ING Direct Raises Savings Account Interest Rate to 4.50%

But why didn't they pass on the full 0.25% making it 4.55% AER? Or do they only like round numbers, in which case it should have gone to 4.6%!

Bitstring , from the wonderful person John said

coz like everyone else they make their profit by skimming the odd 0.05%s when they hope the consumers won't notice. 8>.

I am interested to know if Coventy BS pass on the increase at full rate on their online account "Guaranteed to pay 4.3% and no less than base rate until 30 Sept 2004", as far as I can see ING is still the top paying instant access account even with only a 0.2% increase]

Chris

Well the chicken has written to them asking this very question and will report back if an answer is forthcoming!

Squawk!

Egg are currently offering a savings account at guaranteed 0.75% above BofE base rate for 6 months.

Mark.

In message , John writes

Actually, if ING were to pass on the full effect of the BoE .25% per annum interest rate rise then their AER would rise by about .25023% because the BoE applies interest quarterly.

Well, the guarantee might say that but, right now they are breaking that promise... They are still at 4.5 percent.

They've generously given themselves up to 14 days following any change in rates to make the adjustment.

Mark.

To be fair, Didn't ING lower their rates by less than the rate change when it went down?

On the subject of ING, why do ING need a cheque to set up the acc (well yes so they can set up a DD to move money in and out, hey but your utility companies don't want a cheque to do that!). It is not for ID as They check Experian for that.

I ask because the cheque I sent them, has, apparantly got lost in the post. The account is not opened. I have to stop the cheque (£12) thus wiping out any potential interest rate benefit for a long while! (I switched from Norhtern Rock Tracker Online, for which I signed up for a week before they introduced the intro bonus, grrr). Now NR didn't require a cheque, and I am sure Egg doesn't either. I moved money into that account online (thouugh BACs) and withdrew it in the same way. I can only assume that the DD method is cheaper than BACS, despite having to handle everyones initial deposit by cheque! and set up the DDs!

I wish I had never switched!!!

If your bank charges you £12 for stopping a cheque that has been lost, name and shame them. Mine doesn't. None should.

Agreed. usually a bank only charged if you want to stop payment, NOT for lost or stolen checks

Haven't cancelled the cheque (yet), but assume that I will be charged as the cheque isn't stolen (well it could have been) It is a Barclays cheque, (£10 for cancellation) doesn't even mention stolen cheques are cancelled for free.

I emailed them with my question above and the reply was something like (or the same as being in the T+Cs of their website:

"Thank you for contacting ING Direct. ING Direct are a direct bank, this means we operate our customers accounts via the Internet and telephone. Direct banking enables us to keep our costs low and interest rates high. When you open an account with us, an electronic link between your current account and ING Direct is set up. This enables you to move money between your ING Direct savings account and your linked account whenever you want. In order to set this up we ask for the opening deposit to be drawn by cheque from your designated linked account. This will allow us to validate the link between your two accounts and will also be used to help us identify you to ensure that your money is kept secure. Our product has been designed specifically to be a low risk savings product and has been approved by the FSA and the Legal Council.

If you have any further queries regarding your ING Direct Savings Account, please contact us on 0845 6038888."

Okay how about this one - HSBC. They charge 7.50 to stop any cheque unless it's been stolen. Being lost in the post doesn't count. I appealed to my local branch here in York (Parliament Street) but they incinuated that they were being told from higher up in the chain that we can't reverse charges in more and more cases, regardless of if the cheque was lost in the post or not.

Regards, Far

OT: I am actually getting rather annoyed with "customer services" quite clearly (see above!) cut and pasting a mildly relevent 'answer' to your emailed query. Maybe I should start phoning them up and get used to greensleaves(?) once more :-). I don't have a habit of contacting customer services, but I am having particular trouble of late.

If anyone does have a clue (as ING don't seem to) as to why they actually need a cheque I be very interested... ;-)

In message , James writes

Some thoughts:

It is a result of *their* interpretation of Money Laundering rules in so far as the cheque is evidence of the source of funds, whereas a DD is quite the same.

Also it is quicker from their point of view to process to collect the first investment and there can be no mistake on their part because the customer has written out the cheque.

I can't quite see how "whereas" is appropriate in this context.

But yes, that's exactly right. Unlike other banks, which require documentary evidence of address and of identity when you wish to open an account, for ING a cheque is enough. Essentially they're piggy-backing on your existing bank's compliance with the laundry rules.

Oh dear, my mistake. The word "is" should have been "isnt"!!!!!!!!!!!

Not quite. Money Laundering places an obligation on the deposit taker to record the source funds. A copy of a cheque is irrefutable, whereas a DD mandate is somewhat vague.......

I would have thought they'd be pretty well equivalent. I don't know the intricacies of how the clearing system works, but if a receiving bank attempts to collect a sum by DD from account 01234567 at branch

12-34-56 in the name of Miss Olive Oyle, and the money does in fact turn up after they've typed in the details, this is surely adequate evidence that the source of funds is the account in question, even if the drawee bank's clerk didn't check to make sure the name matches and the account holder is in fact Popeye the Sailor Man.

I can see how the cheque can be a smidgeon tidier because it does actually show the account holder's name. I can also see that once they have a copy of the cheque on file they can accept further deposits by DD if from the same account as the cheque.

Nevertheless, the cheque could have been forged (e.g. by having the account holder's name altered, which might well go unnoticed at the draweee bank). I'm not quite sure why a depositor would wish to do this since the source of funds into the ING account would still be traceable via the account number, and for the same reason I don't really see why a cheque is *really* any stronger than just any old account number on a DD.

But ING certainly *are* piggybacking. They do not require any of the usual documents for opening an account. I know because I opened one myself quite recently.

Also, possibly, because the account information is machine-readable from the cheque, so data entry errors when setting up the DD are reduced.