Deliberate non-communication over interest rate cut

★★☆☆☆
1.8 / 5
18% of users recommend this
  • Customer Service

  • Telephone Banking

  • Internet Banking

  • Local Branch

  • Cash Point Facility

DrMichaelHr's review of Coventry Building Society

★☆☆☆☆

“Deliberate non-communication over interest rate cut”

Written on: 06/07/2021 by DrMichaelHr (1 review written)

I opened a Double Access Saver (online) account with the Coventry paying 1.2% interest on 22 September 2020. While preparing my tax return for the 20/21 year, I noticed from the end of year statement issued by the Coventry in April that the account was listed as a Limited Access Saver (online) account paying 0.55% interest.

I queried this by phone & was told that the Society had supposedly sent me an email on 10 February telling me of this change. No such e-mail was received. I complained about this, and was told that as far as the Coventry was concerned, it had met its obligations. And so, on the back of a single email, of which I have seen no evidence whatsoever, the Society believes it can unilaterally close a customer’s account and open another one on considerably reduced terms – in this instance a c. 70% interest rate reduction - without first seeking consent.

Unlike other financial organisations, the CBS feels no need to ensure that a customer has received an email on such matters by inviting a response. It doesn't believe it's necessary to issue a follow-up confirmation either electronically or via the post. I see that it subsequently ‘reissued’ the Double Access several times in Autumn at a continuously lower interest rate. This in itself doesn't inspire confidence.

My extended family & I have been customers of the Coventry for 20 years. It's a shame that, having once traded on its ethical reputation, the Coventry now freely resorts to sharp practices & treats its loyal customers with such contempt. My family will be taking its custom elsewhere. Not that its managers will care, of course.

  • Customer Service

  • Telephone Banking

Report this review
Was this review helpful? 2 0