Trying to remember name of a savings company

coyrls

Why do you think it was offered by a UK bank or savings company?

eskbanker

Jelli wrote: »

I also thought it was a normal bond and not an investment because of the FSCS protection and their wording "bond".

Please don't be under any illusion that the word 'bond' is in any way helpful when evaluating potential homes for your money - it's probably the most misused term in the entire financial services industry and is applied to a variety of products, many of which are investments that entail risk of capital loss.

Many of course do believe that it implies safety but that's exactly the sort of confusion that unscrupulous scammers exploit, although it is also used quite legitimately by investment companies...

AnotherJoe

Jelli wrote: »

Just to be clear, I wasn't going to invest in this as didn't have a spare 50 grand down the sofa. I was thinking more long term and just bookmarking the company name.
So you might have invested in it had you a spare £50k? :eek:

The reason why I didn't think 3.9% was high was because of the minimum savings amount which was very steep, hence them offering it.

Its close to 50% more than 5 year locked in products !!! Of course thats high.
You need to, frankly, wise up.

I also thought it was a normal bond

theres no such thing as a normal bond its a meaningless word

and not an investment because of the FSCS protection and their wording "bond". If I have to seek an IFA just to be sure all UK banks and savings companies are telling the truth then the place truly has gone down the pot.

Well, for a start did you see this advertised on Facebook? Scammers paradise.
In any case, your problem was you simply believed what they wrote. You believed they had FCSC protection. They lied. As simple as that.

If you start from the position that every ad on Facebook is a lie or as close to that as makes no differece , that will deal with 95% of frauds and close to frauds straight off.
You may be not be aware but until recently, until Martin Lewis threatened legal action, they were hosting scam ads saying he endorsed this that and the other, and the same for fake ads regarding dragons den members. They are shameless. Ignore everything you see on there.
You've already been burnt once, sad to say you dont seem to have learned a lesson about whats believable and what isn't.

DrSyn

Jelli wrote: »

Just to be clear, I wasn't going to invest in this as didn't have a spare 50 grand down the sofa. I was thinking more long term and just bookmarking the company name.

I also thought it was a normal bond and not an investment because of the FSCS protection and their wording "bond".

If I have to seek an IFA just to be sure all UK banks and savings companies are telling the truth then the place truly has gone down the pot.

1. If they did not make clear that with this "bond" your money is at risk. Or they implied it was protected in the same way as with a bank or building society, it is not a company I would give my money to.

2. The word bond really just means you are loaning your money to a company or government. If they are unable to repay the money, you have a problem.

You might like to read the following :

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bond.asp


3. If you have no idea about investing and you not wish to pay an IFA, you have two options:

(a) Put your money into a bank or building society savings account or bond which is covered by the FSCS.

If you use places suggested by the websites below, then you are reasonably safe.


https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/savings-accounts-best-interest/

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1621507/Best-savings-rates-Fixed-rate-accounts.html


(b) Learn about investing from such sites as:-

https://monevator.com

AnotherJoe

DrSyn wrote: »

3. If you have no idea about investing and you not wish to pay an IFA, you have two options:

(a) Put your money into a bank or building society savings account or bond which is covered by the FSCS.

If you use places suggested by the websites below, then you are reasonably safe.


https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/savings-accounts-best-interest/

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1621507/Best-savings-rates-Fixed-rate-accounts.html


(b) Learn about investing from such sites as:-

https://monevator.com

c) place your money with scammers and similar due to OP's lack of unacknowledged expertise in this area, IMHO a classic example of Dunning Kruger at work.

Jelli

I've made this point elsewhere but if people can't trust the running of their environment, and have to perceive all sign posts as worthless, then there really is a problem. Regarding this particular 'offer', I didn't know it was a straight forward scam until now. This was nothing like LCF where truth and lies were mixed together in a partially legitimate UK company.

Regarding the scam website, I'm guilty of seeing a UK site saying it had FSCS protection and connected to BT. Now I know it was a criminal operation there's nothing else to go into.

AnotherJoe

Jelli wrote: »

I've made this point elsewhere but if people can't trust the running of their environment, and have to perceive all sign posts as worthless, then there really is a problem. Regarding this particular 'offer', I didn't know it was a straight forward scam until now. This was nothing like LCF where truth and lies were mixed together in a partially legitimate UK company.

Regarding the scam website, I'm guilty of seeing a UK site saying it had FSCS protection and connected to BT. Now I know it was a criminal operation there's nothing else to go into.

Great, now we've established and you've understood there's a problem !

A "U.K." site is meaningless in terms of how trustworthy it is. Being on Facebook is meaningless (well actually there's an inverse correlation)

As it turns out there was nothing legitimate at all about LC&F but that's almost irrelevant because all of the others of its ilk - parking,storage, student accom, forests, vineyards and so on, were set up under such conditions and made such wild claims that they may as well have been scams in that the end result is the same whether someone sets out deliberately to defraud or has a ludicrous business plan its bound to fail . End result is the same, you lose your money. If LC&F directors had not been pocketing the money it would still have failed, its announced business plan simply could not have worked.

OldMusicGuy

Jelli wrote: »

I've made this point elsewhere but if people can't trust the running of their environment, and have to perceive all sign posts as worthless, then there really is a problem.

There is no regulation on the internet to stop anyone saying anything. That's why you should be wary of searching the internet for "great deals" unless you know how to identify scam sites and also what the red flags are related to any kind of offer like this. If this was legit it was clearly some kind of corporate bond offering (because it was linked to BT) so the warning bells should have been ringing as there would be no FSCS cover.

Cybercrime is the fastest growing area of criminal activity, so you should expect a lot more of this type of scam. The internet also allows small time dubious operations like LC&F to appear much more "legit" than they really are, because they can put up nice flash websites very easily. Hopefully this experience and that of LC&F will make you more cautious in future.

Malthusian

Jelli wrote: »

I've made this point elsewhere but if people can't trust the running of their environment, and have to perceive all sign posts as worthless, then there really is a problem.

Well they don't so there isn't. Only when someone is offering something too good to be true like supposedly FSCS protected bonds with an interest rate 50% higher than you will find in any legitimate comparison site.

Regarding this particular 'offer', I didn't know it was a straight forward scam until now. This was nothing like LCF where truth and lies were mixed together in a partially legitimate UK company.

It's exactly the same as LCF. The truth in this case mixed with the lies is that BT do offer bonds with the ISIN code the scammers listed. The fact that LCF had a greater truth/lie balance is irrelevant as the outcome is virtually identical.

There is no such thing as a legitimate UK company. Registering a UK company does not constitute legitimacy. My cat can form a UK limited company if she likes.

Regarding the scam website, I'm guilty of seeing a UK site saying it had FSCS protection and connected to BT.

And not questioning those claims despite the interest rate being 50% higher than legitimate FSCS protected deposits.

If it wasn't too good to be true you wouldn't have been interested and if you didn't subconsciously know that it was too good to be true you wouldn't have asked us about it.

People never come here asking if a 2% five year bond offered by Barclays or Skipton is a scam.

AnotherJoe

Malthusian wrote: »

People never come here asking if a 2% five year bond offered by Barclays or Skipton is a scam.

And therein lies the next avenue for scammers