HSBC Regular Saver - Changing SO to 1st

Section62

AmityNeon said:

It's a letter to a single customer, of which the quoted paragraph is ambiguous. It's not that I don't trust you personally, but I can only make judgements based on what has been presented. I have little faith in generic statements from bank representatives who simply regurgitate stock information and are often unaware of the nuanced possibilities in practice.

I would agree if the statement had come from a standard CSA, but this was a response to a formal complaint and the complaint handler was aware that the next step could be a referral to FOS.  Do you think complaint handlers would make stuff up, in response to a detailed complaint about the T&C's regarding the SO date, knowing that their (further) inaccurate information would be scrutinised by an ombudsman?

AmityNeon said:

I never said it was difficult, just exceptionally precise considering savings accounts don't operate in this manner. A rate threshold that increments by the maximum monthly deposit amount on the monthly anniversary of the account is an interpretation that cannot possibly be gleaned from the account's (current) marketing materials or published T&Cs.

Except they do.  Or rather the HSBC Preferential Saver was definitely operating that way in 2017 and 2018 (at least)

AmityNeon said:

Anecdotal evidence, with figures, is sufficient. "Proven" in this context means the interest paid does not mathematically correlate with the corresponding balance history at the preferential rate, and we (others) simply trust that the figures/dates provided are truthful.

In which case, as I've provided figures which show the interest paid didn't correlate with what it should have been if paid at 5%, you are now happy it is "Proven" that HSBC weren't paying 5% on deposits made by SO earlier than the 'correct' date?...

AmityNeon said:

What were the deposit dates? Did you manage to adjust the deposit schedule despite the bank's response?

...seems not.  I'm not going to quote all the deposit dates on a public forum for the reason given in my earlier post.  But you can do the maths yourself by assuming the 3rd to 12th monthly payments were made on the 1st.  The actual deposit dates are close enough that it won't significantly affect the calculation.  HSBC agreed to change the SO to the 1st, but warned me that I'd only get 0.05% on each deposit between the date of deposit and the 28th.

Like you are now, I was hoping HSBC's systems in practice wouldn't operate in accordance with the theory. I was wrong.

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.

For someone whose aim isn't to disprove the existence you are seemingly doing a lot of arguing to attempt to do just that.  As wmb194 said upthread, the point is largely moot.  What HSBC did in the past doesn't prove or disprove what they might do now.

This is the real point that anyone should take away from this thread.  Anyone's experience with HSBC's RS account (in the past or present) doesn't prove or disprove whether interest can be earned at the preferential rate on balances paid earlier than the 'correct' SO date.

One or a few posters reporting being paid at 5% doesn't prove that everyone changing their SO to an earlier date will also get the extra money contrary to the T&Cs - from such anecdotal evidence we couldn't say that they didn't get the extra interest as a result of a banking error in their favour, and that other customers doing the same may get a reduced rate or no interest at all.  That's the point, we cannot say for certain that this will work, or not work.

I don't think anyone in the thread is discouraging others from adjusting their SO now.  What is happening is people are giving their experience/knowledge about how HSBC have dealt with this in the past, which acts as balance to the handful of people saying they have earned interest at the higher rate (in some cases without providing the actual figures).

The most important point of all is that things have changed since 2017 or thereabouts.  There is anecdotal evidence banks are being less forgiving towards customers who do things which comply with the T&Cs in law, but not in spirit.  Personally I wouldn't change my HSBC RS SO now because my relationship with HSBC is more important to me than it was in 2017.  If HSBC took umbrage with me for gaming their T&C's and told me to go elsewhere then it would be a lot of hassle for me.

So that's the point - not that people cannot earn a few extra pounds, but rather that changing the SO is not without risk, and HSBC have demonstrated in the past that the can and will apply their T&C's to the letter. 

Aware of that information people can make their own choices.

Section62

AmityNeon said:

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).

Is the BiB true?  Or is it just that your research hasn't been thorough enough?  Would you expect people to routinely report not getting the extra interest (vs those who have), and how many people do you think have tried this to know what happens?

I think your expectation of goodwill is optimistic because the T&C's are probably sufficiently clear for HSBC to reject your complaint and 'win' with FOS.  (see the Co-op switching thread for the approach FOS are currently taking with people gaming offers)

When I complained in 2017 HSBC were adamant their T&C's were sufficiently clear and meant what they said.  The concession they made to me was that I hadn't seen the T&C's before opening the account.  I wouldn't expect to get the same result if I was in exactly the same position today.

intalex

I think the thread has gone a bit overboard on opinion differences, as the OP and hopefully on behalf of those interested in the account, we just need facts with recent anecdotal evidence (ideally with numbers) rather than speculation of what may happen and how the banks might subsequently retaliate, etc...

dealyboy

@AmityNeon as you know I have a high regard for your intellectual rigour. I remember how you pointed out a couple of months ago how moving the FD SO date forward was perfectly possible to achieve extra interest to a theoretical maximum of 11 months @7% on £300, about £19. You are arguing similarly for the same on the HSBC RS, your motivation is admirable.

I think risk benefit applies:-
- some argue moderate risk potentially having the account closed with loss of interest (worst case)
- others argue low risk of potentially making no more interest (worst case) with a high probability of gain

There are still others who prefer to follow the rules, i.e. the T&Cs, whether explicit or implied, simply because they are the rules, and see it as honouring a contract, without a significant incentive to break it.

You pays your money and makes your choice at the end of the day ... and hopefully at the 'end of the day' of the anniversary date you have won.

masonic

Agreed, I wouldn't want anything I've posted in this thread to be construed as ungratefulness towards those who push the boundaries and share their findings. It is only through taking risks that loopholes and workarounds get found.

