking model. If it were hugely productive then the banks wouldn't be closing branches! The old-style branch model and the banking industry are not the same thing.6) How is a banking industry unproductive? They are swelling with money and profit. There are branches everywhere, a minority need to travel, but if they choose to live remotely that's up to them. I have a choice of 10 banks in my town, and the same in the towns around me.
So one minute you're moaning about all the branch closures and the next you're telling me about the large number of bank branches available. Make up your mind.7) I don't see how me explaining how you could access your bank via counter service is exposing logical flaws? If anything, I've proved that you seem to know little about branch banking considering you don't use them but claim to know a lot.
Hmmm. You keep going on about how the branch closures are reducing employment, but then go on to say that there are lots of high street banking options available thanks to the Post Office, so jobs are actually being created in the alternative provider.
Oh, and you haven't proved anything, let alone that I know little about branch based banking, but if it makes you feel happier then you carry on thinking that. Again, however, you have assumed that I don't use bank branches, and again you are wrong.8) Not really, because of compounding interest. You don't get compounding in regular savers, you have to start over every 12 months, so it's capped.
:beer:
Which point is this meant to be in response to?
You are quite right that there is no compounding of interest in a regular saver, but there is once you move the money from the matured saver to another interest bearing account. You also seem to have missed the fundamental point that regular savers provide a different product to fixed rate savings bonds. They serve different purposes, as I have already explained.I didn't say it was impossible, and so have I. Not sure why you and others are getting on your high horse. It's just a forum guys, jeez.
What you actually said was, "But this person would need to have current accounts with those that you list, whereas Virgin Money is open to all." I pointed out it was entirely possible to open other current accounts. What don't you understand?
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:I think, as my other replies demonstrate, you need to think through a bit more.
Your other replies demonstrate that you can't follow a logical argument and are desperately trying to save face.You seem to be a branch connoisseur but never actually go to one.
There you go again, making erroneous assumptions. What's it like to be so incredibly wrong?I never said anything about top 1%, you did.
You said that the option to open multiple current accounts and feed them using standing orders was, "impossible for 99% of people." Here's a little bit of maths for you: if 99% of people cannot access something then only 1% are left. This is because per cent means one part for every hundred, so 100 minus 99 is 1.I said it is virtually impossible for most people to have five or six current accounts with varying minimum monthly pay in requirements and minimum active direct debits paid out each month and make use of each of their accompanying link regular savers.
No you didn't, you said, "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." So you made a definitive statement not a qualified one. Your statement says that it is impossible, not that it is virtually impossible. Even if I accept that you meant virtually (and I don't) what you said is still nonsense as it is entirely possible and lots of people do it.I know I couldn't, I don't know anyone who could either. I don't need evidence for that, it's fact.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: You, "don't need evidence for that, it's fact." Priceless! You do understand what a fact is, don't you? By definition it has to be something that can be proven, and the way you prove something is with evidence. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
You don't know anyone who could open multiple current accounts? You need to meet more people. For your information you know a lot of people in the virtual world who do, because there are a lot of them who post on these forums.Most people have one, perhaps two, current accounts, and they act as saving accounts at the same time. If you've got time to set up a load of SO's then great, go for it. It's there and nothing prohibits it from doing so, if you can.
It takes almost no time at all to set up some standing orders. I work 65-70 hours a week and yet I have managed to do it. It's one of the many advantages of internet banking!Some actually require it to be a one time paid monthly salary deposit, so they are wising up to it.
I am unaware of any account that has this requirement and doing so would cause problems for numerous normal customers who were not trying to maximise the interest they received on their savings, e.g. those paid weekly.
Given the above, perhaps you could post links to the terms and conditions of any current account that requires this? Good luck on finding it!I never said you had to switch either.
Yes you did, and I quote, "But if that person above doesn't want to switch or is happy, then those regular savers aren't an option." As I pointed out to you they don't need to switch their account, they can just apply to open another.You really need to stop making stuff up, it's embarrassing to read.
Please don't be embarrassed on my account, there are more than enough of your own comments to be embarrassed about.
I haven't made anything up, but you have with regards to the requirement to pay in a monthly salary.0 -
If I want to make a payment on Sunday, I would have to wait until the following Saturday. Six days.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
- 352.2K 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