Premium Bond Winner ?

bjohnson

I retired twenty years ago and put the maximum in premium bonds. A couple of months later I won £7,000. Not been as lucky since but I live in hope

pbcpdeveloper

onthebench said:

High value winners are out now. Unsurprisingly I’m not on the list but I hope someone can explain an oddity. 

If you sort the list by date purchased, from earliest to latest, surely you would expect the bond numbers to ascend too (with minor fluctuations within the range issued in any given month).

Yet that doesn’t seem to be the case:

95ST583745 was purchased in Oct 98. So you’d think the “two-digit at the front” bond numbers were soon to run out. 

But then there was one starting 83 sold in Dec 98 and then a 63 in Mar 99. And then in Oct 99 there was a single-digit bond starting with just 9!

Subsequent bonds over the next six years or so were also all over the place, with two-digit numbers seemingly ordered randomly and even the occasional single-digit one being sold. 

Some time between Sep 05 and Feb 06 the current three-digit numbering system started and since then the numbers seem to behave as you would expect, increasing over time from 100XXNNNNNN to the current numbers in the mid 400s. 

Were there different bond ranges being sold through different methods before the current number range was introduced?

I emailed NS&I about this and have already got a reply, which is quite impressive.  The last sentence interesting:

"There are a plethora of reasons that the numerical or alphabetical order of Bond numbers may not sequentially with purchase dates in some instances.

The primary reason is backdated purchases - if there is an issue with a sale that prevents a customer from investing in their chosen month and the fault lies with us, we take into consideration the option to backdate the purchase to retroactively include the Bonds in the prize draw that would have otherwise been missed. This would mean that newer Bond numbers that are purchased ‘in sequence’ can be forced out of sequence with the purchase date.

Another reason, while uncommon, is the re-assignment of Bond numbers - once a particular Bond has been cashed in, it has the potential to be regenerated for a new purchaser."

Eco_Miser

onthebench said:

Some time between Sep 05 and Feb 06 the current three-digit numbering system started and since then the numbers seem to behave as you would expect, increasing over time from 100XXNNNNNN to the current numbers in the mid 400s. 

Were there different bond ranges being sold through different methods before the current number range was introduced?

I don't know when the system changed, but originally you went into a Post Office and received a pre-printed paper certificate when you bought bonds.

Each series had it's own numbering sequence (AxNNNNNN - £1, Bx - £2, Cx - £3, Ex -£5, etc) so a little out-of-the-way PO might have 'old' sequence certificates long after busy POs had newer, longer numbers

csgohan4

0 on max holding

caligulablushed

This was my first ever draw. With bank interest rates dwindling, in May I bought a 50k holding in my name and a 50k holding in my partner's name.

Account one: 4 x £25
Account two: 1 x £25

So at £125 it's beaten what I'd have currently received from Marcus. Will have to see how it averages out over the coming months. 

sonny55

thank you frugal mc d
Its displaying 75 pounds winnings for July 

RG2015

£20k held for 9 months with winnings of £175.

£175 / £20,000 *12/9 = 1.16% p.a. which is better than any easy access savings account over the last 9 months.

ranciduk

4th draw on 16k - won £25 every month 

MysteryMe

£25 on £13000. Third draw I've been in and 3rd win. Max holding next draw so fingers crossed for another win.

polymaff

Some years ago my, then, employers offered MoD a contract to prove that an encryption technique of theirs was easily and quickly  crackable.  As I'd already noted the flaw it was the easiest money ever made.  The flaw was not in the encryption algorithm but in a secondary process/assumption.

I doubt that this was a unique scenario and would hope - but not know as fact - that there might not be a similar issue within the Premium Bond system (which, note, is more than just a random number generator).