The Old Regular Savers Discussion Thread 28/12/24-29/1/26

Born2Save_3

Born2Save_3 said:

Kent Reliance Regular Savings Account 5.1%A, £500 a month

Has anyone had any success opening an account without having to visit a branch ?

I happened to be in Canterbury last year so opened one to establish a relationship but didn't fund it much till the latter months.  KR seem to have been fairly good keeping the rate at 5.1%A for a while and through a number of BoE reductions.

Whenever I've called them I keep asking if I can open an account by post, over the phone, online, with a telephone appointment or any way apart from visiting, without success.  Sadly, they have a call centre so it is not as easy as some other organisations to find a helpful person in a branch.

Any further examples or suggestions anyone ?

Angelica123

homestraight said:

Principality. My maturity instruction (option 4) for Xmas regular saver to 6 month regular saver has been refused today by secure message. First time it's happened to me. C'est la vie

I had similar with my maturity instructions for Principality Issue 3 6 month saver. I chose option 2 on Sat and got secure message on Mon refusing it. 

csw5780

Principality: is it “reasonable, clear and fair” to offer maturity options which are selected in good faith; only to later refuse them?

jim1999

csw5780 said:

Principality: is it “reasonable, clear and fair” to offer maturity options which are selected in good faith; only to later refuse them?

Arguably not, but if people kick off it will only encourage them to disable the entire feature and then no-one will benefit at all from this loophole.

clairec666

csw5780 said:

Principality: is it “reasonable, clear and fair” to offer maturity options which are selected in good faith; only to later refuse them?

But in all honesty, are any of us selecting it "in good faith"? Most of us here are selecting an option we know we shouldn't have been given, in the hope it will will go unnoticed. Hence several pages of comments on the matter.

Kim_13

csw5780 said:

Principality: is it “reasonable, clear and fair” to offer maturity options which are selected in good faith; only to later refuse them?

I suspect they would argue the option was not selected in good faith, since the summary box included with the maturity pack clearly states that accounts are limited to one per issue at any one time. It would be reasonable to expect the summaries to be read before selecting and the customer to be bound by the terms contained within. Those who have been refused once and received the message pointing out that accounts are limited to one per customer per issue only to try again while still holding a current issue account would lose the defence of ‘My bad, I overlooked that line’ or ‘The summary box was missing from my maturity pack.’

They could clearly close the loophole easily by making every account like the Triple Access Saver with no options, but that makes their accounts less user friendly to everyone else in that account numbers would need to be changed every time, with the delay to COP working that comes with that.

s71hj

shirley999 said:

clairec666 said:

csw5780 said:

Principality: is it “reasonable, clear and fair” to offer maturity options which are selected in good faith; only to later refuse them?

But in all honesty, are any of us selecting it "in good faith"? Most of us here are selecting an option we know we shouldn't have been given, in the hope it will will go unnoticed. Hence several pages of comments on the matter.

Is it not fair to assume that they have since relaxed the terms to now allow multiple accounts if that is what you're offered?  

OK, we aren't, as we are on a forum that discusses it but quite how Principality seperate the people who no doubt are doing it in good faith, who knows, especially when they are sent the product leaflet for the RS4 with the maturity pack. 

Kim_13

s71hj said:

shirley999 said:

clairec666 said:

csw5780 said:

Principality: is it “reasonable, clear and fair” to offer maturity options which are selected in good faith; only to later refuse them?

But in all honesty, are any of us selecting it "in good faith"? Most of us here are selecting an option we know we shouldn't have been given, in the hope it will will go unnoticed. Hence several pages of comments on the matter.

Is it not fair to assume that they have since relaxed the terms to now allow multiple accounts if that is what you're offered?  

OK, we aren't, as we are on a forum that discusses it but quite how Principality seperate the people who no doubt are doing it in good faith, who knows, especially when they are sent the product leaflet for the RS4 with the maturity pack. 

They would surely add a term permitting additional accounts as maturity options only if that is what they intended.

Section62

Kim_13 said:

s71hj said:

shirley999 said:

clairec666 said:

csw5780 said:

Principality: is it “reasonable, clear and fair” to offer maturity options which are selected in good faith; only to later refuse them?

But in all honesty, are any of us selecting it "in good faith"? Most of us here are selecting an option we know we shouldn't have been given, in the hope it will will go unnoticed. Hence several pages of comments on the matter.

Is it not fair to assume that they have since relaxed the terms to now allow multiple accounts if that is what you're offered?  

OK, we aren't, as we are on a forum that discusses it but quite how Principality seperate the people who no doubt are doing it in good faith, who knows, especially when they are sent the product leaflet for the RS4 with the maturity pack. 

They would surely add a term permitting additional accounts as maturity options only if that is what they intended.

...just as surely as those building societies saying "can only be opened in branch" would have added a term permitting postal applications, before happily accepting applications by post.

In reality the onus is on the financial institution to act fairly.  If they offer a specific account type as a maturity option within the online platform they can hardly grumble (much) if a customer tries to apply for it.

Kim_13

Section62 said:

Kim_13 said:

s71hj said:

shirley999 said:

clairec666 said:

csw5780 said:

Principality: is it “reasonable, clear and fair” to offer maturity options which are selected in good faith; only to later refuse them?

But in all honesty, are any of us selecting it "in good faith"? Most of us here are selecting an option we know we shouldn't have been given, in the hope it will will go unnoticed. Hence several pages of comments on the matter.

Is it not fair to assume that they have since relaxed the terms to now allow multiple accounts if that is what you're offered?  

OK, we aren't, as we are on a forum that discusses it but quite how Principality seperate the people who no doubt are doing it in good faith, who knows, especially when they are sent the product leaflet for the RS4 with the maturity pack. 

They would surely add a term permitting additional accounts as maturity options only if that is what they intended.

...just as surely as those building societies saying "can only be opened in branch" would have added a term permitting postal applications, before happily accepting applications by post.

In reality the onus is on the financial institution to act fairly.  If they offer a specific account type as a maturity option within the online platform they can hardly grumble (much) if a customer tries to apply for it.

Which is probably why they haven’t given those customers notice to close their accounts, as would be their right. 

If something is not permitted in the terms, then it should be seen a bonus if an attempt to open it is successful, not an expectation that an application should be accepted. A society deciding at its discretion not to enforce its terms in relation to method of opening does not mean that another is being unreasonable by enforcing their own terms.