Are ALL early closure penalties actually enforceable and lawful?

eskbanker

uk1 said:

A perfectly reasonable question and I'm happy to give a view.   

The solution  in my opinion should be the removal of expemption from existing consumer protection laws because I see that the effect of this exemption has had the unintended consequence of what I feel has been exploitation of the exemption to the detriment of consumers so therefore also feel very strongly that in addition should be the added acceptance that financial products need extra (not less)  protections for consumers over and above the laws that already govern buying kettles or matresses for example.

But there are already significant consumer protections available within the regulated financial services industry that don't apply in other sectors, even though the narrow issue of cancellation of fixed term products isn't one of them.  Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I'm thinking of (industry-funded) FSCS and FOS, chargeback schemes, APP scam reimbursement code, and even the requirement to use a standardised summary box format, but I'm sure there are plenty of others for anyone minded to go through the exercise more thoroughly....

uk1

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

A perfectly reasonable question and I'm happy to give a view.   

The solution  in my opinion should be the removal of expemption from existing consumer protection laws because I see that the effect of this exemption has had the unintended consequence of what I feel has been exploitation of the exemption to the detriment of consumers so therefore also feel very strongly that in addition should be the added acceptance that financial products need extra (not less)  protections for consumers over and above the laws that already govern buying kettles or matresses for example.

But there are already significant consumer protections available within the regulated financial services industry that don't apply in other sectors, even though the narrow issue of cancellation of fixed term products isn't one of them.  Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I'm thinking of (industry-funded) FSCS and FOS, chargeback schemes, APP scam reimbursement code, and even the requirement to use a standardised summary box format, but I'm sure there are plenty of others for anyone minded to go through the exercise more thoroughly....

Thanks,

Yes to argue what some might wrongly conclude is against myself (in a way but intended to add clarity and offer balance about my opnion) I can see a case for even more punitive cancellation clauses when a consumer wishes to cancel a fixed term arrangement. 

So for example I think that if a person enters a 3 year fix that they wish to break after one year, the penalty might reasonably be limited to all of the interest that they have so far earned.  So that would be 365 days and not 120.  If you wished to cancel 4 years into a 5 year arrangement you might lose all of those 4 years already earned.  But never lose the capital. So this then gives the income to the financial institution but also always offers a consumer the option to have their capital back at the point at which they are considering the option - new products in the market being under consideration - and is also an incentive for the consumer to make a rational choice about their options when considering termination of the contract. In other words "we'll give you your money back - but you have lost all the interest if you do so".

I'm not suggesting an entirely one sided benefit, but what seems to me to be a fairer relationship,

eskbanker

uk1 said:

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

A perfectly reasonable question and I'm happy to give a view.   

The solution  in my opinion should be the removal of expemption from existing consumer protection laws because I see that the effect of this exemption has had the unintended consequence of what I feel has been exploitation of the exemption to the detriment of consumers so therefore also feel very strongly that in addition should be the added acceptance that financial products need extra (not less)  protections for consumers over and above the laws that already govern buying kettles or matresses for example.

But there are already significant consumer protections available within the regulated financial services industry that don't apply in other sectors, even though the narrow issue of cancellation of fixed term products isn't one of them.  Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I'm thinking of (industry-funded) FSCS and FOS, chargeback schemes, APP scam reimbursement code, and even the requirement to use a standardised summary box format, but I'm sure there are plenty of others for anyone minded to go through the exercise more thoroughly....

Thanks,

Yes to argue against myself (in a way but intended to add clarity and offer balance about my opnion) I can see a case for even more punitive cancellation clauses when a consumer wishes to cancel a fixed term arrangement. 

