HSBC Regular Saver - Changing SO to 1st

masonic

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

My point wasn't to disprove any existence of the 'no' answer, merely that I hadn't personally seen it, and that regardless, it shouldn't discourage others now from adjusting their monthly deposit schedule if they felt so inclined; the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest, yet there have been more recent reports of additional interest being received.

Is that really the worst that could happen, though? Is there not a risk that at any time they could start enforcing the following term? I realise this is a discussion 'beyond the T&C', but I think we have to appreciate there is a risk associated with not complying with the T&C if there is already precedent for the banks changing their behaviour regarding this.

What precedent? If they ever did start enforcing those particular terms with punitive measures, then the facts would change, but for now, no one has ever reported negative consequences arising from changing SO dates, an act which customer service agents themselves have been happy to carry out upon customer request, bypassing "you can't change the date".

From my understanding of First Direct's RS, those terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are also generic and fail to account for all possibilities causing internal contradictions. When the account is opened, a SO is created by First Direct and scheduled automatically for "the same day you opened your Regular Saver or the next working day". As mentioned previously, a SO scheduled for the end of the month (30th or 31st) will skip February and cause two payments to fall in March, which contravenes both "You must pay into the account every month" as well as "You can only make one payment to your Regular Saver each month".

The precedent for them changing their behaviour is Section62 and others' experience of not receiving any extra interest vs more recent posts to the contrary. This demonstrates their approach may change over time and there can be no certainty that they will not enforce the T&Cs more strictly in the future. Had the treatment been consistent, then the argument would have been somewhat more compelling. The clippings above came from the T&C documents of the two banks. They use the terms "must" and "need to", which cannot reasonably be interpreted as optional. In my view, difficulties around the month of February does not render these terms unenforceable.

You may be confident in your opinion of the worse case scenario, but you cannot be certain or make any guarantees.

I never said they can't be enforced; they simply are not. If the facts change, then they change. I am certainly not making guarantees to anyone. This is a forum where there is often discussion regarding what happens in practice beyond T&Cs.

My only objection was your statement that "the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest". I take the above to mean you no longer stand behind this as a statement of fact.

AmityNeon

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

My point wasn't to disprove any existence of the 'no' answer, merely that I hadn't personally seen it, and that regardless, it shouldn't discourage others now from adjusting their monthly deposit schedule if they felt so inclined; the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest, yet there have been more recent reports of additional interest being received.

Is that really the worst that could happen, though? Is there not a risk that at any time they could start enforcing the following term? I realise this is a discussion 'beyond the T&C', but I think we have to appreciate there is a risk associated with not complying with the T&C if there is already precedent for the banks changing their behaviour regarding this.

What precedent? If they ever did start enforcing those particular terms with punitive measures, then the facts would change, but for now, no one has ever reported negative consequences arising from changing SO dates, an act which customer service agents themselves have been happy to carry out upon customer request, bypassing "you can't change the date".

From my understanding of First Direct's RS, those terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are also generic and fail to account for all possibilities causing internal contradictions. When the account is opened, a SO is created by First Direct and scheduled automatically for "the same day you opened your Regular Saver or the next working day". As mentioned previously, a SO scheduled for the end of the month (30th or 31st) will skip February and cause two payments to fall in March, which contravenes both "You must pay into the account every month" as well as "You can only make one payment to your Regular Saver each month".

The precedent for them changing their behaviour is Section62 and others' experience of not receiving any extra interest vs more recent posts to the contrary. This demonstrates their approach may change over time and there can be no certainty that they will not enforce the T&Cs more strictly in the future. Had the treatment been consistent, then the argument would have been somewhat more compelling. The clippings above came from the T&C documents of the two banks. They use the terms "must" and "need to", which cannot reasonably be interpreted as optional. In my view, difficulties around the month of February does not render these terms unenforceable.

You may be confident in your opinion of the worse case scenario, but you cannot be certain or make any guarantees.

I never said they can't be enforced; they simply are not. If the facts change, then they change. I am certainly not making guarantees to anyone. This is a forum where there is often discussion regarding what happens in practice beyond T&Cs.

My only objection was your statement that "the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest". I take the above to mean you no longer stand behind this as a statement of fact.

I stand behind it for any individual case where a Regular Saver has been opened under the current T&Cs. If the facts change, then they change.

masonic

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

My point wasn't to disprove any existence of the 'no' answer, merely that I hadn't personally seen it, and that regardless, it shouldn't discourage others now from adjusting their monthly deposit schedule if they felt so inclined; the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest, yet there have been more recent reports of additional interest being received.

Is that really the worst that could happen, though? Is there not a risk that at any time they could start enforcing the following term? I realise this is a discussion 'beyond the T&C', but I think we have to appreciate there is a risk associated with not complying with the T&C if there is already precedent for the banks changing their behaviour regarding this.

What precedent? If they ever did start enforcing those particular terms with punitive measures, then the facts would change, but for now, no one has ever reported negative consequences arising from changing SO dates, an act which customer service agents themselves have been happy to carry out upon customer request, bypassing "you can't change the date".

From my understanding of First Direct's RS, those terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are also generic and fail to account for all possibilities causing internal contradictions. When the account is opened, a SO is created by First Direct and scheduled automatically for "the same day you opened your Regular Saver or the next working day". As mentioned previously, a SO scheduled for the end of the month (30th or 31st) will skip February and cause two payments to fall in March, which contravenes both "You must pay into the account every month" as well as "You can only make one payment to your Regular Saver each month".

The precedent for them changing their behaviour is Section62 and others' experience of not receiving any extra interest vs more recent posts to the contrary. This demonstrates their approach may change over time and there can be no certainty that they will not enforce the T&Cs more strictly in the future. Had the treatment been consistent, then the argument would have been somewhat more compelling. The clippings above came from the T&C documents of the two banks. They use the terms "must" and "need to", which cannot reasonably be interpreted as optional. In my view, difficulties around the month of February does not render these terms unenforceable.

You may be confident in your opinion of the worse case scenario, but you cannot be certain or make any guarantees.

I never said they can't be enforced; they simply are not. If the facts change, then they change. I am certainly not making guarantees to anyone. This is a forum where there is often discussion regarding what happens in practice beyond T&Cs.

My only objection was your statement that "the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest". I take the above to mean you no longer stand behind this as a statement of fact.

I stand behind it for any individual case where a Regular Saver has been opened under the current T&Cs. If the facts change, then they change.

The current T&Cs, which you've acknowledged could be enforced, do not permit the standing order payment day to be changed. So it is not true under the current T&Cs.

I don't want to speculate on what FD or HSBC would do if they started enforcing the terms, but an example of something they could do is to bounce a standing order set up for the wrong day in the same way they bounce a manual payment into the regular saver. This would result in an individual having to wait for the next monthversary to make a valid payment and potentially result in them earning less interest than if they had not made any changes. This is just one example of a worse case and may not be the worst case scanario.

AmityNeon

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

My point wasn't to disprove any existence of the 'no' answer, merely that I hadn't personally seen it, and that regardless, it shouldn't discourage others now from adjusting their monthly deposit schedule if they felt so inclined; the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest, yet there have been more recent reports of additional interest being received.

Is that really the worst that could happen, though? Is there not a risk that at any time they could start enforcing the following term? I realise this is a discussion 'beyond the T&C', but I think we have to appreciate there is a risk associated with not complying with the T&C if there is already precedent for the banks changing their behaviour regarding this.

What precedent? If they ever did start enforcing those particular terms with punitive measures, then the facts would change, but for now, no one has ever reported negative consequences arising from changing SO dates, an act which customer service agents themselves have been happy to carry out upon customer request, bypassing "you can't change the date".

From my understanding of First Direct's RS, those terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are also generic and fail to account for all possibilities causing internal contradictions. When the account is opened, a SO is created by First Direct and scheduled automatically for "the same day you opened your Regular Saver or the next working day". As mentioned previously, a SO scheduled for the end of the month (30th or 31st) will skip February and cause two payments to fall in March, which contravenes both "You must pay into the account every month" as well as "You can only make one payment to your Regular Saver each month".

The precedent for them changing their behaviour is Section62 and others' experience of not receiving any extra interest vs more recent posts to the contrary. This demonstrates their approach may change over time and there can be no certainty that they will not enforce the T&Cs more strictly in the future. Had the treatment been consistent, then the argument would have been somewhat more compelling. The clippings above came from the T&C documents of the two banks. They use the terms "must" and "need to", which cannot reasonably be interpreted as optional. In my view, difficulties around the month of February does not render these terms unenforceable.

You may be confident in your opinion of the worse case scenario, but you cannot be certain or make any guarantees./p>

I never said they can't be enforced; they simply are not. If the facts change, then they change. I am certainly not making guarantees to anyone. This is a forum where there is often discussion regarding what happens in practice beyond T&Cs.

My only objection was your statement that "the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest". I take the above to mean you no longer stand behind this as a statement of fact.

I stand behind it for any individual case where a Regular Saver has been opened under the current T&Cs. If the facts change, then they change.

The current T&Cs, which you've acknowledged could be enforced, do not permit the standing order payment day to be changed. So it is not true under the current T&Cs.

I don't want to speculate on what FD or HSBC would do if they started enforcing the terms, but an example of something they could do is to bounce a standing order set up for the wrong day in the same way they bounce a manual payment into the regular saver. This would result in an individual having to wait for the next monthversary to make a valid payment and potentially result in them earning less interest than if they had not made any changes. This is just one example of a worse case and may not be the worst case scanario.

This is highly speculative. If they did start strictly enforcing the current T&Cs as per your hypothetical, a customer being forced to wait for the next monthly anniversary would potentially breach the term requiring one standing order payment per month. If the customer's bounced payment occurred prior to the account's monthly anniversary, the next valid payment date would fall in line accordingly.

Do you have another example that's worse? The terms in their current form are generically descriptive so I'm more than willing to entertain a possiblity of enforcement causing a detriment that couldn't be easily challenged via a complaint if necessary.

intalex

I can confirm I managed to make the May-23 monthly deposit into my HSBC Regular Saver today via a manual transfer from my HSBC current account, and nothing has so far bounced back. Next 10 months should be via Standing Order, and I will try adding one more manual payment on 1st April 2024 (or increment standing order by 1 cycle) and see what happens...

As for First Direct, I'll stick to the set monthiversary cycles as clearly they've implemented some controls to avoid the date optimisation and so the message is quite clear that they don't want customers doing this, so I won't...

If they really wanted to avoid paying out extra interest from date optimisation / 13th payment, one way to do so may be for them to cap the interest (paid out once at maturity) to the maximum possible based on 12 monthiversary max allowed deposits (even ignoring bank holidays).

masonic

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

My point wasn't to disprove any existence of the 'no' answer, merely that I hadn't personally seen it, and that regardless, it shouldn't discourage others now from adjusting their monthly deposit schedule if they felt so inclined; the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest, yet there have been more recent reports of additional interest being received.

Is that really the worst that could happen, though? Is there not a risk that at any time they could start enforcing the following term? I realise this is a discussion 'beyond the T&C', but I think we have to appreciate there is a risk associated with not complying with the T&C if there is already precedent for the banks changing their behaviour regarding this.

What precedent? If they ever did start enforcing those particular terms with punitive measures, then the facts would change, but for now, no one has ever reported negative consequences arising from changing SO dates, an act which customer service agents themselves have been happy to carry out upon customer request, bypassing "you can't change the date".

From my understanding of First Direct's RS, those terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are also generic and fail to account for all possibilities causing internal contradictions. When the account is opened, a SO is created by First Direct and scheduled automatically for "the same day you opened your Regular Saver or the next working day". As mentioned previously, a SO scheduled for the end of the month (30th or 31st) will skip February and cause two payments to fall in March, which contravenes both "You must pay into the account every month" as well as "You can only make one payment to your Regular Saver each month".

The precedent for them changing their behaviour is Section62 and others' experience of not receiving any extra interest vs more recent posts to the contrary. This demonstrates their approach may change over time and there can be no certainty that they will not enforce the T&Cs more strictly in the future. Had the treatment been consistent, then the argument would have been somewhat more compelling. The clippings above came from the T&C documents of the two banks. They use the terms "must" and "need to", which cannot reasonably be interpreted as optional. In my view, difficulties around the month of February does not render these terms unenforceable.

