Shawbrook Bank - Ignores undelivered maturity emails- assumes you've received them.

Rich1976

I’ve not had any problems with Shawbrook either though only been with them for just over a year but everything runs smoothly . Agree with the OP this thread has run its course and shouldn’t really have got to 20 pages 

eskbanker

Rich1976 said:

Agree with the OP this thread has run its course and shouldn’t really have got to 20 pages 

OP is the one keeping it alive by sharing information about how other unrelated institutions deal with undelivered emails, although admittedly there have been more comments (about the thread itself rather than the underlying subject) from others in recent pages....

HUMBUG

Just waiting for the FOS formal reply although unimpressed that I had to repeat my whole complaint again on one of their standard posted forms.  The information they required on their forms were were already detailed in my original letter that I posted to them over a week ago.

I completed my exercise of 8 random bank email processes so there won't be any more posts. Needless to say, they all had processes to contact the customer if there were problems with email communication, while Shawbrook was the odd one out. 

It is blatant profiteering by Shawbrook regarding that measly 0.1% interest they pay on matured savings. And the fact they do the same after an account holder dies while the executor waits for Grant Of Probate  (which could take months) leaves a 'bad taste'. 

I will move all my funds elsewhere after they mature next year but at least I have a list of potential banks/building societies'  who won't take advantage of my forgetfulness again or email issues.

masonic

To be a fair test, Shawbrook should have been included in the market research. After all, others have only told you what they say they will do, which is likely to be what they think you want to hear.

MeteredOut

masonic said:

To be a fair test, Shawbrook should have been included in the market research. After all, others have only told you what they say they will do, which is likely to be what they think you want to hear.

A point i made before here: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81413461/#Comment_81413461

This was in response to the OPs post where a call handler told them they would investigate further. This was later contradicted by another call handler, but confirms your point exactly.

Shylock_249

HUMBUG said:

I will move all my funds elsewhere after they mature next year but at least I have a list of potential banks/building societies'  who won't take advantage of my forgetfulness again or email issues.

Could you please list those banks/building societies?  I'm concerned about probate having 15 ISAs between me and the wife and each one is above the probate limit set by banks.  If I'm correct Paragon and Close Bros have set their limit as low as 20k.

Barkin

HUMBUG said:

I completed my exercise of 8 random bank email processes so there won't be any more posts. Needless to say, they all had processes to contact the customer if there were problems with email communication

Do you mean that the first line agents all said that they had processes in place...?

As you've already found out, what call centre staff say, and what the company actually does, are not necessarily the same...

MeteredOut

Barkin said:

HUMBUG said:

I completed my exercise of 8 random bank email processes so there won't be any more posts. Needless to say, they all had processes to contact the customer if there were problems with email communication

Do you mean that the first line agents all said that they had processes in place...?

As you've already found out, what call centre staff say, and what the company actually does, are not necessarily the same...

The 8 random banks were emailed, so it could be that a little more thought went into the response, but it still can't be trusted and doesn't materially mean anything regarding the issue with Shawbrook.

HUMBUG

Shylock_249 said:

HUMBUG said:

I will move all my funds elsewhere after they mature next year but at least I have a list of potential banks/building societies'  who won't take advantage of my forgetfulness again or email issues.

Could you please list those banks/building societies?  I'm concerned about probate having 15 ISAs between me and the wife and each one is above the probate limit set by banks.  If I'm correct Paragon and Close Bros have set their limit as low as 20k.

The list were banks/building societies who proactively deal with email communication issues.  Not all of them replied back confirming whether they park matured funds into some measly low interest account by default.  From my experience so far , it seems that building societies don't seem to do what Shawbrook (and some other smaller banks) do. From my own experience, banks and building societies still allowed my deceased father's ISAs to remain in place accruing the agreed fixed rate interest until I was able to send them 'Grant Of Probate'.  I remember Skipton BS  did park his fixed rate ISA in some holding 'deceased ' account at a much lower  interest rate , but I complained to their CEO and got a £500 goodwill payment. 
I suppose I was lucky that during the period when my father died and the 3 months it took to get Grant Of Probate, none of his ISA accounts matured and none were parked in any very low interest accounts by default (apart from Skipton).
I think it's best you read the T&C's for what happens when the account holder dies and then decide whether you find their process acceptable. Personally , if they do transfer a deceased person's savings into some default account at a low interest rate , I wouldn't be too happy.

PS.  The Ombudsman is still working on my case so not a straightforward rejection (just yet!).

Kim_13

When I read the first post I was going to mention the Trustpilot review. For those that aren't aware of the details, the case involved someone who had died several months before their Fixed ISA matured, which obviously then rolled onto the 0.1% account. Probate had been applied for but not received and Shawbrook said that they could not to take any instruction someone other than the account holder without it. The reviewer appreciated that Shawbrook's hands were tied regarding the accepting of instructions but said that the 0.1% paid in the absence of them was entirely within their control. The poster that was concerned about the amount that they and their wife had with Shawbrook would therefore be best off looking elsewhere. 

You must surely agree that if Shawbrook should compensate anyone, it would be families in that position who have not contributed to the loss of interest in any way as no matter what they did, the option of giving instructions was not available to them. You could have logged in and done this. I log into all of my accounts throughout the term term to check that nothing has been fraudulently withdrawn. If there were an unexpected transaction, banks will only deal with it if it is reported within a certain time frame so it is in your interests to do this. It also reminds me what the rates are so that I can work out if taking a penalty charge to transfer to a currently available product elsewhere might be worthwhile. We all choose how to manage our finances and have to accept the consequences if our methods fail us. You could have updated your email address with Shawbrook in 2010 but opted to set up a redirection instead.

Did Plusnet tell you that your email address would be closed when you had the issue with your internet rectified? Did they advise you to log in before X date to make a note of any companies who may be contacting you on it and would need to be informed? They formatted the emails you received such that you weren't aware which ones were still going through Plusnet. Why are you not blaming them? Plusnet of course wouldn't pay, but it doesn't mean that Shawbrook should be held responsible for everything that has gone wrong.

The industry standard default (though there are clearly exceptions) is an Easy Access so the maximum a blameless person should get is that. You admit that you made a mistake, so it would not be fair to Shawbrook (or to their other customers who will have to pay more or receive less to pay it) for them to be on the hook for that much. The point was made that there is a maximum price for energy which is true, but that's presumably because it is an essential commodity. Even in a 0.1% account, your money retains its ISA status and is protected by the FSCS up to £85,000 - which is a lot better than the risk of having it under a mattress. People don't need to earn interest in the same way as they need to consume energy to live. Insurers can suddenly decide that your autorenewal had increased to an obscene amount, and aren't forced to insure anyone for £X or less regardless of how unviable public transport may be in their circumstances - so there isn't even always protection in place when something is essential.

I expect you'll get £25 or £50 if you can evidence that the representative told you that they do take action when emails are bounced back, and a bit more if it is agreed that Shawbrook's terms are unclear. The Ombudsman may take the view that as it took you 3 months to realise there was a problem, you were careless. A posted letter is probably more likely to go astray than an email of late, so Shawbrook choosing to communicate by email may be deemed fair.

0.1% is clearly a business model that pays for the more favourable terms on fixed rate ISAs - presumably as a customer of many years you have benefitted from those. The maturity account is a lot fairer to the customer than an autorenewal at an inferior fixed rate which could cost much more over the new term. The customer would have a maximum of 14 days from the effective date to realise that they had made a mistake in not submitting instructions.