Stealth cost of moving savings

bristolleedsfan

Biggles wrote: »

One day, surely, BLF? Assuming you take the cheque to the B&B the same day, that day is the only day lost.

.

Yes:T more and more providers seem to be paying interest up to and including day of withdrawal, previously most stopped paying interest on day before withdrawal on basis that they only pay interest for whole days of investment.

Aegis

Meltdown wrote: »

Did you mean FPS rather than APACS?

Yes. Yes I do

oldfella

FWIW my rule of thumb is the cost of moving cash needs to be returned within 3 months to justify it

Mikeyorks

Aegis wrote: »

Yes. Yes I do

Well now you've got it right ....... you're wrong:p

At least you're not quite right. FP will only replace elements of BACS to do with SOs / bill payments / diarised payments. The significant BACS traffic that arises from DDs and BACS Direct Credits will remain ... as FP doesn't impact them.

bye_bye_band_G

PasturesNew wrote: »

That'd be good. I've been meaning to move money on a Monday for a few weeks now... to try to get the transaction completed within that same week (not over a weekend).

If the bank you're moving from pays interest up to the day before withdrawal, do they pay up to the Friday before (last working day), or up to the Sunday (last calendar day)?
Because I don't know the answer to this and the Friday answer would mean you miss out on the weekend before the move starts, I've been moving money on Tuesdays.
Do I need to do this or is Monday better?

Consumerist

earlgrey wrote: »

Has anyone seen details on this recently? The latest press release I can find is dated 28/4 and though giving the 27 May date I also see the phrase "over the summer". See http://www.apacs.org.uk/08_04_28.html. I've heard nothing from Natwest apart from a vague leaflet.

Thanks for the heads-up on the APACS press release. Having read it, I don't think we will be able to rely on FPS any time soon.

Only 5% of transactions will use FPS to start with (but rising to over 50% over the Summer, says APACS). Not all banks will use it, anyway. Even if a bank does participate in FPS, we won't know which transactions will use it. And it also looks as though there will be a ceiling of £10,000 or less.

Now, call me a cynnic if you like but this rollout of FPS bears all the hallmarks of it being dragged out, kicking and screaming, when it comes to applying it to retail customers who are not major business concerns.

Milarky

Consumerist wrote: »

Now, call me a cynic if you like but this rollout of FPS bears all the hallmarks of it being dragged out, kicking and screaming, when it comes to applying it to retail customers who are not major business concerns.

Of course it's a 'stitch up' [Where's Martin Lewis on their case about it?] You'll recall the history of all this:

In 1998 Don Cruickshank was appointed to investigate banking practices for the Govt [a 'new' NewLabour one at the time] and reported in March 2000.

In August 2000 the government published a response

In December 2000 the government [still on the case] 'launched' a consolation
"TO ENSURE A BETTER DEAL FOR BANK CUSTOMERS"
It was that good old foot-in-the-mouth Andrew Smith who 'lay on the line' for the banks: And, rather rashly, he appeared to promise

"There will be no hiding place for anyone seeking to take advantage of customers dependent on them to carry out essential daily banking transactions such as drawing cash, cashing cheques, transferring money or using standing orders and direct debits to pay bills."

But later in the same statement the reality of 'getting tough' was effectively exposed by the admission that:

"The introduction of new rules and new powers for the OFT is a route I thoroughly support. It should herald a new era of effective competition in payment systems."

[only it didn't do any such thing]

The result of all this reviewing and consulting was 'policy capture' of course. The OFT (trusted by HMG) then simply sat down with the banks set up something called the Payments System Taskforce - which set up 'working groups' on cheques clearing and BACS payments. This faith which the government and OFT showed in the banks to generate their own solutions to the problems already identified in their practices is as touching as it is naive.

Of course the results were then under the control of the banks themselves. Instead of being told what to do they were asked (nicely) 'Can we do anything here'? They concluded (amazingly, I think) that cheques could not be speeded it - it just wasn't worth the effort.

"There will be no hiding place for anyone seeking to take advantage of customers dependent on them to carry out essential daily banking transactions such as drawing cash, cashing cheques, transferring money or using standing orders and direct debits to pay bills."

So what did they do about cheques then? They took two years just to change the way they treated cheques as instruments (i.e. paying interest from day 3 - the same day the cheque would leave the drawing account) There was no reason not to start treating cheques in this way as soon as they reported (in late 2005) was there? - since the implementation of 'same speed/different treatment' idea didn't depend on (for instance) faster BACS or any physical systems. But instead they successfully hoodwinked the OFT (and govt) into accepting a two year wait - so that '2-4-6' (as it was termed) could come in 'big bang' like at the same time as faster BACS. Whether this was ever true in the minds of the bankers or not is moot - but what in God's names was the Regulator thinking when it agreed - already 7 years into the process - that an inessential delay of two more years was either a 'good idea' or an example of 'consumer protection'?

And the 'two years' that the 'Payments Taskforce' bought for the banking system was predicated on a 'highly ambitious' promise to deliver payments 'within two hours' by the agreed deadline of November 2007.

Well November came and went of course, and 'same speed/different treatment' of cheques duly arrived. But faster BACS would be delayed. 'How long' people asked ' by May' was the new promise. 'By [late] May' was the general assumption. Also, what was significant about six months? Nothing - was just buying themselves time wasn't it?

Feeling the heat (possibly?) the bods announced on 27 February that Faster Payments would arrive on 27 May (Exactly 3 months) But it seems they were just saying something again to string the process along

And now this disgrace of a press release from APACS with its unacceptable admission (at this stage) that Faster Payments basically doesn't work when you try and turn up the juice. Payments will gradually speed up. If that was always a likelihood they should have said something about it much, much sooner.

laurat

bye_bye_band_G wrote: »

PasturesNew wrote: »

That'd be good. I've been meaning to move money on a Monday for a few weeks now... to try to get the transaction completed within that same week (not over a weekend).

If the bank you're moving from pays interest up to the day before withdrawal, do they pay up to the Friday before (last working day), or up to the Sunday (last calendar day)?
Because I don't know the answer to this and the Friday answer would mean you miss out on the weekend before the move starts, I've been moving money on Tuesdays.
Do I need to do this or is Monday better?

I've been wondering this too - does anyone know? Thanks

Consumerist

Milarky wrote: »

Of course it's a 'stitch up'

Yes, the Headmaster has called the bullies into the study and given them a lecture.

The bullies have responded by beating him up.