You may be confident in your opinion of the worse case scenario, but you cannot be certain or make any guarantees./p>

I never said they can't be enforced; they simply are not. If the facts change, then they change. I am certainly not making guarantees to anyone. This is a forum where there is often discussion regarding what happens in practice beyond T&Cs.

My only objection was your statement that "the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest". I take the above to mean you no longer stand behind this as a statement of fact.

I stand behind it for any individual case where a Regular Saver has been opened under the current T&Cs. If the facts change, then they change.

The current T&Cs, which you've acknowledged could be enforced, do not permit the standing order payment day to be changed. So it is not true under the current T&Cs.

I don't want to speculate on what FD or HSBC would do if they started enforcing the terms, but an example of something they could do is to bounce a standing order set up for the wrong day in the same way they bounce a manual payment into the regular saver. This would result in an individual having to wait for the next monthversary to make a valid payment and potentially result in them earning less interest than if they had not made any changes. This is just one example of a worse case and may not be the worst case scanario.

This is highly speculative.

Which is why I was reluctant to speculate in the first place. The fact is, nobody can predict the consequences of breaching the T&Cs if they resume being enforced. They were enforced in one manner in the past, it appears they stopped being enforced in this manner recently, and may be enforced again in a different manner at any time. Nobody can make assertions about the worst case scenario given the information we have available today.

isasmurf

I do remember a thread on here where someone did post with figures their experience of changing the payment date for a hsbc RS and that the interest they were paid was the same as what they would have got had they not changed the payment date. That was 5 or 6 years ago though, so may not be relevant to what happens today. 

AmityNeon

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

My point wasn't to disprove any existence of the 'no' answer, merely that I hadn't personally seen it, and that regardless, it shouldn't discourage others now from adjusting their monthly deposit schedule if they felt so inclined; the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest, yet there have been more recent reports of additional interest being received.

Is that really the worst that could happen, though? Is there not a risk that at any time they could start enforcing the following term? I realise this is a discussion 'beyond the T&C', but I think we have to appreciate there is a risk associated with not complying with the T&C if there is already precedent for the banks changing their behaviour regarding this.

What precedent? If they ever did start enforcing those particular terms with punitive measures, then the facts would change, but for now, no one has ever reported negative consequences arising from changing SO dates, an act which customer service agents themselves have been happy to carry out upon customer request, bypassing "you can't change the date".

From my understanding of First Direct's RS, those terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are also generic and fail to account for all possibilities causing internal contradictions. When the account is opened, a SO is created by First Direct and scheduled automatically for "the same day you opened your Regular Saver or the next working day". As mentioned previously, a SO scheduled for the end of the month (30th or 31st) will skip February and cause two payments to fall in March, which contravenes both "You must pay into the account every month" as well as "You can only make one payment to your Regular Saver each month".

The precedent for them changing their behaviour is Section62 and others' experience of not receiving any extra interest vs more recent posts to the contrary. This demonstrates their approach may change over time and there can be no certainty that they will not enforce the T&Cs more strictly in the future. Had the treatment been consistent, then the argument would have been somewhat more compelling. The clippings above came from the T&C documents of the two banks. They use the terms "must" and "need to", which cannot reasonably be interpreted as optional. In my view, difficulties around the month of February does not render these terms unenforceable.

You may be confident in your opinion of the worse case scenario, but you cannot be certain or make any guarantees./p>

I never said they can't be enforced; they simply are not. If the facts change, then they change. I am certainly not making guarantees to anyone. This is a forum where there is often discussion regarding what happens in practice beyond T&Cs.

My only objection was your statement that "the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest". I take the above to mean you no longer stand behind this as a statement of fact.

I stand behind it for any individual case where a Regular Saver has been opened under the current T&Cs. If the facts change, then they change.

The current T&Cs, which you've acknowledged could be enforced, do not permit the standing order payment day to be changed. So it is not true under the current T&Cs.

