ISA Declaration

masonic

Ocelot said:

MACKEM99 said:

Follow up - opened fixed rate isa today with aldermore 1 yr 5%.  All the way through refers to 23/24 tax year.  Kept going then at the end once opened says any money put in after 6 April (think they mean on or after 6 April) will count as 24/25 tax year funding.  All poorly worded some may be put off but adding my experience here as may help others.

M99

I opened one too a few days ago for next tax year.
On this thread I pointed out this paradox, which confused me too at first:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6517495/buying-a-2024-cash-isa/p1
When you open an ISA it often asks if you have already funded an ISA in the current tax year. If you tell the truth it only allows you to fund one by transferring in, so to open one for the next year you have to say 'no' the the question, even though you have, because you intend to fund it in the next tax year.

You could still answer truthfully and that would not prevent you from making a deposit in the 24/25 tax year, because that is a different tax year where you won't have funded a cash ISA, and even if you did, you are allowed to fund multiple cash ISAs from then onwards.

Ocelot

masonic said:

Ocelot said:

MACKEM99 said:

Follow up - opened fixed rate isa today with aldermore 1 yr 5%.  All the way through refers to 23/24 tax year.  Kept going then at the end once opened says any money put in after 6 April (think they mean on or after 6 April) will count as 24/25 tax year funding.  All poorly worded some may be put off but adding my experience here as may help others.

M99

I opened one too a few days ago for next tax year.
On this thread I pointed out this paradox, which confused me too at first:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6517495/buying-a-2024-cash-isa/p1
When you open an ISA it often asks if you have already funded an ISA in the current tax year. If you tell the truth it only allows you to fund one by transferring in, so to open one for the next year you have to say 'no' the the question, even though you have, because you intend to fund it in the next tax year.

You could still answer truthfully and that would not prevent you from making a deposit in the 24/25 tax year, because that is a different tax year where you won't have funded a cash ISA, and even if you did, you are allowed to fund multiple cash ISAs from then onwards.

The option to add new money (even in the next tax year) becomes unavailable if you say Yes.

MACKEM99

Ocelot said:

MACKEM99 said:

Follow up - opened fixed rate isa today with aldermore 1 yr 5%.  All the way through refers to 23/24 tax year.  Kept going then at the end once opened says any money put in after 6 April (think they mean on or after 6 April) will count as 24/25 tax year funding.  All poorly worded some may be put off but adding my experience here as may help others.

M99

I opened one too a few days ago for next tax year.

On this thread I pointed out this paradox, which confused me too at first:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6517495/buying-a-2024-cash-isa/p1

When you open an ISA it often asks if you have already funded an ISA in the current tax year. If you tell the truth it only allows you to fund one by transferring in, so to open one for the next year you have to say 'no' the the question, even though you have, because you intend to fund it in the next tax year.

I have pointed this out before to other providers and they do no seem to think it is a problem!

RG2015

The problem is the software programs used by the banks currently use the "only 1 cash ISA per tax year" rule.

It is the computer that is at fault (yes I know it's the programmer, but it is doing what was intended under the old rules), but this is to be superseeded come 6 April 2024.

This is compounded by poorly trained staff not understanding the ISA rules. They look at what their computer system says and simply assume it is correct.

This is clearly a case of the customer being correct and the bank being wrong. Sadly though this could result in the inability to open an ISA this year to be funded next year.

Since I started this thread I have satisfied myself that I am neither lying nor breaking any rules.

RG2015

This question is now being asked across several threads and I am even more convinced of the answer.

Some banks and their staff and their computer software are still programmed to comply with last year’s ISA rules.

Banks are at best lazy and at worst incompetent.

The very rules with which they are “complying” do not exist any more.

Therefore any declaration requirement relating to these is null and void.

auser99

RG2015 said:

This question is now being asked across several threads and I am even more convinced of the answer.

Some banks and their staff and their computer software are still programmed to comply with last year’s ISA rules.

Banks are at best lazy and at worst incompetent.

The very rules with which they are “complying” do not exist any more.

Therefore any declaration requirement relating to these is null and void.

Definitely seems like some banks and staff haven't caught up with the rule change.
The most worrying was seemingly some Kent member of staff telling someone who intended to fund Cash ISAs at 2 different institutions that "revenue" could scrap the tax free status at one if so!

Can't be correct.

steveksullivan

auser99 said:

RG2015 said:

This question is now being asked across several threads and I am even more convinced of the answer.

Some banks and their staff and their computer software are still programmed to comply with last year’s ISA rules.

Banks are at best lazy and at worst incompetent.

The very rules with which they are “complying” do not exist any more.

Therefore any declaration requirement relating to these is null and void.

Definitely seems like some banks and staff haven't caught up with the rule change.
The most worrying was seemingly some Kent member of staff telling someone who intended to fund Cash ISAs at 2 different institutions that "revenue" could scrap the tax free status at one if so!

Can't be correct.

@auser99 you're right - it isn't correct. See my reply to you in the other thread re: Shawbrook.

If it was me being given this incorrect information it would be a complaint straightaway ......