The Top Regular Savers Discussion Thread

trickydicky14 · 14 February at 12:55PM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81884346#Comment_81884346

I read some place that those who do something wrong have an innate need to be found out.

Principality is on to you!!!!

Pickledonionlover · 14 February at 1:05PM

Regarding the Principality multiple accounts 'issue'

I'm sure we've all encountered RS which are unable to be opened because you don't fulfill the T&C.

I.e. the systems prevent it.

Do we think PBS have made the decision that it's more efficient / cheaper for an employee / batch program to identify the issue rather than codify it not being allowed?

Genuinely interested and not trying to cause any angst either side of the argument

WillPS · 14 February at 1:12PM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81884403#Comment_81884403

It's true that there are no laws governing a person's behaviour when selecting maturity instructions specifically , but if you believe there are no potential legal consequences to agreeing to abide by fair terms and conditions of an account and then repeatedly exploiting a flaw which may (or may not) allow you to breach those terms then I'm afraid you are mistaken.

You might argue the severity of the offence but to do so would be to acknowledge that it is indeed a grey area!

Kim_13 · 14 February at 1:37PM

There are no laws against it, since providers cannot make laws and have to abide by those set by parliament like the rest of us. There are however rules against it, as the Society's rules are their terms and conditions. If Principality were to refuse future business from those who repeatedly attempt to break their rules (especially after having their attention drawn to what might, the first time, have been an oversight/inadvertent mistake) there would be no one to blame but themselves.

WillPS · 14 February at 1:42PM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81884485#Comment_81884485

Principality are one such example, if you apply for an account you're not eligible for (e.g. because you already have one).

It'd be impossible to really know why they've implemented their 'fix' the way they have without having knowledge of their architecture (and anyone privy to such knowledge would rightly hesitate before posting), but I'd speculate (based on a tiny bit of knowledge of another society and a bit more of a bank) that they might have something of a hodgepodge of systems and the bit which deals with maturity workflows is somewhat separate from the bit which holds the account records, and it could be that another system entirely deals with application workflows.

That being the case it becomes a little easier to understand that each of these systems/flows might not have visibility of all the information it'd need to correctly and fully police the product terms completely. Consider too that these might all be systems from separate third parties, and you begin to understand why making them all talk might be quite complicated.

By contrast a batch script or just a run book for staff to follow which runs over all newly matured accounts might only involve a single service, or at least a smaller number of them. It's possible it could be as simple as a report someone runs and works through each day.

WillPS · 14 February at 1:45PM

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81884527#Comment_81884527

Last time I checked breach of contract was a civil offence, so yes it absolutely is illegal, or at the very least a "legal area".

A reasonable argument could be made about fraud and computer misuse as well, which are criminal offences. Particularly if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the actions were of somebody determined - for example by showing a sustained pattern of abuse and/or careful timing to ensure built in safeguards are worked around.