So for example I think that if a person enters a 3 year fix that they wish to break after one year, the penalty might reasonably be limited to all of the interest that they have so far earned.  So that would be 365 days and not 120.  But this then gives the income to the financial institution but also always offers a consumer the option to have their capital back at the point at which they are considering the option - new products in the market being under consideration - and is also an incentive for the consumer to make a rational choice about their options when considering termination of the contract.  I'm not suggesting an entirely one sided benefit, but what seems to me to be a fairer relationship,

I think that there are some products that do implement the 'loss of all accrued interest' model that you refer to, although these would probably be more in the territory of regular savers or limited access accounts, but personally I don't see any of these differently styles as being fundamentally more or less fair than each other.

Without conducting an in-depth study of what's currently available, my understanding and expectation is that fixed term products will already have penalties roughly proportional to the term, i.e. maybe 60/90 days for a one-year fix but six months for a three-year one, and it's only during the initial period of that length that consumers would lose any capital if cancelling prematurely anyway.

However, as pointed out earlier in the thread, the key thing is clarity of communication - some providers do make it clear that capital can be lost if cancelling too early on, but it wouldn't do any harm to have that fact mandated....

Albermarle

uk1 said:

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

A perfectly reasonable question and I'm happy to give a view.   

The solution  in my opinion should be the removal of expemption from existing consumer protection laws because I see that the effect of this exemption has had the unintended consequence of what I feel has been exploitation of the exemption to the detriment of consumers so therefore also feel very strongly that in addition should be the added acceptance that financial products need extra (not less)  protections for consumers over and above the laws that already govern buying kettles or matresses for example.

But there are already significant consumer protections available within the regulated financial services industry that don't apply in other sectors, even though the narrow issue of cancellation of fixed term products isn't one of them.  Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I'm thinking of (industry-funded) FSCS and FOS, chargeback schemes, APP scam reimbursement code, and even the requirement to use a standardised summary box format, but I'm sure there are plenty of others for anyone minded to go through the exercise more thoroughly....

Thanks,

Yes to argue against myself (in a way but intended to add clarity and offer balance about my opnion) I can see a case for even more punitive cancellation clauses when a consumer wishes to cancel a fixed term arrangement. 

So for example I think that if a person enters a 3 year fix that they wish to break after one year, the penalty might reasonably be limited to all of the interest that they have so far earned.  So that would be 365 days and not 120.  If you wished to cancel 4 years into a 5 year arrangement you might lose all of those 4 years already earned.  But never lose the capital. So this then gives the income to the financial institution but also always offers a consumer the option to have their capital back at the point at which they are considering the option - new products in the market being under consideration - and is also an incentive for the consumer to make a rational choice about their options when considering termination of the contract. In other words "we'll give you your money back - but you have lost all the interest if you do so".

I'm not suggesting an entirely one sided benefit, but what seems to me to be a fairer relationship,

As mentioned by another poster earlier in the thread, the providers would only agree to this, if they also had the right to dump customers ( with a penalty) where new rates had dropped much lower than the original fixed rate.
If this happened, there would be screams of complaints from customers, saying it was unfair and the rules have to be changed etc 
Back to square one.

A fixed rate is a gamble against future interest rate moves, and like with gambling you can not just cancel the bet when you are losing, and the bookie can not just cancel a bet when it looks like you are going to win.

uk1

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

A perfectly reasonable question and I'm happy to give a view.   

The solution  in my opinion should be the removal of expemption from existing consumer protection laws because I see that the effect of this exemption has had the unintended consequence of what I feel has been exploitation of the exemption to the detriment of consumers so therefore also feel very strongly that in addition should be the added acceptance that financial products need extra (not less)  protections for consumers over and above the laws that already govern buying kettles or matresses for example.

But there are already significant consumer protections available within the regulated financial services industry that don't apply in other sectors, even though the narrow issue of cancellation of fixed term products isn't one of them.  Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I'm thinking of (industry-funded) FSCS and FOS, chargeback schemes, APP scam reimbursement code, and even the requirement to use a standardised summary box format, but I'm sure there are plenty of others for anyone minded to go through the exercise more thoroughly....

