Interest rates for TheONE Account staying up

georgeone

pandjscorpio

I cannot comment if this is a good result for you or not - only you can judge. I simply note that my own result was more nominal sum for compensation, but an instruction that RBS must not only retroactivly adjust the rate, but also effectively track the BoE rate (i.e. at the same "spread") going forward too! This may or may not turn out to be worse for me in the longer run than switching to a lower rate or a lower 'spread' tracker - but it is what I signed up for 10 years ago, and what they promised/sold me at that itme, and as I took this action on a point of principle as opposed to the financial impact, the FOS decision was one I welcomed - it was a good result for me. As I say, I cannot pass judgement on what is a good result for you. (I have no knowledge of any other products they might offer and how those stack up against VOA, anyway.)

I do find it interesting that my decision said in effect 'they made a promise, they must keep it now and into the future' and your judgement said 'they made a promise and should be forced to keep it up to an arbitrary point in time linked to when the FOS make a decision, and then they must do something else'.

I wonder if the FOS have received representations from RBS since my decision (which is still not implemented) that the huge difficulty of changing their systems to handle backdated rate changes on individual accounts for daily interest calculations on fluctuating daily balances and then maintaining differential rates for selected clients going forward (i.e. the consequences of the FOS decision in my case). If so it might explain why your later decision lets them off the hook going forward - but frankly I don't believe that what I just suggested is the case, or surely they'd have been looking for a way to placate me so they didn't thave to fix their systems. And they do have to fix them and it is almost certainly part of the problem.

There have been some other decisions, so who else wants to volunteer what they have had? And anyone still awating a decision should note the signficant difference between my decision and pandjscorpio's and think ahead to what they will find acceptable (and maybe research other RBS products if that is the direction the FOS is heading in.)

waveneygnome

Thanks Georgeone for your input as ever on this subject.

With regards to RBS/One Account having to change their systems for different customers of different interest rates.............they already do this dependant upon your Facility to Home Value. They currently use 5 different interest rates on the One Account, ranging from 3.65% to 4.1%.

So I can't see a technical problem adding another rate for 'older customers'/complainers!

Cards on the table........my mortgage with OA was in excess of £400k, but since the change in interest rate policy, I have shuffled assets around to bring this down.

I, like Georgeone, simply want the account that I signed up to 11 years ago, and thats what I'm pushing the FOS for.

georgeone

waveneygnome

You are of course perfectly right re RBS managing multiple interest rates - I had not considered that. Nevertheless I can appreciate that they have other technical issues (seeing as I work in financial services IT). PM me for a discussion offline if you are interested. I can say/speculate more but not publicly at this point.

Has anyone else who has a decision in their favour re backdating interest rate changes, actually had that part resolved yet? I doubt it.

(Glad that you agree that all you want is what you signed up for / they promised. And thanks for the kind words.)

Saran_2

I think it is interesting that RBS are trying to offer compensation to get away with not maintaining the original promise. I'm with waveneygnome on this one. My own circumstances mean that there is a £600 difference per month between current and 'promise' rates. With 12 years left to run that would need compensation in the tens of thousands! Why would I want a nominal compensation?

Surely if the FOS find in your favour and force RBS to back date the rate, the logical (and fair) resolution is to keep the rate going forwards. I would reject any offer that doesn't do this and ask the Ombudsman to explain why this is fair to you.

As stated earlier, there is a matter of principle at work here.

georgeone

Ummm - it may be me and usual idiocy, but can we get some clarity here as I detect some confusion. (But, as I say, it could be me!) ;-)

I think when pandjscorpio said "in compensation for this change of terms RBS will pay me £750. in addition, i can switch to any other RBS mortgage product free of charge if i want." s/he was referring to the FOS Decision (an "instruction" to RBS, if accepted by pandjscorpio) and not referring to an offer from RBS.

Could you clarify this pandjscorpio, because unless I've missed something when saran says "I think it is interesting that RBS are trying to offer compensation to get away with not maintaining the original promise." this appears to me to be a misunderstanding of what is going on.

(Or have I somehow managed to get completely the wrong end of the stick?)

Saran_2

On re-reading pandjscorpio's post, you are of course quite right, georgeone. The offer is from the FOS.

However, it feels to me as though this is something suggested by RBS to the FOS during discussion - as it is so different from your initial judgement.

Unless there are other factors that we don't know about.

I guess all I want is the account I have used for the last 9 years operating as it has for the majority of that time.

It does feel as though the goal posts are in continous movement though!

georgeone

Yes, saran - that is something I do agree on - and in hindsight I would advise pandjscorpio to ask FOS why they are not being offered a decision that forces RBS to stick to the promise going forward. (Especially if RBS does not have any other suitable tracker to offer)

George

musicegbdf

Interesting , seems pandjscorpio and I have a similar offer. I guess since Georgeone , they have adapted the offer to settle by increasing the lump sum and offering a free transfer to another product. In the great scheme of things the lump sum is not that relevant.
I too feel they should have been bound to the promise for the full term of the mortgage.

Trying to be objective the promises made were by way of various communications rather than written as hard fact in the contract terms. Now in most other products (say a credit card) if a company changes things from what was originally promised most of us would just walk away and go with another company. The problem with a mortgage is most of us just can't do that very easily as there is cost involved.
This is how I suspect the FOS views it. They see that as a consumer our power is to walk away, but for this to happen in case like this the "walk away" must be free.This is why the free transfer to another product is technically important. The problem we all face is that in reality there are no decent deals around within RBS.

This is a victory for us and we must not forget that. I actually did not expect anything, and whilst it is not a 100% victory I am fairly pleased. There is no doubt Georgeone has got a better deal if his is actually fixed going ahead. Perhaps I should have rejected the offer , but too late as I have accepted. I will now be looking very carefully at the market , as my personal circumstances have now changed and I could be in a position to move .

georgeone

musicegbdf

Highly plausible speculation on your part. There are other possibilities here too ...

I will try to privately email those with or close to decisions - saran, musicegbdf, pandjscorpio, waveneygnome (??) - to discuss further (in the next day or three). I think I have your private email addresses separately except pandjscorpio (PM me please).

There are possible implications best discussed off-line before putting anything here in open Forum.

karanda

I am now awaiting my "offer" of compensation from the FOB after having been told verbally by them that my case has been upheld. Like many others, I have been very firm about requiring the account to return to the original operating ethos, terms and conditions etc. However, I suspect that this is not going to happen. Of course, theoretically, we are free to walk away and move to another product. In practice, given my circumstances, it is difficult, if not impossible.

Interestingly, they have turned down the case of a friend, who took up with RBS in 2004 (they ran a member get member campaign and actually compensated us both when my friend moved his mortgage). I think they are splitting hairs for people like my friend who listened to me extolling the virtues of my experence with the account, when all along they had changed the goalposts.

I am more than happy to discuss my offer with anyone off-line when it comes through. I am certainly not going to rush into making any decisionsuntil I have had feedback from others in my position.