Regular Savings Accounts: The Best Currently Available List!

flaneurs_lobster

csw5780 said:

Ok so slightly confused now. MBS RS accounts are they “by month end” payments or monthly from account opening date? 

(Not trying to open the 13 payments diversion again!)

By month-end (aka calendar monthly).

janusd

SFindlay said:

janusdesign said:

r6mile said:

I am having an absolute nightmare with MonBS. Letters take ages to arrive (I got a letter last week dated 1 September), their online system is a joke and the fact that resetting a password requires a letter to be sent in the post is ridiculously outdated! I am starting to think whether this is worth it really...

I never even got a reply from MonBS to my online form completion attempting to close the unfunded account - I assume they're just got to let the 30 days elapse and send me a letter next month, probably on parchment or papyrus, that as it was unfunded it has now been closed... whatever their accounts offer in the future, i'm not going to waste any time on applying for them.

I genuinely hope you stick to that along with the others who have whinged and moaned that way the rest of us who are happy to operate MBS accounts in line with their practices can get on with it.

I will definitely be sticking to that - I can put up with slowness (yes I knew the previous MonBS issues), quaintness of procedures - but I at least expect to receive login details within a month... that's surely not too much to ask of any competent financial institution? they seem to think they've been sent - they definitely haven't arrived... perhaps they got addressed to someone else *sighs* - yes I could phone them, but I no longer care about this or the trivial amount of interest it would generate.

there is no stress on my part over this - just annoyance... if you're happy with MonBS, then i'm genuinely pleased for you, but at least allow me the freedom to tell others of my MonBS experience - they're both equally valid.

Altior

zagfles said:

Altior said:

I suspect some people are looking at it the wrong way. The '13th' payment is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if you used the workaround, you're effectively pulling forward the remaining payments after the first one, by almost a month. The overall 'effect' of that is similar to having a bonus payment at the beginning. 

The question for me would be is that risking the potential wrath of Nationwide. Almost certainly not, but the modest upside isn't worth the risk, even if it's a well worn tactic. 

Seriously? It's using the account the way it's designed to be used! NW have always done RS accounts like this, inc their "start to save" accounts. They are fully aware that nearly everyone will have 13 calendar months to increase their balance and that the second payment could be the day after the first if opened at the end of the month.

If they didn't like people doing this they'd have similar T&Cs to Santander where a "month" starts on the date the account is opened. 

There are some uber MSE ways of expoliting bank offers, such as using the NatWest "round up" facility to make hundreds of £1.01 debit card payments, that could well incur "wrath". But paying in £200 every calendar month to an account that allows £200 every calendar month? Nah...

I'm not sure if you read through what I wrote, that was the question for me. I also wrote, almost certainly it would not [be a problem]. I feel it is self evident that the account is not designed to be used that way, as it discusses the total interest over the period in the terms, and this would not include using the workaround of 13 payments.

People can do whatever they like, nudge any grey areas and potential loopholes they see fit. I do so myself, but the rather modest gain on this one doesn't justify any perceived risk to me of losing access to all of Nationwide's products and profit distribution.

To be clear, I have over £50K in stoozing funds, and about 20% is from Nationwide. So I am already funding this new account with their own capital  

Wheres_My_Cashback

janusdesign said:

SFindlay said:

janusdesign said:

r6mile said:

I am having an absolute nightmare with MonBS. Letters take ages to arrive (I got a letter last week dated 1 September), their online system is a joke and the fact that resetting a password requires a letter to be sent in the post is ridiculously outdated! I am starting to think whether this is worth it really...

I never even got a reply from MonBS to my online form completion attempting to close the unfunded account - I assume they're just got to let the 30 days elapse and send me a letter next month, probably on parchment or papyrus, that as it was unfunded it has now been closed... whatever their accounts offer in the future, i'm not going to waste any time on applying for them.

I genuinely hope you stick to that along with the others who have whinged and moaned that way the rest of us who are happy to operate MBS accounts in line with their practices can get on with it.