Thanks,

Yes to argue against myself (in a way but intended to add clarity and offer balance about my opnion) I can see a case for even more punitive cancellation clauses when a consumer wishes to cancel a fixed term arrangement. 

So for example I think that if a person enters a 3 year fix that they wish to break after one year, the penalty might reasonably be limited to all of the interest that they have so far earned.  So that would be 365 days and not 120.  But this then gives the income to the financial institution but also always offers a consumer the option to have their capital back at the point at which they are considering the option - new products in the market being under consideration - and is also an incentive for the consumer to make a rational choice about their options when considering termination of the contract.  I'm not suggesting an entirely one sided benefit, but what seems to me to be a fairer relationship,

I think that there are some products that do implement the 'loss of all accrued interest' model that you refer to, although these would probably be more in the territory of regular savers or limited access accounts, but personally I don't see any of these differently styles as being fundamentally more or less fair than each other.

Without conducting an in-depth study of what's currently available, my understanding and expectation is that fixed term products will already have penalties roughly proportional to the term, i.e. maybe 60/90 days for a one-year fix but six months for a three-year one, and it's only during the initial period of that length that consumers would lose any capital if cancelling prematurely anyway.

However, as pointed out earlier in the thread, the key thing is clarity of communication - some providers do make it clear that capital can be lost if cancelling too early on, but it wouldn't do any harm to have that fact mandated....

My starting point for this was that I purchased a fixed term savings account for myself and then bought the same account for my wife once I'd struggled through the hoops of setting her up a few weeks later. Her rate was higher than mine.  OK I thought. I then wanted to have that account for myself and was told that I'd lose 120 days.  I consider myself to be pretty savvy but to me the term "interest" mean an amount I earn for tthe depost I have made.  It didn't mean the loss of my capital. 

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

A perfectly reasonable question and I'm happy to give a view.   

The solution  in my opinion should be the removal of expemption from existing consumer protection laws because I see that the effect of this exemption has had the unintended consequence of what I feel has been exploitation of the exemption to the detriment of consumers so therefore also feel very strongly that in addition should be the added acceptance that financial products need extra (not less)  protections for consumers over and above the laws that already govern buying kettles or matresses for example.

But there are already significant consumer protections available within the regulated financial services industry that don't apply in other sectors, even though the narrow issue of cancellation of fixed term products isn't one of them.  Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I'm thinking of (industry-funded) FSCS and FOS, chargeback schemes, APP scam reimbursement code, and even the requirement to use a standardised summary box format, but I'm sure there are plenty of others for anyone minded to go through the exercise more thoroughly....

Thanks,

Yes to argue against myself (in a way but intended to add clarity and offer balance about my opnion) I can see a case for even more punitive cancellation clauses when a consumer wishes to cancel a fixed term arrangement. 

So for example I think that if a person enters a 3 year fix that they wish to break after one year, the penalty might reasonably be limited to all of the interest that they have so far earned.  So that would be 365 days and not 120.  But this then gives the income to the financial institution but also always offers a consumer the option to have their capital back at the point at which they are considering the option - new products in the market being under consideration - and is also an incentive for the consumer to make a rational choice about their options when considering termination of the contract.  I'm not suggesting an entirely one sided benefit, but what seems to me to be a fairer relationship,

I think that there are some products that do implement the 'loss of all accrued interest' model that you refer to, although these would probably be more in the territory of regular savers or limited access accounts, but personally I don't see any of these differently styles as being fundamentally more or less fair than each other.

Without conducting an in-depth study of what's currently available, my understanding and expectation is that fixed term products will already have penalties roughly proportional to the term, i.e. maybe 60/90 days for a one-year fix but six months for a three-year one, and it's only during the initial period of that length that consumers would lose any capital if cancelling prematurely anyway.

However, as pointed out earlier in the thread, the key thing is clarity of communication - some providers do make it clear that capital can be lost if cancelling too early on, but it wouldn't do any harm to have that fact mandated....