I don't want to speculate on what FD or HSBC would do if they started enforcing the terms, but an example of something they could do is to bounce a standing order set up for the wrong day in the same way they bounce a manual payment into the regular saver. This would result in an individual having to wait for the next monthversary to make a valid payment and potentially result in them earning less interest than if they had not made any changes. This is just one example of a worse case and may not be the worst case scanario.

This is highly speculative.

Which is why I was reluctant to speculate in the first place. The fact is, nobody can predict the consequences of breaching the T&Cs if they resume being enforced, so nobody can make assertions about the worst case scenario.

I'm basing my assertions on the account's T&Cs and the reported experiences of others as well as my own. I'm more than willing to entertain any conceivable scenario in which the strict enforcement of T&Cs causing an interest detriment cannot be realistically rectified via a complaint or goodwill gesture. The T&Cs, strictly speaking, breach themselves because they are generically descriptive.

masonic

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

My point wasn't to disprove any existence of the 'no' answer, merely that I hadn't personally seen it, and that regardless, it shouldn't discourage others now from adjusting their monthly deposit schedule if they felt so inclined; the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest, yet there have been more recent reports of additional interest being received.

Is that really the worst that could happen, though? Is there not a risk that at any time they could start enforcing the following term? I realise this is a discussion 'beyond the T&C', but I think we have to appreciate there is a risk associated with not complying with the T&C if there is already precedent for the banks changing their behaviour regarding this.

What precedent? If they ever did start enforcing those particular terms with punitive measures, then the facts would change, but for now, no one has ever reported negative consequences arising from changing SO dates, an act which customer service agents themselves have been happy to carry out upon customer request, bypassing "you can't change the date".

From my understanding of First Direct's RS, those terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are also generic and fail to account for all possibilities causing internal contradictions. When the account is opened, a SO is created by First Direct and scheduled automatically for "the same day you opened your Regular Saver or the next working day". As mentioned previously, a SO scheduled for the end of the month (30th or 31st) will skip February and cause two payments to fall in March, which contravenes both "You must pay into the account every month" as well as "You can only make one payment to your Regular Saver each month".

The precedent for them changing their behaviour is Section62 and others' experience of not receiving any extra interest vs more recent posts to the contrary. This demonstrates their approach may change over time and there can be no certainty that they will not enforce the T&Cs more strictly in the future. Had the treatment been consistent, then the argument would have been somewhat more compelling. The clippings above came from the T&C documents of the two banks. They use the terms "must" and "need to", which cannot reasonably be interpreted as optional. In my view, difficulties around the month of February does not render these terms unenforceable.

You may be confident in your opinion of the worse case scenario, but you cannot be certain or make any guarantees./p>

I never said they can't be enforced; they simply are not. If the facts change, then they change. I am certainly not making guarantees to anyone. This is a forum where there is often discussion regarding what happens in practice beyond T&Cs.

My only objection was your statement that "the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest". I take the above to mean you no longer stand behind this as a statement of fact.

I stand behind it for any individual case where a Regular Saver has been opened under the current T&Cs. If the facts change, then they change.

The current T&Cs, which you've acknowledged could be enforced, do not permit the standing order payment day to be changed. So it is not true under the current T&Cs.

I don't want to speculate on what FD or HSBC would do if they started enforcing the terms, but an example of something they could do is to bounce a standing order set up for the wrong day in the same way they bounce a manual payment into the regular saver. This would result in an individual having to wait for the next monthversary to make a valid payment and potentially result in them earning less interest than if they had not made any changes. This is just one example of a worse case and may not be the worst case scanario.

This is highly speculative.

Which is why I was reluctant to speculate in the first place. The fact is, nobody can predict the consequences of breaching the T&Cs if they resume being enforced, so nobody can make assertions about the worst case scenario.

I'm basing my assertions on the account's T&Cs and the reported experiences of others as well as my own. I'm more than willing to entertain any conceivable scenario in which the strict enforcement of T&Cs causing an interest detriment cannot be realistically rectified via a complaint or goodwill gesture. The T&Cs, strictly speaking, breach themselves because they are generically descriptive.

