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

Rusty190

RSPB calendar and a ball point pen works for me - for everything. 

Hoenir

HUMBUG said:

surreysaver said:

I think you'll need to chalk this up to experience, and learn a lesson from it. You cannot expect other people or organisations to do your life admin for you 

Yes, but I didn't expect organisations to be using profiteering tactics by parking customer funds in a 0.1% interest holding account .

Unless Shawbrook are lending out the money then there's no opportunity to make a profit. Shawbrook are focussed on loans which aren't short term. 

Jimbobdibob

Hoenir said:

HUMBUG said:

surreysaver said:

I think you'll need to chalk this up to experience, and learn a lesson from it. You cannot expect other people or organisations to do your life admin for you 

Yes, but I didn't expect organisations to be using profiteering tactics by parking customer funds in a 0.1% interest holding account .

Unless Shawbrook are lending out the money then there's no opportunity to make a profit. Shawbrook are focussed on loans which aren't short term. 

There are many on here that are more knowledgeable than me but I thought Shawbrook are mainly savings 

masonic

dunnm1 said:

Hoenir said:

HUMBUG said:

surreysaver said:

I think you'll need to chalk this up to experience, and learn a lesson from it. You cannot expect other people or organisations to do your life admin for you 

Yes, but I didn't expect organisations to be using profiteering tactics by parking customer funds in a 0.1% interest holding account .

Unless Shawbrook are lending out the money then there's no opportunity to make a profit. Shawbrook are focussed on loans which aren't short term. 

There are many on here that are more knowledgeable than me but I thought Shawbrook are mainly savings 

This is how banks and building societies work. They borrow money from savers (through deposit accounts) and then use that money to make loans, hopefully making a profit in the difference between their lending and saving rates after losses from bad debt. In the case of Shawbrook, they offer property development finance, mortgages, bridging, and personal loans to commercial and consumer borrowers.

1spiral

Regardless of the OP shortcomings, it is wrong of SB to use an account with such paltry rates.

If I forget to renew/change my energy suppliers tariff at maturity, they can't just put me on a tariff at 20K per year. Ofgem dictates the maximum I can be charged. There should be a similar body doing the same for financial institutions.

Section62

1spiral said:

Regardless of the OP shortcomings, it is wrong of SB to use an account with such paltry rates.

If I forget to renew/change my energy suppliers tariff at maturity, they can't just put me on a tariff at 20K per year. Ofgem dictates the maximum I can be charged. There should be a similar body doing the same for financial institutions.

There have been mutterings in the past about a government imposed minimum interest rate, but hopefully it will never happen.

People being happy to accept paltry savings rates helps other people get cheaper mortgages and/or better savings rates on other products.

Your reference to Ofgem is apposite, since what happened there with the clamour that "something must be done" was a convergence of charges around the statutory rates and a reduction in the availability of good deals.  The convergence wasn't to the benefit of consumers who were willing to look around for a good deal.

The same will happen if the government stepped in and said banks/building societies had to pay a minimum savings rate.  You can guarantee the minimum rate won't be that competitive, and that the higher rates currently offered will gradually drift down towards the statutory minimum.

People can make a moral argument that a minimum rate should be paid to 'protect' those who don't bother looking around for better deals, but the outcome of this particular bit of moralising is more likely the enrichment of the (energy companies)/banks/building societies, rather than those the policy was intended to help.

Instead I'd make the argument that rates as low as 0.1% are a good thing - as there is at least a chance that such a low rate may be just enough to overcome the inertia enjoyed by so many consumers.  If we had a statutory minimum rate of (say) 2% then at the end of a (say) 4% fixed rate period I suspect more consumers would be likely to be inert and accept the 2%, rather than being offended sufficiently by the 0.1% that it kicks them into taking action.  The net effect might be for more people to end up with their money in accounts paying lower rates of interest.

The issue here isn't the 0.1% interest rate - it is how the rate drop is communicated to customers, and the degree to which the provider should hassle the customer who appears to have accepted such a poor product.

Jimbobdibob

Section62 said:

1spiral said:

Regardless of the OP shortcomings, it is wrong of SB to use an account with such paltry rates.