I think we agree that the clarity is the first issue and then the remedy is the second one.  If clarity is lacking you needn't move to the the second one.

uk1

Albermarle said:

uk1 said:

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

A perfectly reasonable question and I'm happy to give a view.   

The solution  in my opinion should be the removal of expemption from existing consumer protection laws because I see that the effect of this exemption has had the unintended consequence of what I feel has been exploitation of the exemption to the detriment of consumers so therefore also feel very strongly that in addition should be the added acceptance that financial products need extra (not less)  protections for consumers over and above the laws that already govern buying kettles or matresses for example.

But there are already significant consumer protections available within the regulated financial services industry that don't apply in other sectors, even though the narrow issue of cancellation of fixed term products isn't one of them.  Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I'm thinking of (industry-funded) FSCS and FOS, chargeback schemes, APP scam reimbursement code, and even the requirement to use a standardised summary box format, but I'm sure there are plenty of others for anyone minded to go through the exercise more thoroughly....

Thanks,

Yes to argue against myself (in a way but intended to add clarity and offer balance about my opnion) I can see a case for even more punitive cancellation clauses when a consumer wishes to cancel a fixed term arrangement. 

So for example I think that if a person enters a 3 year fix that they wish to break after one year, the penalty might reasonably be limited to all of the interest that they have so far earned.  So that would be 365 days and not 120.  If you wished to cancel 4 years into a 5 year arrangement you might lose all of those 4 years already earned.  But never lose the capital. So this then gives the income to the financial institution but also always offers a consumer the option to have their capital back at the point at which they are considering the option - new products in the market being under consideration - and is also an incentive for the consumer to make a rational choice about their options when considering termination of the contract. In other words "we'll give you your money back - but you have lost all the interest if you do so".

I'm not suggesting an entirely one sided benefit, but what seems to me to be a fairer relationship,

As mentioned by another poster earlier in the thread, the providers would only agree to this, if they also had the right to dump customers ( with a penalty) where new rates had dropped much lower than the original fixed rate.
If this happened, there would be screams of complaints from customers, saying it was unfair and the rules have to be changed etc 
Back to square one.

A fixed rate is a gamble against future interest rate moves, and like with gambling you can not just cancel the bet when you are losing, and the bookie can not just cancel a bet when it looks like you are going to win.

You do not seem to have grasped that turkeys never vote for Christmas and providers do not make consumer protection laws.

masonic

uk1 said:

Albermarle said:

uk1 said:

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

A perfectly reasonable question and I'm happy to give a view.   

The solution  in my opinion should be the removal of expemption from existing consumer protection laws because I see that the effect of this exemption has had the unintended consequence of what I feel has been exploitation of the exemption to the detriment of consumers so therefore also feel very strongly that in addition should be the added acceptance that financial products need extra (not less)  protections for consumers over and above the laws that already govern buying kettles or matresses for example.

But there are already significant consumer protections available within the regulated financial services industry that don't apply in other sectors, even though the narrow issue of cancellation of fixed term products isn't one of them.  Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I'm thinking of (industry-funded) FSCS and FOS, chargeback schemes, APP scam reimbursement code, and even the requirement to use a standardised summary box format, but I'm sure there are plenty of others for anyone minded to go through the exercise more thoroughly....

Thanks,

Yes to argue against myself (in a way but intended to add clarity and offer balance about my opnion) I can see a case for even more punitive cancellation clauses when a consumer wishes to cancel a fixed term arrangement. 

So for example I think that if a person enters a 3 year fix that they wish to break after one year, the penalty might reasonably be limited to all of the interest that they have so far earned.  So that would be 365 days and not 120.  If you wished to cancel 4 years into a 5 year arrangement you might lose all of those 4 years already earned.  But never lose the capital. So this then gives the income to the financial institution but also always offers a consumer the option to have their capital back at the point at which they are considering the option - new products in the market being under consideration - and is also an incentive for the consumer to make a rational choice about their options when considering termination of the contract. In other words "we'll give you your money back - but you have lost all the interest if you do so".

