Chip have not paid interest, why do Money Saving Expert recommend them?

AmityNeon

Band7 said:

AmityNeon said:

Band7 said:

I have no compulsion of any sort. I just don't understand why, when you have discovered what you deem to be outright deception, you just write about it on a public forum, which does nothing to have such deception stopped at source.

Why should I? Is it my duty to police deceptive business practices? I’ve suffered no financial loss, and after personal investigation possess greater awareness of Chip’s operations, sufficient for me to continue holding my savings with them.

Are you aware of something about myself or my circumstances I am not, to suggest it would be worthwhile for me to take Chip to court?

If you have suffered no financial loss, and have given no reason to believe anyone else would suffer any, where is the “outright deception” that you discovered? 🤷‍♀️

As previously stated, their continued communications directly contradict their programming, and collectively they must know this; this crosses the threshold beyond a mere lack of transparency that some other institutions may happen to practise.

Is this your point of contention? You simply disagree with what constitutes ‘outright deception’? Why do you believe deception requires a victim, or any degree of loss significant to initiate legal proceedings? Are you triggered in any formal context that you feel compelled to challenge my use of regular language? Why do you care to the extent that you would assume to dictate what actions I should have already undertaken?

Band7

It appears that you and I have a very different understanding of what "outright deception" is. To me, it is something rather serious, an intention to mislead a person, something that warrants action to stop it. To you, it seems to be that you might have discovered a mismatch between a program and an FAQ. At worst, I would call this an error, or sloppy. 

RG2015

Band7 said:

It appears that you and I have a very different understanding of what "outright deception" is. To me, it is something rather serious, an intention to mislead a person, something that warrants action to stop it. To you, it seems to be that you might have discovered a mismatch between a program and an FAQ. At worst, I would call this an error, or sloppy. 

Thank you for this explanation.

It just proves how language and understanding can cause such conflict when probably none actually exists.

AmityNeon

Band7 said:

It appears that you and I have a very different understanding of what "outright deception" is. To me, it is something rather serious, an intention to mislead a person, something that warrants action to stop it. To you, it seems to be that you might have discovered a mismatch between a program and an FAQ. At worst, I would call this an error, or sloppy. 

If it was just information in an FAQ or a summary box or buried in terms and conditions, that would be a sloppy mismatch. Instead, it was direct email communication regarding a specific subject, followed months later by fresh communication in the form of an in-app (non-push) notification to directly update customers regarding the same subject.

’Outright deception’ need not be serious. It is outright, because it is plainly unconcealed; it is deception, because it misleads customers into an erroneous understanding regarding interest payments. Having seen through this, I understand its insignificant consequence to me whilst remaining cognisant of Chip’s underhanded practices. Combined with the automatic activation of auto-saving and false advertising of their Prize Savings account, I have no doubt Chip will continue to skirt and push the boundaries of law and ethics. I will always call out bad practice when I see it, but whether I personally care to involve myself in bureaucratic pursuits of legal justice depends on the degree to which I am negatively impacted by those practices.

Band7

Crikey, now we are into underhanded practices and pushing the boundaries of laws and ethics. 

AmityNeon

Band7 said:

Crikey, now we are into underhanded practices and pushing the boundaries of laws and ethics. 

What, are you now contesting that the aforementioned considerations do not constitute underhanded practices that imply a corporate tendency to push the boundaries of law and ethics? Do you have a problem with criticism against an institution with whom you have savings? If not, please do elaborate.

Band7

I am just bored with your repeated attempts to sow doubts in people's minds about CHIP, which is a perfectly good savings account and currently the market leader regarding rate and speed of deposits and withdrawals.

Sure, I also found the auto-saving by default cheeky, and I have said so months ago. But as it is easy to turn it off, I wouldn't call it anything but cheeky. Regarding interest, and previously the bonus, they certainly operate different from other companies but nobody has lost any money so it is purely a matter of understanding how this account works. 

No different in principle to any other financial companies, whom you could no doubt also criticise of similar 'offences' - e.g. First Direct stating you get interest on matured RS balances without making it clear at what rate. Or companies that, like Virgin Money, display the applicable interest rate only online, not in the app. Is that also pushing the boundaries of law?

Accusing a company, without reason, of outright deception and implied "corporate tendency to push the boundaries of law and ethics"  (which law(s), and what ethics, btw?) is knocking at the libel door. But perhaps you are prepared to defend yourself in Court, so I won't appeal any further that you moderate your accusations. 

RG2015

Band7 said:

I am just bored 

We all are Mrs!

Nah, only joking. 

Please continue this riveting exchange, surely worthy of the Oxford Union.

I am just loving the petty bickering over such a minor lapse by a fintech.

Malthusian

I am just bored with your repeated attempts to sow doubts in people's minds about CHIP

If it's any consolation, I found this molehill-building competition very entertaining. "Chip is gonna sue you" lol.

which is a perfectly good savings account and currently the market leader regarding rate and speed of deposits and withdrawals.

True. But it is also from a serial practitioner of false advertising. The end-game with offering market-leading savings accounts is usually to drop the rate at some point and hope at least some of the accountholders have lost their zeal for treasury management and won't bother to remove it. If a bank is using misleading advertising and otherwise not being straight with their customers, it's reasonable to wonder whether this moment might come sooner rather than later. And whether it's worth the hassle of opening an account in order to gain an unknowable amount of extra interest before it does.

To answer the question of "which law", misleading advertising is prohibited by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (and as Chip is a bank, there are FCA regulations in play as well). If Chip's "4x more likely to win" grift wasn't misleading advertising, why did they withdraw it?

AmityNeon

Band7 said:

I am just bored with your repeated attempts to sow doubts in people's minds about CHIP, which is a perfectly good savings account and currently the market leader regarding rate and speed of deposits and withdrawals.

My repeated attempts to sow doubts in people's minds about Chip? Bad practices are not mutually exclusive to good product offerings; none of Chip's flaws diminishes the value of its market-leading Instant Access account. We're already aware of the positives due to heavy cross-media promotion. I am a Chip customer who continues to hold savings in the account, and I have previously stated as such on more than one occasion.

Band7 said:

Regarding interest, and previously the bonus, they certainly operate different from other companies but nobody has lost any money so it is purely a matter of understanding how this account works.

Their continued communications directly contradict what happens in practice, actively misleading customers into an erroneous understanding of how interest is calculated. This is in contrast to the commonly encountered practice of merely lacking transparency, where details may be generic, vague or difficult to ascertain in published documentation. It's also irrelevant whether there is any loss suffered to warrant lodging a complaint.

Band7 said:

Accusing a company, without reason, of outright deception and implied "corporate tendency to push the boundaries of law and ethics" (which law(s), and what ethics, btw?) is knocking at the libel door. But perhaps you are prepared to defend yourself in Court, so I won't appeal any further that you moderate your accusations.

I provided my reasons; you're free to disagree with what constitutes outright deception. Along with automatically activating auto-saving causing unsuspecting customers to unexpectedly enter their overdrafts, of course I consider such practices unethical. Has Chip stopped doing either? False advertising falling under the remit of the ASA may not be enforcement of statutory law, but it is nonetheless against codes of practice to which compliance is expected, especially from a financial institution. Has Chip admitted any fault on their part or demonstrated even an ounce of remorse?

It's also ludicrous for you to suggest you were appealing for me to moderate my accusatory opinions for my own benefit. You were allegedly 'bored' and seemingly took personal affront from the negativity surrounding a company with whom you personally hold a substantial amount of savings, feeling compelled to defend them through tangential deflection by throwing out other names like Barclays, First Direct and Virgin using specious analogies.