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

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.

Kim_13

HUMBUG said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

HUMBUG said:

I think another interesting point regarding bounced emails is the security aspects.

What "security aspects" do you envision there to be?

If you could answer without an AI generated response, that would be ideal.

At least a cursory phone call or SMS text saying that email has been returned and to contact us immediately to prevent your account from being suspended.

I suspect that this practice would be a paradise for scammers, hence they won't do it. I doubt FOS would have any trouble ruling that a suspension of an account for a returned email was disproportionate.

Section62

Kim_13 said:

...
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.
...

I'm not sure I'd agree with the first BiB, because of the second BiB.  The loss in that situation would be to the deceased's estate, because they chose an account with those terms and conditions.  Therefore the second BiB is invoked - the method of switching the money away to an account paying more than 0.1% at maturity 'failed' because the person being deceased was no longer able to implement their method of money management.

We are all going to die at some point, very few know exactly when.  Many manage their finances with the risk of their death being a key factor in how they arrange things.  In return for a slightly higher interest rate, some people will opt for a fixed rate which comes with risks... such as the product maturing to a poor rate and not being able to promptly transfer the money elsewhere due to incapacitation or death.

So I don't think I'd be comfortable placing the deceased's beneficiaries case for compensation ahead of the OP's.  If the argument is that paying 0.1% interest is 'wrong' (which isn't an argument I buy into) then isn't it 'wrong' for everyone?  Why should one person's decision about risk (of death and probate) be deserving of compensation, and another person's decision (I'll get multiple notifications) not be so deserving?

The only obvious reason might be the difference of being sympathetic to folk suffering bereavement, and someone whose loss is only financial.  And before I get flamed for not being sympathetic to the bereaved family's situation, I am empathetic because I've had to deal with similar nonsenses over the last 12 months (and yes, some money in limbo earning 0% interest)   ...but I put the blame firmly on the unfit-for-purpose probate system, which has lacked capacity to deal with estates promptly, and doesn't empower executors to do some of the basic day-to-day things us MSEers would do to protect and increase the value of the estate.

That the executors weren't able to move the money out of a 0.1% account after "several months" is down to the way we do probate - and that isn't Shawbrook's fault.

Kim_13

Section62 said:

Kim_13 said:

...
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.
...

I'm not sure I'd agree with the first BiB, because of the second BiB.  The loss in that situation would be to the deceased's estate, because they chose an account with those terms and conditions.  Therefore the second BiB is invoked - the method of switching the money away to an account paying more than 0.1% at maturity 'failed' because the person being deceased was no longer able to implement their method of money management.

We are all going to die at some point, very few know exactly when.  Many manage their finances with the risk of their death being a key factor in how they arrange things.  In return for a slightly higher interest rate, some people will opt for a fixed rate which comes with risks... such as the product maturing to a poor rate and not being able to promptly transfer the money elsewhere due to incapacitation or death.

So I don't think I'd be comfortable placing the deceased's beneficiaries case for compensation ahead of the OP's.  If the argument is that paying 0.1% interest is 'wrong' (which isn't an argument I buy into) then isn't it 'wrong' for everyone?  Why should one person's decision about risk (of death and probate) be deserving of compensation, and another person's decision (I'll get multiple notifications) not be so deserving?

The only obvious reason might be the difference of being sympathetic to folk suffering bereavement, and someone whose loss is only financial.  And before I get flamed for not being sympathetic to the bereaved family's situation, I am empathetic because I've had to deal with similar nonsenses over the last 12 months (and yes, some money in limbo earning 0% interest)   ...but I put the blame firmly on the unfit-for-purpose probate system, which has lacked capacity to deal with estates promptly, and doesn't empower executors to do some of the basic day-to-day things us MSEers would do to protect and increase the value of the estate.

That the executors weren't able to move the money out of a 0.1% account after "several months" is down to the way we do probate - and that isn't Shawbrook's fault.

It was because the deceased absolutely couldn’t give instructions that I felt it unfair to the estate. Of those that do know when the end is approaching, some may only get a few months, therefore had chosen a fix expecting to be fit and well through the term but are locked in and are unable to give early instructions for the standard Easy Access on maturity even when they have been made aware that they won’t be alive to see maturity. The funds in the estate will be legally someone’s as of the date of the death and creditors and beneficiaries have had no part in a provider with those terms being selected. They are in more of a Catch 22 than OP who chose to use Shawbrook and has admitted they made a mistake in not updating their details as required and in overlooking the maturity dates in their records. 

I would be in support of changes that enabled an Easy Access to be chosen over the Maturity account at any time during a term, or on production of a death certificate. 

Hoenir

Kim_13 said:

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. 

There's no legal contractual relationship with any other party than the account holder or their legally appointed representatives.