AmityNeon

Section62 said:

AmityNeon said:

It's a letter to a single customer, of which the quoted paragraph is ambiguous. It's not that I don't trust you personally, but I can only make judgements based on what has been presented. I have little faith in generic statements from bank representatives who simply regurgitate stock information and are often unaware of the nuanced possibilities in practice.

I would agree if the statement had come from a standard CSA, but this was a response to a formal complaint and the complaint handler was aware that the next step could be a referral to FOS. Do you think complaint handlers would make stuff up, in response to a detailed complaint about the T&C's regarding the SO date, knowing that their (further) inaccurate information would be scrutinised by an ombudsman?

I can certainly accept that the letter may have been a definitive answer, but the quoted paragraph (as previously provided) is ambiguous.

Section62 said:

AmityNeon said:

Anecdotal evidence, with figures, is sufficient. "Proven" in this context means the interest paid does not mathematically correlate with the corresponding balance history at the preferential rate, and we (others) simply trust that the figures/dates provided are truthful.

In which case, as I've provided figures which show the interest paid didn't correlate with what it should have been if paid at 5%, you are now happy it is "Proven" that HSBC weren't paying 5% on deposits made by SO earlier than the 'correct' date?...

AmityNeon said:

What were the deposit dates? Did you manage to adjust the deposit schedule despite the bank's response?

...seems not. I'm not going to quote all the deposit dates on a public forum for the reason given in my earlier post. But you can do the maths yourself by assuming the 3rd to 12th monthly payments were made on the 1st. The actual deposit dates are close enough that it won't significantly affect the calculation. HSBC agreed to change the SO to the 1st, but warned me that I'd only get 0.05% on each deposit between the date of deposit and the 28th.

You did not provide this information initially. I was under the impression HSBC CS refused to change your SO date, and due to their response to your complaint, you did not bother to proceed any further.

Section62 said:

AmityNeon said:

I never said it was difficult, just exceptionally precise considering savings accounts don't operate in this manner. A rate threshold that increments by the maximum monthly deposit amount on the monthly anniversary of the account is an interpretation that cannot possibly be gleaned from the account's (current) marketing materials or published T&Cs.

Except they do. Or rather the HSBC Preferential Saver was definitely operating that way in 2017 and 2018 (at least)

Yes, I am not one to deny facts if they are presented. My initial resistance was due to my lack of exposure, and fortunately, this thread has allowed historical experiences to resurface and clarify matters. Prior to this, recent posts mentioning restricted interest above the monthly threshold seemingly amounted to nebulous hearsay with no further elaborative contributions.

Section62 said:

AmityNeon said:

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).

Is the BiB true? Or is it just that your research hasn't been thorough enough? Would you expect people to routinely report not getting the extra interest (vs those who have), and how many people do you think have tried this to know what happens?

I think your expectation of goodwill is optimistic because the T&Cs are probably sufficiently clear for HSBC to reject your complaint and 'win' with FOS. (see the Co-op switching thread for the approach FOS are currently taking with people gaming offers)

The context of that quotation was regarding a detriment to interest where the amount of interest received is even less than the interest amount when calculated in accordance with the original SO date. I would not suggest anyone complain about the lack of extra interest (a personal decision nevertheless).

Section62 said:

So that's the point - not that people cannot earn a few extra pounds, but rather that changing the SO is not without risk, and HSBC have demonstrated in the past that the can and will apply their T&Cs to the letter.

Considering customer service agents from both HSBC and First Direct have changed the SO dates upon customer request, the risk of negative consequences resulting from this act in isolation is likely exceedingly low, especially if customers reason desiring to simplify personal administration (if they felt providing a reason was necessary).

If a customer was somehow penalised as a result of amending the deposit schedule, they would have a compelling case for receiving goodwill if the penalty was not defined in the T&Cs.

intalex

As 5.00% is looking increasingly low for a regular saver, I'm wondering if I should keep this "experiment" running... only just had my 3rd deposit in this morning, so only 2 months into the account...

I know when First Direct increased their offer from 3.50% to 7.00% they increased the rate for existing accounts too, I wonder if (i) HSBC will react to the competition, and (ii) apply a potential new rate to existing accounts ??

Speculator

intalex said:

As 5.00% is looking increasingly low for a regular saver, I'm wondering if I should keep this "experiment" running... only just had my 3rd deposit in this morning, so only 2 months into the account...

I know when First Direct increased their offer from 3.50% to 7.00% they increased the rate for existing accounts too, I wonder if (i) HSBC will react to the competition, and (ii) apply a potential new rate to existing accounts ??

Applying new higher rates to existing Fixed rate regular savers only ever happened on one occasion I think and that was about 6 yrs ago with Virgin.

Unlikely it will happen again, especially with HSBC.

I am half way into a HSBC regular and will be reducing my payments to £25, the minimum monthly payment allowed.

wmb194

Speculator said:

intalex said:

As 5.00% is looking increasingly low for a regular saver, I'm wondering if I should keep this "experiment" running... only just had my 3rd deposit in this morning, so only 2 months into the account...

I know when First Direct increased their offer from 3.50% to 7.00% they increased the rate for existing accounts too, I wonder if (i) HSBC will react to the competition, and (ii) apply a potential new rate to existing accounts ??

Applying new higher rates to existing Fixed rate regular savers only ever happened on one occasion I think and that was about 6 yrs ago with Virgin.

Unlikely it will happen again, especially with HSBC.

I am half way into a HSBC regular and will be reducing my payments to £25, the minimum monthly payment allowed.

It did happen, with First Direct aka HSBC so HSBC's already set a precedent for itself.

intalex

That 5% HSBC rate is looking outright poor now... if they don't up it (including on existing accounts) by this time next week, I may be forced to close it down (if allowed, need to check) or down the monthlies to the minimum £25...