Castle Trust Bank

20122013

Before applying to CTB,  I have checked that most posters have no issues with CTB, I want to check this is still the case, before going further with them, as I have expeirenced the below:

On 8 May, I did a Castle Trust Bank online application, part of the process was to get a verified code via email or text. As I did not get any texts, then opted via email, and the application was successful. It took over 1 hour to complete and 10 hours later the texts came through, has anyone else experience this?  

Also, I got an email to say they cannot verify my nominated bank account and need more ID checks - all very odd.

masonic

It has been involved in some shady practices in the past:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/11065151/Concerns-over-safety-of-2.25pc-savings-bond.html

https://www.bondreview.co.uk/2018/01/26/castle-trust-corporate-loan-notes-covered-by-the-fscs/

Which product have you applied for?

huw01

I had a 1 year fixed term savings account with them which matured last year. I found them brilliant, at the time the account was fixed at 6.2%, aaah them were the days.

20122013

masonic said:

Which product have you applied for?

5 year Fixed Rate e-Cash ISA - interest paid at maturity 4.15%

 I was not able to read https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/11065151/Concerns-over-safety-of-2.25pc-savings-bond.html (as I am not a paid member)

masonic

20122013 said:

masonic said:

Which product have you applied for?

5 year Fixed Rate e-Cash ISA - interest paid at maturity 4.15%

 I was not able to read https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/11065151/Concerns-over-safety-of-2.25pc-savings-bond.html (as I am not a paid member)

How strange, I get no such paywall restriction (and certainly do not subscribe). The key paragraph is:

"Why should savers be wary?
There are two potential problems. First, savers must remember that the normal £85,000 FSCS limit for savings bonds does not apply and the most they will get back in the event of default is £50,000. [Investment projection has now been raised to £85k]
Second, several bond experts in the City of London cast doubt on whether the FSCS would pay out at all.
"This is blatantly a violation of the intention behind the FSCS – and it won't work," said one. "In my opinion if the company goes bust the FSCS won't pay out."
The FSCS said claims were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and the outcome would depend on the specific terms and conditions of the product."

So, you need to be careful, but the e-Cash ISA should be ok as a savings product.

wmb194

masonic said:

20122013 said:

masonic said:

Which product have you applied for?

5 year Fixed Rate e-Cash ISA - interest paid at maturity 4.15%

 I was not able to read https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/11065151/Concerns-over-safety-of-2.25pc-savings-bond.html (as I am not a paid member)

How strange, I get no such paywall restriction (and certainly do not subscribe). The key paragraph is:

"Why should savers be wary?
There are two potential problems. First, savers must remember that the normal £85,000 FSCS limit for savings bonds does not apply and the most they will get back in the event of default is £50,000. [Investment projection has now been raised to £85k]
Second, several bond experts in the City of London cast doubt on whether the FSCS would pay out at all.
"This is blatantly a violation of the intention behind the FSCS – and it won't work," said one. "In my opinion if the company goes bust the FSCS won't pay out."
The FSCS said claims were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and the outcome would depend on the specific terms and conditions of the product."

So, you need to be careful, but the e-Cash ISA should be ok as a savings product.

That Telegraph article's from 2014, though. IIRC in those days it stated clearly that its bonds were covered ("covered") by the FSCS for investments.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, today the FSCS protection checker and the FSCS page in its website suggests it's using the usual bank/BS deposit cover as does the FSCS page on its website. In the banking section of its FCA page says it's authorised to take retail deposits.

"Castle Trust Capital plc also trades under Castle Trust Bank and Castle Trust. This means that all eligible deposits with one or more of these trading names are in total covered up to £85,000." "1. Scheme responsible for the protection of your eligible deposit  Your eligible deposit is covered by a statutory Deposit Guarantee Scheme. If insolvency of your bank, building society or credit union should occur, your eligible deposits would be repaid up to £85,000 by the Deposit Guarantee Scheme."

https://www.castletrust.co.uk/savings/financial-services-compensation-scheme

https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000NMRMAAA5

masonic

wmb194 said:

masonic said:

20122013 said:

masonic said:

Which product have you applied for?

5 year Fixed Rate e-Cash ISA - interest paid at maturity 4.15%

 I was not able to read https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/11065151/Concerns-over-safety-of-2.25pc-savings-bond.html (as I am not a paid member)

How strange, I get no such paywall restriction (and certainly do not subscribe). The key paragraph is:

"Why should savers be wary?
There are two potential problems. First, savers must remember that the normal £85,000 FSCS limit for savings bonds does not apply and the most they will get back in the event of default is £50,000. [Investment projection has now been raised to £85k]
Second, several bond experts in the City of London cast doubt on whether the FSCS would pay out at all.
"This is blatantly a violation of the intention behind the FSCS – and it won't work," said one. "In my opinion if the company goes bust the FSCS won't pay out."
The FSCS said claims were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and the outcome would depend on the specific terms and conditions of the product."