I'm not suggesting an entirely one sided benefit, but what seems to me to be a fairer relationship,

As mentioned by another poster earlier in the thread, the providers would only agree to this, if they also had the right to dump customers ( with a penalty) where new rates had dropped much lower than the original fixed rate.
If this happened, there would be screams of complaints from customers, saying it was unfair and the rules have to be changed etc 
Back to square one.

A fixed rate is a gamble against future interest rate moves, and like with gambling you can not just cancel the bet when you are losing, and the bookie can not just cancel a bet when it looks like you are going to win.

You do not seem to have grasped that turkeys never vote for Christmas and providers do not make consumer protection laws.

That may be the case, but they do have a great deal of lobbying power. Think back to the bank charges wars of ~2006-2008. Ultimately, consumer protection laws haven't, I believe, forced any business to offer a product that is no longer economically viable for them.

uk1

masonic said:

uk1 said:

Albermarle said:

uk1 said:

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

A perfectly reasonable question and I'm happy to give a view.   

The solution  in my opinion should be the removal of expemption from existing consumer protection laws because I see that the effect of this exemption has had the unintended consequence of what I feel has been exploitation of the exemption to the detriment of consumers so therefore also feel very strongly that in addition should be the added acceptance that financial products need extra (not less)  protections for consumers over and above the laws that already govern buying kettles or matresses for example.

But there are already significant consumer protections available within the regulated financial services industry that don't apply in other sectors, even though the narrow issue of cancellation of fixed term products isn't one of them.  Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I'm thinking of (industry-funded) FSCS and FOS, chargeback schemes, APP scam reimbursement code, and even the requirement to use a standardised summary box format, but I'm sure there are plenty of others for anyone minded to go through the exercise more thoroughly....

Thanks,

Yes to argue against myself (in a way but intended to add clarity and offer balance about my opnion) I can see a case for even more punitive cancellation clauses when a consumer wishes to cancel a fixed term arrangement. 

So for example I think that if a person enters a 3 year fix that they wish to break after one year, the penalty might reasonably be limited to all of the interest that they have so far earned.  So that would be 365 days and not 120.  If you wished to cancel 4 years into a 5 year arrangement you might lose all of those 4 years already earned.  But never lose the capital. So this then gives the income to the financial institution but also always offers a consumer the option to have their capital back at the point at which they are considering the option - new products in the market being under consideration - and is also an incentive for the consumer to make a rational choice about their options when considering termination of the contract. In other words "we'll give you your money back - but you have lost all the interest if you do so".

I'm not suggesting an entirely one sided benefit, but what seems to me to be a fairer relationship,

As mentioned by another poster earlier in the thread, the providers would only agree to this, if they also had the right to dump customers ( with a penalty) where new rates had dropped much lower than the original fixed rate.
If this happened, there would be screams of complaints from customers, saying it was unfair and the rules have to be changed etc 
Back to square one.

A fixed rate is a gamble against future interest rate moves, and like with gambling you can not just cancel the bet when you are losing, and the bookie can not just cancel a bet when it looks like you are going to win.

You do not seem to have grasped that turkeys never vote for Christmas and providers do not make consumer protection laws.

That may be the case, but they do have a great deal of lobbying power. Think back to the bank charges wars of ~2006-2008.

I completely agree but everything seems to changed in around 2015 or so ie consumer laws and before.

Things never happen quickly but the general trajectory is certainly towards greater consumer bias rather than against and there has also been a tremendous backlash since 2006-2008 about the finance industry generally ie no one suffered in the industry from the financial system collapse - in fact I think the common perception is that they all made even more money - but all of us paid and the havoc that has been caused to all our lives since.  

It seems to me that there is very little political sentiment in their favour imho. I think the consumer who is after all the holder of the vote is increasingly likely to prevail. 

masonic

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

Albermarle said:

uk1 said:

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

A perfectly reasonable question and I'm happy to give a view.   

