podgerodge
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,138
The Central Bank should be looking at the clear increase in recent times of "promotional rates", stating AER even though the AER cannot be achieved (due to e.g. 6 month introductory rate) and the forcing of clicking hyperlinks to see the full terms and conditions applying to the rate.
I recall that the original Consumer Protection Code (back in the 2010's while Sharon Donnery was involved in the Consumer side) that clear 'exclusions/*** etc.' had to be on the advert. Now, it appears, but I'm open to correction, that the current Consumer Proection Code only mandates a link/URL be provided to the detail.
It's becoming very difficult to 'judge a book by its cover' these day (thankfully helped by @Lightning for us on this site), and some of these promo rates are likely (or will) become worse than signing up for a straightforward AER from an institution not playing these games.
I note (following a search) that @Brendan Burgess mentioned way back in 2011 that the Central Bank found:
"However, banks are reminded that key information must always be brought to the attention of consumers. When determining whether advertising material is misleading or not, the Central Bank will always look at the advertising material from the perspective of the consumer. The following case study is an example of an issue identified during this theme, which has resulted in customer refunds:
Case Study 1
In the case of 1 deposit product, 2 brochures were examined and were considered to be unfair and misleading to customers. The brochures advertised an attractive equivalent annual rate but information relating to the minimum rate payable was not clearly presented to the customer and should have been highlighted for the customer, in accordance with Provision 12 of Chapter 2 of the Consumer Protection Code. Within 9 months of issuing the brochure, the rate payable on the account was the minimum rate. Therefore, we considered that customers were misled with regard to the actual rate that could be achieved.
The bank concerned is now in the process of recalculating the interest for each customer as if they had received the advertised rate for the entire year. Furthermore, the bank will inform customers that the refund is being processed.
Misleading advertising
In the case of one deposit product, two brochures were examined and were considered to be unfair and misleading to customers. The brochures advertised an attractive equivalent annual rate, and information relating to the minimum rate payable, which should have been highlighted, was not clearly presented to the customer. Within nine months of issuing the brochure, the rate payable on the account was the minimum rate. In this case it was determined that customers were misled on the actual rate that could be achieved. The relevant bank is now in the process of recalculating the interest for each customer as if they had received the advertised rate for the entire year, and refunds will be made.
I recall that the original Consumer Protection Code (back in the 2010's while Sharon Donnery was involved in the Consumer side) that clear 'exclusions/*** etc.' had to be on the advert. Now, it appears, but I'm open to correction, that the current Consumer Proection Code only mandates a link/URL be provided to the detail.
It's becoming very difficult to 'judge a book by its cover' these day (thankfully helped by @Lightning for us on this site), and some of these promo rates are likely (or will) become worse than signing up for a straightforward AER from an institution not playing these games.
I note (following a search) that @Brendan Burgess mentioned way back in 2011 that the Central Bank found:
"However, banks are reminded that key information must always be brought to the attention of consumers. When determining whether advertising material is misleading or not, the Central Bank will always look at the advertising material from the perspective of the consumer. The following case study is an example of an issue identified during this theme, which has resulted in customer refunds:
Case Study 1
In the case of 1 deposit product, 2 brochures were examined and were considered to be unfair and misleading to customers. The brochures advertised an attractive equivalent annual rate but information relating to the minimum rate payable was not clearly presented to the customer and should have been highlighted for the customer, in accordance with Provision 12 of Chapter 2 of the Consumer Protection Code. Within 9 months of issuing the brochure, the rate payable on the account was the minimum rate. Therefore, we considered that customers were misled with regard to the actual rate that could be achieved.
The bank concerned is now in the process of recalculating the interest for each customer as if they had received the advertised rate for the entire year. Furthermore, the bank will inform customers that the refund is being processed.
Misleading advertising
In the case of one deposit product, two brochures were examined and were considered to be unfair and misleading to customers. The brochures advertised an attractive equivalent annual rate, and information relating to the minimum rate payable, which should have been highlighted, was not clearly presented to the customer. Within nine months of issuing the brochure, the rate payable on the account was the minimum rate. In this case it was determined that customers were misled on the actual rate that could be achieved. The relevant bank is now in the process of recalculating the interest for each customer as if they had received the advertised rate for the entire year, and refunds will be made.