So, you need to be careful, but the e-Cash ISA should be ok as a savings product.

That Telegraph article's from 2014, though. IIRC in those days it stated clearly that its bonds were covered ("covered") by the FSCS for investments.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, today the FSCS protection checker and the FSCS page in its website suggests it's using the usual bank/BS deposit cover as does the FSCS page on its website. In the banking section of its FCA page says it's authorised to take retail deposits.

"Castle Trust Capital plc also trades under Castle Trust Bank and Castle Trust. This means that all eligible deposits with one or more of these trading names are in total covered up to £85,000." "1. Scheme responsible for the protection of your eligible deposit  Your eligible deposit is covered by a statutory Deposit Guarantee Scheme. If insolvency of your bank, building society or credit union should occur, your eligible deposits would be repaid up to £85,000 by the Deposit Guarantee Scheme."

https://www.castletrust.co.uk/savings/financial-services-compensation-scheme

https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000NMRMAAA5

According to the FCA register, it still has permissions related to investments, and there are some investment products that would not be FSCS protected. According to Companies House, it is still Castle Trust Capital plc trading as Castle Trust Bank, so not a separate legal entity for accepting deposits. So I would suggest some care still needs to be taken that the product in question is one in which they are deposit taking. Back in 2014, one could be sure that using a cash ISA meant that your money was classed as a retail deposit and protected by the FSCS for savings, but since then the eligible investments for cash ISAs has been expanded to muddy the waters somewhat.

To be clear I am not suggesting that eligible deposits would not be covered by the FSCS for savings, but that Castle Trust could offer products that are not classed as eligible deposits for the purposes of the scheme, and has done so in the past (for several years after the Telegraph article according to Bond Review). So one needs to read the available information to understand the product in question. It is not a simple case of it has a banking licence and shows up on the FSCS checker, therefore my chosen product will be covered.

As I've mentioned many times before, the FSCS protection checker can be misleading, giving both false positive and false negative results, because it doesn't take into account nuances in the eligibility criteria. A good example of what happens when you don't heed Einstein's saying "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".

wmb194

masonic said:

wmb194 said:

masonic said:

20122013 said:

masonic said:

Which product have you applied for?

5 year Fixed Rate e-Cash ISA - interest paid at maturity 4.15%

 I was not able to read https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/11065151/Concerns-over-safety-of-2.25pc-savings-bond.html (as I am not a paid member)

How strange, I get no such paywall restriction (and certainly do not subscribe). The key paragraph is:

"Why should savers be wary?
There are two potential problems. First, savers must remember that the normal £85,000 FSCS limit for savings bonds does not apply and the most they will get back in the event of default is £50,000. [Investment projection has now been raised to £85k]
Second, several bond experts in the City of London cast doubt on whether the FSCS would pay out at all.
"This is blatantly a violation of the intention behind the FSCS – and it won't work," said one. "In my opinion if the company goes bust the FSCS won't pay out."
The FSCS said claims were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and the outcome would depend on the specific terms and conditions of the product."

So, you need to be careful, but the e-Cash ISA should be ok as a savings product.

That Telegraph article's from 2014, though. IIRC in those days it stated clearly that its bonds were covered ("covered") by the FSCS for investments.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, today the FSCS protection checker and the FSCS page in its website suggests it's using the usual bank/BS deposit cover as does the FSCS page on its website. In the banking section of its FCA page says it's authorised to take retail deposits.

"Castle Trust Capital plc also trades under Castle Trust Bank and Castle Trust. This means that all eligible deposits with one or more of these trading names are in total covered up to £85,000." "1. Scheme responsible for the protection of your eligible deposit  Your eligible deposit is covered by a statutory Deposit Guarantee Scheme. If insolvency of your bank, building society or credit union should occur, your eligible deposits would be repaid up to £85,000 by the Deposit Guarantee Scheme."

https://www.castletrust.co.uk/savings/financial-services-compensation-scheme

https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000NMRMAAA5

According to the FCA register, it still has permissions related to investments, and there are some investment products that would not be FSCS protected. According to Companies House, it is still Castle Trust Capital plc trading as Castle Trust Bank, so not a separate legal entity for accepting deposits. So I would suggest some care still needs to be taken that the product in question is one in which they are deposit taking. Back in 2014, one could be sure that using a cash ISA meant that your money was classed as a retail deposit and protected by the FSCS for savings, but since then the eligible investments for cash ISAs has been expanded to muddy the waters somewhat.