The solution  in my opinion should be the removal of expemption from existing consumer protection laws because I see that the effect of this exemption has had the unintended consequence of what I feel has been exploitation of the exemption to the detriment of consumers so therefore also feel very strongly that in addition should be the added acceptance that financial products need extra (not less)  protections for consumers over and above the laws that already govern buying kettles or matresses for example.

But there are already significant consumer protections available within the regulated financial services industry that don't apply in other sectors, even though the narrow issue of cancellation of fixed term products isn't one of them.  Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I'm thinking of (industry-funded) FSCS and FOS, chargeback schemes, APP scam reimbursement code, and even the requirement to use a standardised summary box format, but I'm sure there are plenty of others for anyone minded to go through the exercise more thoroughly....

Thanks,

Yes to argue against myself (in a way but intended to add clarity and offer balance about my opnion) I can see a case for even more punitive cancellation clauses when a consumer wishes to cancel a fixed term arrangement. 

So for example I think that if a person enters a 3 year fix that they wish to break after one year, the penalty might reasonably be limited to all of the interest that they have so far earned.  So that would be 365 days and not 120.  If you wished to cancel 4 years into a 5 year arrangement you might lose all of those 4 years already earned.  But never lose the capital. So this then gives the income to the financial institution but also always offers a consumer the option to have their capital back at the point at which they are considering the option - new products in the market being under consideration - and is also an incentive for the consumer to make a rational choice about their options when considering termination of the contract. In other words "we'll give you your money back - but you have lost all the interest if you do so".

I'm not suggesting an entirely one sided benefit, but what seems to me to be a fairer relationship,

As mentioned by another poster earlier in the thread, the providers would only agree to this, if they also had the right to dump customers ( with a penalty) where new rates had dropped much lower than the original fixed rate.
If this happened, there would be screams of complaints from customers, saying it was unfair and the rules have to be changed etc 
Back to square one.

A fixed rate is a gamble against future interest rate moves, and like with gambling you can not just cancel the bet when you are losing, and the bookie can not just cancel a bet when it looks like you are going to win.

You do not seem to have grasped that turkeys never vote for Christmas and providers do not make consumer protection laws.

That may be the case, but they do have a great deal of lobbying power. Think back to the bank charges wars of ~2006-2008.

I completely agree but everything seems to changed in around 2015 or so.  

Things never happen quickly but the general trajectory is certainly towards greater consumer bias rather than against and there has also been a tremendous backlash since 2006-2008 about the finance industry generally ie no one suffered in the industry from the financial system collapse but all of us paid and the havoc that has been caused to all our lives since.  There is very little political sentiment in their favour imho. I think the consumer who is after all the holder of the vote is increasingly likely to prevail. 

Speaking as a consumer, my vote is against your campaign, as I would like the best rates on my savings. I don't want banks being forced to offer watered down "fixed" accounts at lower rates. I, along with many others, am capable of making a decision to lock my money away without access for a period of time in exchange for a higher rate. People without the capacity to do that already have notice or easy access accounts. You'd be looking at pretty much halving the fixed rates on offer today if they had to permit cancellation at any time. This would be detrimental to the consumer and limit their choice. It would also limit competition and innovation in the market. Many new savings banks simply do not have the capacity to let people walk away with money previously committed for a term at any time.

Regarding political sentiment in their favour, it would be support from the government that would be most relevant. Exhibit A would be the lifting of the cap on bankers' bonuses.

uk1

masonic said:

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

Albermarle said:

uk1 said:

eskbanker said:

uk1 said:

A perfectly reasonable question and I'm happy to give a view.   

The solution  in my opinion should be the removal of expemption from existing consumer protection laws because I see that the effect of this exemption has had the unintended consequence of what I feel has been exploitation of the exemption to the detriment of consumers so therefore also feel very strongly that in addition should be the added acceptance that financial products need extra (not less)  protections for consumers over and above the laws that already govern buying kettles or matresses for example.

