Regular Savings Accounts: The Best Currently Available List!

ForumUser7

where_are_we said:

Previously, over the years, I was able to send a secure message to enable the switch to the new higher interest rate Saffron RS. However, today, got the "unable to complete request" message when sending the secure message. No wonder they are busy on the phone!

If you try again it may work - I sometimes get that message and then reloading the page works. Alternatively, sometimes special characters or messages that are too long trigger it. If you don’t want to call, live chat can also do it - be aware their SLA is 3 WD rn due to high demand

Patrington

aaj123 said:

gt94sss2 said:

aaj123 said:

gt94sss2 said:

aaj123 said:

ForumUser7 said:

aaj123 said:

littlemoney said:

aaj123 said:

ForumUser7 said:

aaj123 said:

aaj123 said:

Every_Penny_Counts said:

ForumUser7 said:

Sorry - completely forgot to say - 

Saffron BS Member Regular Saver (Issue 12) will be 4.35%

Also the new Saffron RS is variable at last, so no more having to arrange a change of issue for each rate change in the future.

Are they enforcing the condition that only existing members can apply for this?

The very first page after clicking apply doesn't seem to list this as one of the conditions although their product description page did. 

Well, I have just tried this out and I can confirm they opened a Members Regular Saver for me despite me not having any existing relationship with them.

Is it showing on the online platform for you yet? IIRC, you can apply, then a human reviews and processes

Can't login as details will be sent in post but I have an email that commences saying 'Great news! Your Members Regular Saver is open'. And the subject line mentions account number. 

Btw the application had one rather strange question about what the intended initial deposit amount is and mentioned that this must be between 50 to 6500. Obviously at odds with the product being applied for so I just said £500.

Sorry to inform you but Saffron BS are enforcing the existing member rule for the Member Regular Saver but not the Small Saver.

I phoned Saffron BS this morning to move my existing regular saver to the higher rate and mentioned that it appeared to be open to all when applying online. Opening an account online deos not appear to have the validation built in to enforce existing members only but this will be picked up later in the account opening processing stage.

I doubt they can back away after having sent me a clear email with account number and the product name and after I have now even funded the account. Sure, they might tinker with their validations and prevent this happening for future applications.

IIRC they can, and have done before for some people who opened a members RS and small saver at the same time. I.e. You have violated their terms and conditions by opening the account, and agreeing to the product literature which state it is for members who have had an existing relationship with Saffron Building Society for the past 12 months, even though you've had no such relationship. This means they can terminate the account at any time they so chose.

Worth a try, but if they pick up on it which they likely will, it'll be closed. Hopefully they give you the option to change into the account type you're eligible for

Let me see them trying this out. Their online application form had an explicit question on whether you have an existing relationship with Saffron BS and I answered No. Despite that if they approve my application and open an account for me, they are gonna have a tough time backing off. I look forward to such a situation and see how they respond if I say that I will complain to the FCA. I feel like it simply isn't worth the trouble for them to be pushy here.

If they want to close your account for not meeting their T&C, they are allowed to under their T&C.

It includes:

We may close your account immediately and without notice in exceptional circumstances. These might include:

Where you were not entitled to open the account.

You would get nowhere with the FCA/Ombudsman.

Not as straightforward at all like you make it out. That clause is generally meant to cover instances where an applicant's information is found to be incorrect and NOT so much of where you gave all accurate info and got an account approved and open.

No, eligibility is clearly set out as a different exceptional reason for account closure than providing incorrect information

10.7. We may close your account immediately and without notice in exceptional circumstances. These might include:

• We are legally required to close the account.

• Upon notification that you no longer permanently reside in the UK.

• You have deliberately given us any false information in relation to your account which resulted in us doing something that, had we known the true facts, we would not have done, or would have done differently (for example, if you gave us false information as part of your application for the account, and we would not have accepted your application if we had known the true facts).

• Where you were not entitled to open the account.

• We receive notice of your bankruptcy or (in the case of accounts with only one account holder) your death.

• Where we believe (or we reasonably suspect) you or someone else is using the account for illegal or fraudulent activity.

• You have committed a serious breach of these terms and conditions or have repeatedly breached the terms and conditions.

• You have been threatening or abusive towards our staff.

• You haven’t provided us with information we have requested

about your identity or liability for tax.

• Where we are obliged to do so by law, regulation, court order or the instructions of an ombudsman.

Fine. You are being pedantic here and in all of this, you are missing the obvious that there is no downside for me, the applicant. I either get to keep the account, or i don't get to or I have a bit of to and fro and then get the account with some compensation for the trouble. What's not to like?

I gather you are aware that not enforcing advertised eligibility conditions is not unusual? Many apply for and get regular savers with banks after closing an earlier one before term end and this despite eligibility conditions saying that you can only apply for an RS once in 12 months.

This is Saffron.

Not any other institution.

