access:

Keeping your money by default for ever, if no action is taken, should be illegal.

DOES ANYONE AGREE WITH ME?

Yes, though I am less worked up about that than I am by a more subtle manifestation of the problem. The organisation says it wrote but the letter never arrived. I wrote but the organisation claims the letter was never received. Frequently. Royal Mail claims (and I believe them) that only a very small proportion of correctly addressed mail gets lost. How come most (all even) of my "routine" mail such as statements gets delivered but so much of my "difficult" mail to and from organisations gets "lost"?

Anyone else noticed that?

I phone the organisation and they *may* record me. When I ask for a "juicy" recording, hey, it wasn't recorded after all. Or wiped after 6 months.

Anyone else noticed that?

You are quite right, the balance of proof on default action needs to be legally shifted in the consumers favour and "corporate lies" about a letter being sent when there is no proof it was sent should be heavily punished.

I loan desperate Chancellor my cash and he keeps it – forever*!

The Chancellor is desperate for one year cash at the moment and wants to borrow cash from me at 3.95% initially for a year – this rate is so good that it can be called “crowding out” or desperate if you like. BUT in a sublime bit of marketing chutzpah (cheek) the Chancellor keeps my money forever* if I take no action and tries to kid me he’s doing me a favour as follows:-

“Guaranteed Growth Bond faqs: Lender (me): I went on holiday and I opened the letter on my return but my Bond had already matured. What happened to my money and what should I do now? (remember maturity instructions are only sent out ten days before maturity)

The Chancellor: *Don’t worry, your money is still safe with us. It has automatically started earning interest at a new fixed rate for a further term of the same length. (remember if the Chancellor doesn’t need one year money on maturity the rate could be truly dreadful)”

Other banks/building societies that want to borrow from me and have the same overall policy as the Chancellor include: Coventry BS, Kent reliance BS, AA Savings, BM may or may not but I’ve just read their online t&cs and they don’t bother to mention this at all, Abbey is vague. And in a short list of examples Mansfield BS sends you round in a circle to general t&cs but there’s nothing on maturity. They have a user friendly photo of a smiling lady and “call us” etc BUT as cs is so variable I always want everything in black and white and on the website.

WHY IS THIS DEPLORABLE PRACTICE LEGAL?

Am I being a fuss pot? First remember they call it “saving” I call it “lending” them money. Pop into your local bank and try and borrow money on the terms and conditions the above offer.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN?

Before you commit to loaning money there should be a maturity form which defaults on your funds being paid into your current account/easy access on maturity. Then whatever options the institution wants to offer. Never going to happen? Halifax do it and YBS automatically default into an easy access account on maturity. Keeping your money by default for ever, if no action is taken, should be illegal.

DOES ANYONE AGREE WITH ME?