I will definitely be sticking to that - I can put up with slowness (yes I knew the previous MonBS issues), quaintness of procedures - but I at least expect to receive login details within a month... that's surely not too much to ask of any competent financial institution? they seem to think they've been sent - they definitely haven't arrived... perhaps they got addressed to someone else *sighs* - yes I could phone them, but I no longer care about this or the trivial amount of interest it would generate.

there is no stress on my part over this - just annoyance... if you're happy with MonBS, then i'm genuinely pleased for you, but at least allow me the freedom to tell others of my MonBS experience - they're both equally valid.

Agreed, I think everyone's experience is valid, both positive and negative, but with that there has to be a realistic level of expectation and acceptance of the way they do things.
I'd also agree that login details should have arrived before now, but perhaps you've just let your annoyance take over? You say no longer care about this, yet you take time to post it on a public forum! You clearly do care about it.
Would your time not be better spent talking to them? I'm sure something as simple as this could be rectified very simply, even If you have to go down the official complaint route.

I get the general feeling some posters are happy to cut their nose off to spite their face by putting up their own self-induced blockers to making things easy for themselves or resolving issues.

Section62

Altior said:

zagfles said:

Altior said:

I suspect some people are looking at it the wrong way. The '13th' payment is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if you used the workaround, you're effectively pulling forward the remaining payments after the first one, by almost a month. The overall 'effect' of that is similar to having a bonus payment at the beginning. 

The question for me would be is that risking the potential wrath of Nationwide. Almost certainly not, but the modest upside isn't worth the risk, even if it's a well worn tactic. 

Seriously? It's using the account the way it's designed to be used! NW have always done RS accounts like this, inc their "start to save" accounts. They are fully aware that nearly everyone will have 13 calendar months to increase their balance and that the second payment could be the day after the first if opened at the end of the month.

If they didn't like people doing this they'd have similar T&Cs to Santander where a "month" starts on the date the account is opened. 

There are some uber MSE ways of expoliting bank offers, such as using the NatWest "round up" facility to make hundreds of £1.01 debit card payments, that could well incur "wrath". But paying in £200 every calendar month to an account that allows £200 every calendar month? Nah...

I feel it is self evident that the account is not designed to be used that way, as it discusses the total interest over the period in the terms, and this would not include using the workaround of 13 payments.

Unless you've seen something more specific, this sounds like the interest illustration there is a regulatory requirement to provide.  It doesn't itself form part of the T&C's and is only an example of how much interest would be paid given a specific set of circumstances.

In this case Nationwide have reasonably chosen 12 months, since this is the term of the account, and banks commonly use 12 months as their benchmark.  They have also chosen to assume all payments would be made on the 1st of the month (again, that isn't unreasonable).

By assuming all payments are made on the 1st of the month this illustration results in a case where only 12 months of payments can be made, because the 13th payment would occur on (or after) the maturity of the account/12 month period.

This isn't a condition requiring that no more than 12 monthly payments of £200 are made.

Nationwide could have chosen a different set of assumptions, but that would have made the illustration more complicated, and arguably confusing (given the additional complication of withdrawals).  For example, they could have said "This assumes the account is opened on 25th September when the first deposit of £200 is made, followed by 12 further deposits made on the first of each subsequent month." - but for some people that would be difficult to understand.

Equally, they have also included an example which illustrates the effect of making withdrawals.  This assumes "each of the 4 withdrawals are for £10 and are made on the first day of each calendar month, for the first 4 months of the term".  This is not a condition requiring account holder to make four withdrawals of £10 on the first day of the first four months the account is open.  It just illustrates how much interest you'd get if you did that.

pecunianonolet

Not expected so much backlash but talking about Monmouthshire seems to definitely hit a nerve here! Whether the criticism, either from myself or others is valid or not is a different story. I am fully aware about their processes and basically non existent IT infrastructure and being slow. However, being slow is one thing but being slow to the extend that it becomes worrying is different. Yes, I am not the most patient person and allergic to inefficiencies and bad processes doesn't help and that is something I can't blame them for. 

And yes, I like to see on screen where my money is and want to be able to operate an account before I send any cash. I think I am capable of putting the correct numbers in, it's more a matter of principle. Secondly, I prefer not to phone banks or building societies. I wasted far too much time answering stupid questions of bots, listened to music for hours, got cut off, was told incorrect information by incapable staff, etc. The odd exception here and there. 