It's possible that you are correct, that sufficient effort pursuing a complaint would result in you clawing back any interest detriment. You could even profit from taking such an approach. This stance isn't for everyone, however, and I would be cautious about souring the banking relationship by making frivolous complaints for 'go away' money.

AmityNeon

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

masonic said:

AmityNeon said:

My point wasn't to disprove any existence of the 'no' answer, merely that I hadn't personally seen it, and that regardless, it shouldn't discourage others now from adjusting their monthly deposit schedule if they felt so inclined; the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest, yet there have been more recent reports of additional interest being received.

Is that really the worst that could happen, though? Is there not a risk that at any time they could start enforcing the following term? I realise this is a discussion 'beyond the T&C', but I think we have to appreciate there is a risk associated with not complying with the T&C if there is already precedent for the banks changing their behaviour regarding this.

What precedent? If they ever did start enforcing those particular terms with punitive measures, then the facts would change, but for now, no one has ever reported negative consequences arising from changing SO dates, an act which customer service agents themselves have been happy to carry out upon customer request, bypassing "you can't change the date".

From my understanding of First Direct's RS, those terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are also generic and fail to account for all possibilities causing internal contradictions. When the account is opened, a SO is created by First Direct and scheduled automatically for "the same day you opened your Regular Saver or the next working day". As mentioned previously, a SO scheduled for the end of the month (30th or 31st) will skip February and cause two payments to fall in March, which contravenes both "You must pay into the account every month" as well as "You can only make one payment to your Regular Saver each month".

The precedent for them changing their behaviour is Section62 and others' experience of not receiving any extra interest vs more recent posts to the contrary. This demonstrates their approach may change over time and there can be no certainty that they will not enforce the T&Cs more strictly in the future. Had the treatment been consistent, then the argument would have been somewhat more compelling. The clippings above came from the T&C documents of the two banks. They use the terms "must" and "need to", which cannot reasonably be interpreted as optional. In my view, difficulties around the month of February does not render these terms unenforceable.

You may be confident in your opinion of the worse case scenario, but you cannot be certain or make any guarantees./p>

I never said they can't be enforced; they simply are not. If the facts change, then they change. I am certainly not making guarantees to anyone. This is a forum where there is often discussion regarding what happens in practice beyond T&Cs.

My only objection was your statement that "the worst that could happen is HSBC not paying additional interest". I take the above to mean you no longer stand behind this as a statement of fact.

I stand behind it for any individual case where a Regular Saver has been opened under the current T&Cs. If the facts change, then they change.

The current T&Cs, which you've acknowledged could be enforced, do not permit the standing order payment day to be changed. So it is not true under the current T&Cs.

I don't want to speculate on what FD or HSBC would do if they started enforcing the terms, but an example of something they could do is to bounce a standing order set up for the wrong day in the same way they bounce a manual payment into the regular saver. This would result in an individual having to wait for the next monthversary to make a valid payment and potentially result in them earning less interest than if they had not made any changes. This is just one example of a worse case and may not be the worst case scanario.

This is highly speculative.

Which is why I was reluctant to speculate in the first place. The fact is, nobody can predict the consequences of breaching the T&Cs if they resume being enforced, so nobody can make assertions about the worst case scenario.

I'm basing my assertions on the account's T&Cs and the reported experiences of others as well as my own. I'm more than willing to entertain any conceivable scenario in which the strict enforcement of T&Cs causing an interest detriment cannot be realistically rectified via a complaint or goodwill gesture. The T&Cs, strictly speaking, breach themselves because they are generically descriptive.

It's possible that you are correct, that sufficient effort pursuing a complaint would result in you clawing back any interest detriment. You could even profit from taking such an approach. This stance isn't for everyone, however, and I would be cautious about souring the banking relationship by making frivolous complaints for 'go away' money.

I cannot conceive a scenario where strict enforcement would cause an interest detriment that couldn't be easily rectified because the T&Cs in their current form are generically descriptive and breach themselves. They are simply far too sloppy to be prescriptively enforced, and no one has ever reported an interest detriment below the headline preferential regardless of the various changes throughout the past 6+ years (and probably longer).