You've been advised what will happen but are ignoring it and wasting your time on here,.with the Saffron and potentially with any ombudsman action IMO.

Maybe start another dedicated thread and let us know any progress.

subjecttocontract

I don't see what's attracting people to these Saffron accounts. One has a £50 pcm limit & the other pays under 4.5%. Am I missing something important here ?

aaj123

subjecttocontract said:

I don't see what's attracting people to these accounts. One has a £50 pcm limit & the other pays under 4.5%. Am I missing something important here ?

The 4.35% Saffron account is variable, has no withdrawal restrictions and has a £500 per month limit. Nothing great but a decent RS option, especially if you already have utilised the higher paying ones from lloyds / bos, etc.

Anything to ride out this year with inflation impact even partially mitigated is welcome imo.

subjecttocontract

Oh great. Looks like I'm not missing a valuable opportunity then.

Section62

aaj123 said:

gt94sss2 said:

aaj123 said:

Fine. You are being pedantic here and in all of this, you are missing the obvious that there is no downside for me, the applicant. I either get to keep the account, or i don't get to or I have a bit of to and fro and then get the account with some compensation for the trouble. What's not to like?

The obvious downside you've perhaps missed is that if you upset Saffron by applying for accounts you aren't entitled to, then make a fuss when they enforce the T&C's they have every right to enforce, they may decide that they never want to do business with you in the future, perhaps when they launch an attractive account which is open to all (except blacklisted individuals).

Saffron have form for accepting applications for non-eligible individuals and then manually closing the accounts at a later date.  Perhaps this time it will be different though.  Either way, anyone applying for an account they aren't eligible for needs to understand there could be negative implications.  Anyone encouraging others to apply for accounts they aren't eligible for needs to make sure they understand the risks, rather than misrepresenting it as risk-free.

pecunianonolet

I would be more curious to know how many bank staff and associated agencies read here and use some or part of that to influence their product offerings and strategies or even worse, close the loopholes we find e.g. Zopa ladder. 

dcs34

I think it's more the case that there's a wide spectrum from 'money saving' to 'taking advantage', and whilst everyone appreciates a good trick, hack or exploit - and no one's crying at the banks being played at their own game - the proliferation of the loopholes will tend to get them closed in the long term. People like a good David v Goliath story but not if it risks providers getting the hump and taking a harsher line on product perks and T&Cs in the future. 

Bank's IT systems not enforcing their product T&Cs doesn't render the T&Cs - that you as the customer agreed to - obsolete, even if it takes them days to manually go in and enforce them. If too many people stray on the wrong side of the T&Cs then don't complain if they decide to stop allowing people to upgrade issues, withdraw early etc. in future issues.

dealyboy

Section62 said:

aaj123 said:

gt94sss2 said:

aaj123 said:

Fine. You are being pedantic here and in all of this, you are missing the obvious that there is no downside for me, the applicant. I either get to keep the account, or i don't get to or I have a bit of to and fro and then get the account with some compensation for the trouble. What's not to like?

The obvious downside you've perhaps missed is that if you upset Saffron by applying for accounts you aren't entitled to, then make a fuss when they enforce the T&C's they have every right to enforce, they may decide that they never want to do business with you in the future, perhaps when they launch an attractive account which is open to all (except blacklisted individuals).

Saffron have form for accepting applications for non-eligible individuals and then manually closing the accounts at a later date.  Perhaps this time it will be different though.  Either way, anyone applying for an account they aren't eligible for needs to understand there could be negative implications.  Anyone encouraging others to apply for accounts they aren't eligible for needs to make sure they understand the risks, rather than misrepresenting it as risk-free.

... are people not at risk of not only upsetting one financial services company but others too indirectly ? due to adverse comments on credit files. edit: sorry this thread has gone way off topic!

aaj123

dealyboy said:

Section62 said:

aaj123 said:

gt94sss2 said:

aaj123 said:

Fine. You are being pedantic here and in all of this, you are missing the obvious that there is no downside for me, the applicant. I either get to keep the account, or i don't get to or I have a bit of to and fro and then get the account with some compensation for the trouble. What's not to like?

The obvious downside you've perhaps missed is that if you upset Saffron by applying for accounts you aren't entitled to, then make a fuss when they enforce the T&C's they have every right to enforce, they may decide that they never want to do business with you in the future, perhaps when they launch an attractive account which is open to all (except blacklisted individuals).

Saffron have form for accepting applications for non-eligible individuals and then manually closing the accounts at a later date.  Perhaps this time it will be different though.  Either way, anyone applying for an account they aren't eligible for needs to understand there could be negative implications.  Anyone encouraging others to apply for accounts they aren't eligible for needs to make sure they understand the risks, rather than misrepresenting it as risk-free.

... are people not at risk of not only upsetting one financial services company but others too indirectly ? due to adverse comments on credit files. edit: sorry this thread has gone way off topic!

You honestly think banks can willy nilly settle grudges by just writing comments into your credit file? Lol.