Anyhow, snailmail delivered my missing 2 passbooks for the regular saver and easy saver and the same for the OH. No sight of any login details. Maybe online details arrive by the end of this week. 

Anyhow, time to move on. The next hot topic won't be far away 

Wheres_My_Cashback

Altior said:

zagfles said:

Altior said:

I suspect some people are looking at it the wrong way. The '13th' payment is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if you used the workaround, you're effectively pulling forward the remaining payments after the first one, by almost a month. The overall 'effect' of that is similar to having a bonus payment at the beginning. 

The question for me would be is that risking the potential wrath of Nationwide. Almost certainly not, but the modest upside isn't worth the risk, even if it's a well worn tactic. 

Seriously? It's using the account the way it's designed to be used! NW have always done RS accounts like this, inc their "start to save" accounts. They are fully aware that nearly everyone will have 13 calendar months to increase their balance and that the second payment could be the day after the first if opened at the end of the month.

If they didn't like people doing this they'd have similar T&Cs to Santander where a "month" starts on the date the account is opened. 

There are some uber MSE ways of expoliting bank offers, such as using the NatWest "round up" facility to make hundreds of £1.01 debit card payments, that could well incur "wrath". But paying in £200 every calendar month to an account that allows £200 every calendar month? Nah...

I'm not sure if you read through what I wrote, that was the question for me. I also wrote, almost certainly it would not [be a problem]. I feel it is self evident that the account is not designed to be used that way, as it discusses the total interest over the period in the terms, and this would not include using the workaround of 13 payments.

People can do whatever they like, nudge any grey areas and potential loopholes they see fit. I do so myself, but the rather modest gain on this one doesn't justify any perceived risk to me of losing access to all of Nationwide's products and profit distribution.

The clue with the example Interest is that it is for guidance only, something that has to be put. The second clue is that it assumes, nowhere does it state it must be how you are reading it or inferring it must be. It's self-evident to you alone, certainly not Nationwide, otherwise they would have stipulated it.

Again. no grey areas, no loopholes, no bending rules. The most important rule to follow is....

• You don't have to pay money in each month, but the maximum you can increase your balance by each calendar month is £200.

And that's exactly what most reasonable people will do.

Section62

pecunianonolet said:

Secondly, I prefer not to phone banks or building societies. I wasted far too much time answering stupid questions of bots, listened to music for hours, got cut off, was told incorrect information by incapable staff, etc. The odd exception here and there. 

One of the advantages of Monmouthshire's slightly dated approach is that it is still possible to phone a branch directly and speak to a member of staff who (generally) can deal with most enquiries.  For example being able to confirm that a first deposit has arrived in a new account (possibly subject to you first telling them when the payment was sent and how much it was for, in order to maintain security)

Sometimes when you phone the main office number the call gets routed to one of the branches, so I'm reasonably confident this isn't something the branch staff mind doing.  From time to time when I've made more complex enquiries the branch staff have said they would find out and call me back, which they invariably do.

Maybe they have chosen to invest in good quality staff who know what they are doing, rather than buying-in the latest online technical solutions?

PowerSavingMode

r6mile said:

I am having an absolute nightmare with MonBS. Letters take ages to arrive (I got a letter last week dated 1 September), their online system is a joke and the fact that resetting a password requires a letter to be sent in the post is ridiculously outdated! I am starting to think whether this is worth it really...

I am having the same issues.

Altior

Last post on the subject (from me anyway). I could not be any clearer, I am not doing it, however others can do whatever they like, and whatever they are comfortable with. If they feel however that NW intends for the account to be funded 2 days in a row with 2* payments of £200, they need their bumps felt (imho).

I have not stated that it breaches any of the technical requirements of the account. 

Flex Regular Saver:

Open online, and save up to £200 a month for 12 months.

My (albeit rudimentary) maths suggests this adds up to £2400. The intention, or the expectation one might say, is that the account will be funded 12 times. Yeah, someone can play around with the dates and ensure that 13 payments could hit the account within a calendar year, and/or two payments over two days. They can go right ahead, but I would myself consider that to be a workaround, and not using the account as it was intended. It is also true that the rules could be more robust to prevent the possibility, if NW so wished.