If I forget to renew/change my energy suppliers tariff at maturity, they can't just put me on a tariff at 20K per year. Ofgem dictates the maximum I can be charged. There should be a similar body doing the same for financial institutions.

There have been mutterings in the past about a government imposed minimum interest rate, but hopefully it will never happen.

Why?

People being happy to accept paltry savings rates helps other people get cheaper mortgages and/or better savings rates on other products.

Not really my outlook on life

Your reference to Ofgem is apposite, since what happened there with the clamour that "something must be done" was a convergence of charges around the statutory rates and a reduction in the availability of good deals.  The convergence wasn't to the benefit of consumers who were willing to look around for a good deal.

The same will happen if the government stepped in and said banks/building societies had to pay a minimum savings rate.  You can guarantee the minimum rate won't be that competitive, and that the higher rates currently offered will gradually drift down towards the statutory minimum.

As above

People can make a moral argument that a minimum rate should be paid to 'protect' those who don't bother looking around for better deals, but the outcome of this particular bit of moralising is more likely the enrichment of the (energy companies)/banks/building societies, rather than those the policy was intended to help.

Good for you but perhaps not others

Instead I'd make the argument that rates as low as 0.1% are a good thing - as there is at least a chance that such a low rate may be just enough to overcome the inertia enjoyed by so many consumers.  If we had a statutory minimum rate of (say) 2% then at the end of a (say) 4% fixed rate period I suspect more consumers would be likely to be inert and accept the 2%, rather than being offended sufficiently by the 0.1% that it kicks them into taking action.  The net effect might be for more people to end up with their money in accounts paying lower rates of interest.

Possibly 

The issue here isn't the 0.1% interest rate - it is how the rate drop is communicated to customers, and the degree to which the provider should hassle the customer who appears to have accepted such a poor product.

I disagree 

10 characters required. 

Hoenir

dunnm1 said:

Hoenir said:

HUMBUG said:

surreysaver said:

I think you'll need to chalk this up to experience, and learn a lesson from it. You cannot expect other people or organisations to do your life admin for you 

Yes, but I didn't expect organisations to be using profiteering tactics by parking customer funds in a 0.1% interest holding account .

Unless Shawbrook are lending out the money then there's no opportunity to make a profit. Shawbrook are focussed on loans which aren't short term. 

There are many on here that are more knowledgeable than me but I thought Shawbrook are mainly savings 

Shawbrook need the deposits to make loan advances. That's how banks work. Money that they cannot rely on is of no use to them. 

Another overlooked factor. Banks pay levies based on their deposits. This is how the FSCS compensation scheme is funded.  Dig deeper in commercial bank operations  and far too simplistic to say 0.1% is paltry.  More a sign that the bank would prefer that the money was either tied down or moved out.

HUMBUG

Eyeful said:

 Shawbrook, should have moved you on to an easy access account paying a fair interest rate, not one paying 0.1%. 

1. If you move house, you would be expected to tell Shawbrook your new house address.
2. If you move your Email address you would be expected to tell Shawbrook your new Email address.
3. You could have told Shawbrook this new Email address, as soon as you changed it, but you did not.
4. Now you want others to pay you £670, for something you did not do but should have. 
  

I mentioned that I've contacted 9  different banks/building societies asking what they would do if they had undelivered email. 

One online bank has already said the following :

---------------------------

Thank you for your email.

We can confirm that if an email address is undeliverable to your registered email address, we will attempt to contact you via phone call as well as attempt to contact you via email.

We can confirm that we may also send postal correspondence if we believe an email has been undelivered. 

--------------------------

Shawbrooks T&C's says they would also contact by email, SMS and Secure Messaging regarding edocuments ready for my viewing.  But they didn't send any SMS text so are also partly culpable.

Also I'm asking for more than £670 now after working out the interest I would have accrued if I'd reinvested in the 4.49% fixed cash Isa account that was available at the time of maturity.

booneruk

It's been mentioned earlier in this thread I believe that "email address doesn't exist" bounce backs are entirely optional and down to each email service provider to implement. It's not a reliable mechanism in any way so should never be relied upon.