Regular Savings Accounts: The Best Currently Available List!

subjecttocontract

I don't read everything on this forum so it would be easy for me to miss these posts BUT I assume the moderators do read it all and presumably by allowing rule breaking information to be published they are ensuring that MSE promotes rule breaking. Doesn't sound right to me.

surreysaver

Don't think moderators read everything, only if things are brought to their attention by users reporting posts.
Not rule breaking per se, more a case of abusing loopholes. Organisations aren't going to list rules saying don't do this, that or the other, as it would just draw attention to their systems which don't work 

subjecttocontract

surreysaver said:

Not rule breaking per se, more a case of abusing loopholes. Organisations aren't going to list rules saying don't do this, that or the other, as it would just draw attention to their systems which don't work 

Who told you that ?
This discussion began when someone quoted the Principality BS eligibility criteria for one of their accounts.....'You can only open this account if you do not own or have not previously owned a property'. That's called a rule, there is no loophole.  You either comply or BREAK that rule by pretending to meet the criteria.

Some people think that behaviour is acceptable, I don't and when there is rule breaking I also think it's important that MSE are not complicit by allowing posts that discuss rule breaking.

WillPS

surreysaver said:

Halifax/ Lloyds Regular Savers people have been abusing. Virgin Regular Savers that were paying interest twice. Tesco direct debits. Post Office savings direct debits. NatWest/RBS Digital Savers creating debit card purchases.
I'm sure there's others 

Only the first of those is actually a defined rule being broken, and then only in the case of Lloyds. The others are just using provided facilities for unintended purposes, and in the case of the Virgin regular savers a straight forward bank error IIRC?

surreysaver

Yes, but I think people were aware of the circumstances needed to achieve the banking error, and took advantage 

trickydicky14

subjecttocontract said:

Do they ?
I'm not aware of anyone posting to say they have managed to break the rules.
Surely the MSE website wouldn't allow that behavior.

Are you having a laugh?

WillPS

surreysaver said:

Yes, but I think people were aware of the circumstances needed to achieve the banking error, and took advantage 

So not the same thing as a bank saying "don't do this" and doing it anyway or "this isn't for you if..." and ignoring it, then?

schiff

The matched betting discussion used to be called the Gambling Introductory Offer Loopholes. Fortunately nobody at MSE HQ questioned whether loophole was a naughty word or I for one would be a lot less comfortably off!

pecunianonolet

Loopholes, cutting corners, fabricating debit card transactions etc, bla bla bla. 

Nothing short of calculated risk, everyone makes their own choice either to take the risk or not and to what expense.  Can't see anything illegal, breach of contract, perhaps. Consequences are known. Take it or leave it. 

Naive to think people sign up, contribute and read in a forum about finance and engage in certain topics with the intent not to maximise profit. Let's admit it, capitalism at its best.

Disagree? Fine, but please don't lecture others happy to take the risk. 

dlevene

pecunianonolet said:

Loopholes, cutting corners, fabricating debit card transactions etc, bla bla bla. 

Nothing short of calculated risk, everyone makes their own choice either to take the risk or not and to what expense.  Can't see anything illegal, breach of contract, perhaps. Consequences are known. Take it or leave it. 

Naive to think people sign up, contribute and read in a forum about finance and engage in certain topics with the intent not to maximum profit. Let's admit it, capitalism at its best.

Disagree? Fine, but please don't lecture others happy to take the risk. 

Agree. Some people need to get a grip, frankly.