But there are already significant consumer protections available within the regulated financial services industry that don't apply in other sectors, even though the narrow issue of cancellation of fixed term products isn't one of them.  Off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I'm thinking of (industry-funded) FSCS and FOS, chargeback schemes, APP scam reimbursement code, and even the requirement to use a standardised summary box format, but I'm sure there are plenty of others for anyone minded to go through the exercise more thoroughly....

Thanks,

Yes to argue against myself (in a way but intended to add clarity and offer balance about my opnion) I can see a case for even more punitive cancellation clauses when a consumer wishes to cancel a fixed term arrangement. 

So for example I think that if a person enters a 3 year fix that they wish to break after one year, the penalty might reasonably be limited to all of the interest that they have so far earned.  So that would be 365 days and not 120.  If you wished to cancel 4 years into a 5 year arrangement you might lose all of those 4 years already earned.  But never lose the capital. So this then gives the income to the financial institution but also always offers a consumer the option to have their capital back at the point at which they are considering the option - new products in the market being under consideration - and is also an incentive for the consumer to make a rational choice about their options when considering termination of the contract. In other words "we'll give you your money back - but you have lost all the interest if you do so".

I'm not suggesting an entirely one sided benefit, but what seems to me to be a fairer relationship,

As mentioned by another poster earlier in the thread, the providers would only agree to this, if they also had the right to dump customers ( with a penalty) where new rates had dropped much lower than the original fixed rate.
If this happened, there would be screams of complaints from customers, saying it was unfair and the rules have to be changed etc 
Back to square one.

A fixed rate is a gamble against future interest rate moves, and like with gambling you can not just cancel the bet when you are losing, and the bookie can not just cancel a bet when it looks like you are going to win.

You do not seem to have grasped that turkeys never vote for Christmas and providers do not make consumer protection laws.

That may be the case, but they do have a great deal of lobbying power. Think back to the bank charges wars of ~2006-2008.

I completely agree but everything seems to changed in around 2015 or so.  

Things never happen quickly but the general trajectory is certainly towards greater consumer bias rather than against and there has also been a tremendous backlash since 2006-2008 about the finance industry generally ie no one suffered in the industry from the financial system collapse but all of us paid and the havoc that has been caused to all our lives since.  There is very little political sentiment in their favour imho. I think the consumer who is after all the holder of the vote is increasingly likely to prevail. 

Speaking as a consumer, my vote is against your campaign, as I would like the best rates on my savings. I don't want banks being forced to offer watered down "fixed" accounts at lower rates. I, along with many others, am capable of making a decision to lock my money away without access for a period of time in exchange for a higher rate. People without the capacity to do that already have notice or easy access accounts. You'd be looking at pretty much halving the fixed rates on offer today if they had to permit cancellation at any time. This would be detrimental to the consumer and limit their choice. It would also limit competition and innovation in the market.

I share your aspiration but disgaree with your idea of the likely consequence. 

Ther outcome of all consumer protection enhancements has imho always been an improvement for consumers.  Just because you cannot currently visualise the consequence doesn't imply certainty. I believe that what will almost certainly emerge is less lazy financial corporations with more nimble customer orientated offereings and a reduction of fat in the industry.  That is what has happened in other industries that have had to deal with increase consumer benefits.

I do believe the topic had now run greater than it's life so happy to leave it where it is,

EDITED:  I’m responding to your later changes to your post.  I feel your pessimism is unfounded. 

What will always prevail is that consumers will buy the best products for their perceived needs.  There will always be consumers and there will always be providers.  Providers will always prosper or fail as a consequence of what they offer to consumers at that moment.  Neither consumers or the finance industry will disappear.  But consumer organisation will always improve if they are forced to do so by whatever is the combination of consumer rights that prevail and the competitive market at any given time imho.