To be clear I am not suggesting that eligible deposits would not be covered by the FSCS for savings, but that Castle Trust could offer products that are not classed as eligible deposits for the purposes of the scheme, and has done so in the past. So one needs to read the available information to understand the product in question. It is not a simple case of it has a banking licence and shows up on the FSCS checker, therefore my chosen product will be covered.

As I've mentioned many times before, the FSCS protection checker can be misleading, giving both false positive and false negative results, because it doesn't take into account nuances in the eligibility criteria. A good example of what happens when you don't heed Einstein's saying "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".

Looking through a few of its accounts and their T&Cs and summary boxes there’s nothing I can see to suggest they aren’t covered by the usual deposit protection. 

Castle Trust’s problem today is that 11 odd years ago it eroded our trust in it.

masonic

wmb194 said:

masonic said:

wmb194 said:

masonic said:

20122013 said:

masonic said:

Which product have you applied for?

5 year Fixed Rate e-Cash ISA - interest paid at maturity 4.15%

 I was not able to read https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/11065151/Concerns-over-safety-of-2.25pc-savings-bond.html (as I am not a paid member)

How strange, I get no such paywall restriction (and certainly do not subscribe). The key paragraph is:

"Why should savers be wary?
There are two potential problems. First, savers must remember that the normal £85,000 FSCS limit for savings bonds does not apply and the most they will get back in the event of default is £50,000. [Investment projection has now been raised to £85k]
Second, several bond experts in the City of London cast doubt on whether the FSCS would pay out at all.
"This is blatantly a violation of the intention behind the FSCS – and it won't work," said one. "In my opinion if the company goes bust the FSCS won't pay out."
The FSCS said claims were dealt with on a case-by-case basis and the outcome would depend on the specific terms and conditions of the product."

So, you need to be careful, but the e-Cash ISA should be ok as a savings product.

That Telegraph article's from 2014, though. IIRC in those days it stated clearly that its bonds were covered ("covered") by the FSCS for investments.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, today the FSCS protection checker and the FSCS page in its website suggests it's using the usual bank/BS deposit cover as does the FSCS page on its website. In the banking section of its FCA page says it's authorised to take retail deposits.

"Castle Trust Capital plc also trades under Castle Trust Bank and Castle Trust. This means that all eligible deposits with one or more of these trading names are in total covered up to £85,000." "1. Scheme responsible for the protection of your eligible deposit  Your eligible deposit is covered by a statutory Deposit Guarantee Scheme. If insolvency of your bank, building society or credit union should occur, your eligible deposits would be repaid up to £85,000 by the Deposit Guarantee Scheme."

https://www.castletrust.co.uk/savings/financial-services-compensation-scheme

https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000NMRMAAA5

According to the FCA register, it still has permissions related to investments, and there are some investment products that would not be FSCS protected. According to Companies House, it is still Castle Trust Capital plc trading as Castle Trust Bank, so not a separate legal entity for accepting deposits. So I would suggest some care still needs to be taken that the product in question is one in which they are deposit taking. Back in 2014, one could be sure that using a cash ISA meant that your money was classed as a retail deposit and protected by the FSCS for savings, but since then the eligible investments for cash ISAs has been expanded to muddy the waters somewhat.

To be clear I am not suggesting that eligible deposits would not be covered by the FSCS for savings, but that Castle Trust could offer products that are not classed as eligible deposits for the purposes of the scheme, and has done so in the past. So one needs to read the available information to understand the product in question. It is not a simple case of it has a banking licence and shows up on the FSCS checker, therefore my chosen product will be covered.

As I've mentioned many times before, the FSCS protection checker can be misleading, giving both false positive and false negative results, because it doesn't take into account nuances in the eligibility criteria. A good example of what happens when you don't heed Einstein's saying "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler".

Looking through a few of its accounts and their T&Cs and summary boxes there’s nothing I can see to suggest they aren’t covered by the usual deposit protection. 

Castle Trust’s problem today is that 11 odd years ago it eroded our trust in it.

I checked the e-Cash ISA product and that is what I concluded. They should be covered. But I would not have handed over any money without checking.

It should be noted that its past behaviour did continue for a while after the Telegraph article. It was still offering those somewhat disguised loan note products in 2018 when the Bond Review article was posted. Separately, it has liabilities from repurchase agreements for loan notes pegged to the Halifax House Price Index extending out to this year and perhaps beyond, which appears to have been very expensive borrowing for them, but a great product for investors who were brave enough.

Likely if I were looking for a 5-year cash ISA fix, I'd have taken a 0.03% hit to go with Shawbrook given the benefit of being able to add to it over the term if I wanted.