We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Kent Reliance - is this ethical?
Comments
-
The point is that the account isn't a market leading rate at the moment, yet it might be in the future. Having the ability to add funds into a fixed rate makes this account attractive for many, who might be willing to keep money in there at a lower rate in case it becomes useful. But if they remove the option, they will prefer to get a market leading rate for that money for the remaining time of the term.
Some people could use this change in the terms and conditions only to get a penalty free exit and find a better rate elsewhere. It could be an opportunistic move but it's Kent Reliance who decided to change this unilaterally
2 -
It's worth noting that the majority of providers will have a similar cause.
It's important not to be over-dramatic and cut your own nose off to spite your face.
I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.3 -
I agree it is annoying if you have opened speculatively as insurance to rate cuts. The good news is that seems rather unlikely given the current economic climate.
They could have used a term permitting new money to be added while the account remains open issue.
It seems like a move that will upset some customers, so they must have weighed that against the cost of making a gesture like offering a penalty free exit, where there would be some cost to members in meeting those funding requirements from elsewhere (which is the justification for having an exit fee). There will of course also have been a cost in the migration that led to the situation.
All part of the everyday commercial decisions an institution needs to make.
0 -
In common with most other institutions, clause 28.10 (current terms but I would be very surprised if similar clause wasn't in previous terms) entitles. you to penalty free exit if changes are to your disadvantage.
1 -
Under my reading of those terms, 28.10 covers changes made under 28.1 for reason 28.6.1. Part of these changes would fall under the first row of Table 7, "paying money in", which does allow a penalty free exit. So I am curious why KRBS believes this isn't applicable. The current terms will be the ones in force now, even if they differ from the ones agreed to when the account was opened.
3 -
Yes I agree, with the obvious caveats that the current general savings terms and conditions haven't materially changed in relation to changes since the product was taken out, or that the specific product terms and conditions don't override the general terms in any material respect.
The current (March 2026) terms and conditions allow Kent Reliance to change the terms and conditions because of changes to systems and technology
What has been missed in the earlier discussion is what happens when Kent Reliance does make a change for the reason in 28.6.1. In that case table 7 (table 6 applies to interest rate changes) does seem to clearly apply as it relates to 'any changes to electronic payments for example paying money in'.
So it does seem on the surface that a complainant doesn't have to rely on unfair contract term legislation to claim a penalty free exit but can simply rely on the terms and conditions.
It is hard to comment further without knowing whether Kent Reliance can provide a good reason as to why the change doesn't come under 28.6.1 or why table 7 doesn't apply despite the change coming under 28.6.1.
I've got an easy access ISA with Kent Reliance and I'm happy to stay with them. I quite like them as an organisation. All organisations will occasionally get some things wrong and even sometimes fail to correct things when they do get things wrong.
I came, I saw, I melted2 -
Yes, I think they are clearly acting against the terms and conditions and should not be allowed to do this.
The mentioned clause 16.1 about them being able to change the agreement "to provide for the introduction of a new or improved system" I read it as they can add details about this system into the agreement but not that they can change whatever they want with that excuse without allowing you to opt out.
1 -
It is interesting that. In an older version of the Savings Account Conditions (February 2026) where changes are dealt with in condition 16 the table says against "if the change is to your disadvantage" "can you close your account":
"Yes, you’re free to close your Account (without notice, loss of interest or additional charges) at any time within 60 days (or 30 days if the change is to the Tariff of Fees) of the date we reasonably expect you will have received our notification to you of the change. After this time, you’ll be treated as having accepted the change"
So there is a time limit.
What you would need to see is whether the current terms apply to existing accounts taken out before the current terms came into effect. The Conditions I have from February 2026 have these words at the start
"These Savings Account Conditions apply to all accounts applied for from 18 February 2026".
which suggests older accounts may be subject to older Conditions. Of course maybe the March 2026 document supersedes all that.
1 -
The new document can be found at:
Stating: "Effective from March 2026"
Customers should have received a notice of variation well in advance if these terms supersede what was in force before that.
Whether or not existing customers were moved onto the March 2026 terms, they could have relevance. It could be argued that if there was a need to vary the terms to be more favourable to customers in this situation, it would be fair and reasonable to extend those advantages to all customers.
0 -
Yes Effective from March 2026 is not very clear.
I don't remember getting anything about these terms and conditions but it is possible I just ignored it as more bumpf.
However did the actions being complained about happen before March 2026? I opened accounts before then on the new platform but I don't know when the ISAs were (or will be) transferred across from the old system to the new one.
But assuming the March 2026 terms apply (and that people have identified the applicable bit of Table 7) it still looks as if there is a time limit (as set out in the notification of the change) for exiting without loss of interest etc
I mention time limits because that could explain why one person was allowed to exit and @rallycurve wasn't.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456K Spending & Discounts
- 248K Work, Benefits & Business
- 605.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.9K Life & Family
- 263.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards