Follow this topicFollow this topic Knowledge » The economy

The Base Rate Cut -- One Month On

Rachel Wait
by Lovemoney Staff Rachel Wait on 07 January 2009  |  Comments 28 comments

December's base rate cut to 2% has had a significant impact on all of us. But which mortgage lenders and savings providers have been kind to their customers and which have been downright mean?

It's been exactly a month since the base rate was cut to 2%, and quite frankly, I'm depressed. The interest on my Halifax savings account has dropped yet again, and is now paying out a measly 1% AER. And with another base rate cut likely this Thursday, I won't be surprised to see my interest rate drop to zero.

To top it off, I'm on a fixed-rate mortgage, so I'm seeing no benefit from the base rate cuts whatsoever. But then again, with many lenders failing to pass on the full rate cuts to their customers, even variable rate borrowers are missing out.

So let's check out which banks and building societies have treated their customers more generously, and which have been totally and utterly stingy.

Savings

According to research from Fool partner Moneyfacts, 77% of providers have announced cuts in their savings rates in the past month, with the majority passing on the full 1% or more.

In fact, the data shows the average savings rate on a no notice account now stands at just 1.48%, with 38% of the accounts paying a rate of 1% or less on balances of £5,000. Absolutely pitiful.

The sinners

On the whole, the worst offenders have actually been building societies, not banks. Stroud and Swindon Building Society tops the list, cutting its savings interest rates by up to a whopping 2.5% since the 1% base rate cut in December. Its Classic Gold Savings Account is now one of its worst paying accounts, paying as little as 0.25% AER.

Kent Reliance Building Society has also cut its rates by up to 2%, while Chesham Building Society has reduced its rates by 1.35%. Other offenders include Northern Rock, passing on a 1.29% cut, and Nationwide and Abbey, both passing on a cut of 1.1%. The majority of other banks passed on the full 1% reduction.

The saints

According to Moneyfacts data, only 10 providers `generously' passed on less than a 1% cut. These include Anglo Irish Bank (0.75%), Marks & Spencer Money (0.5%) and Manchester Building Society (0.5%). Anglo Irish is still paying 4.55% AER on its variable Easy Access Account, as well as 4.6% AER on its one year Fixed Rate bond. Although this may not sound particularly exciting, you'll be hard pushed to find much better.

If you want to check out what other rates are on offer on savings account, check out this excellent article by Szu Ping Chan.

Mortgages

According to Moneyfacts, 76% of mortgage providers have announced a cut to their standard variable rate (SVR). But only 19 lenders have passed on the cut in full.

According to the research, 72% of lenders only passed on a cut of between 0.15% and 0.99%. Yet the cost of borrowing has fallen sharply for banks - the inter-bank lending rate (LIBOR) is now just 0.64% above the base rate, the smallest margin seen since the 18th March.

The baddies

Several building societies have passed on very little or none of the base rate cut to borrowers, with some reasoning they are doing this so they can offer better interest rates to savers. So you would therefore presume their savings rates would be pretty competitive.

Yet if we take a look at the five lenders that still have an SVR of 6% or above (having left their rates unchanged following last month's base rate cut), you'll see that three of them have already been named above as the worst offenders in terms of savings rates.

LenderCurrent SVR
Stroud and Swindon BS6.79%
Kent Reliance BS6.75%
Chesham BS6.70%
Market Harborough BS6.25%
Darlington BS6.12%

Source: Moneyfacts

Stroud and Swindon, Kent Reliance and Chesham, all have ridiculously high SVRs and yet they have also cut their savings rates by more than 1%. So clearly winners in this scenario are the lenders themselves.

Out of the banks, Alliance & Leicester, Northern Rock, Halifax, and ING Direct are among the worst offenders. Alliance & Leicester and Northern Rock have only cut their SVRs by 0.5% to 5.34%, while Halifax and ING have lowered their SVRs by just 0.25% to 4.75% and 4.59% respectively.

The goodies

At the top of the list is Cheshire Building Society which has cut its SVR by an impressive 1.94% to 4%. Cheltenham & Gloucester, HSBC, and First Direct are among the lenders that have cut their SVRs by the full 1%, falling to 4%, 4.44%, and 3.69% respectively.

Whether these lenders will be so generous if the base rate is cut again on Thursday, no one can say, but I doubt they will be. One thing for certain though is that savers are definitely likely to continue losing out. And that, in my opinion, is just not on!

More: Time To Fix It? | Earn A Colossal 8% On Your Cash

Compare mortgage deals via the Fool

Compare savings rates with the Fool

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (28)

  • robward1
    Love rating 0
    robward1 said

    Although I have noticed that Alliance and Leicester's advertised rates have not dropped as much as some. They have been very generous to me on my SVR. I am only paying 0.75% above base a the moment.

    Considering this is the SVR I dropped onto exactly a year ago, when my Fixed term expired, I am scared to call them about it incase they realise there has been a mistake!!

    I wonder what will happen this month....

    Report on 07 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • bloxojohn
    Love rating 0
    bloxojohn said

    How about an article on the mortgage tracker rates that have collars (and have applied them)? Seem to remember some news that the FSA didn't look favourably on them, so how about a bit of naming and shaming?

    Report on 07 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • VioletsAreBlue
    Love rating 0
    VioletsAreBlue said

    The Bank of England is aiming to cut further the base rate - for mortgages it can be viewed as good news; for people who have struggled to save they are not seeing a good interest return on their investments. Overall it will not improve the economy state of affairs, it is a vicious circle. The public is not going to spend no matter what - redunduncies are in the horizon, no one is safe a job lost can mean loosing a home no income no mortgage repayments, quality of life is reduced. Savers will not spend and unlikely to continue saving with a low interest on offer. Some banking systems may survive but many will go under. The government needs to wake up by reducing the base rate alone it is not the solution. Industry and government needs to generate money, investments, create more jobs, retention of staff, get the housing market up and running, reduce fuel gas and electricity, help the old aged, there is so much to do, lets not just focus on base interest cuts the government needs to do far more than that.

    Report on 07 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • DonaldTramp
    Love rating 0
    DonaldTramp said

    The government cannot put all the blame on the banks. I'm sick of seing them critising the banks every time the banks fail to do whatever Nu labour wants.

    I'm sorry but maybe the banks are trying to return to a more sensible and appropriate level of lending rather than just play ball with Labour and keep Browns Boom from turning to bust (of which I have absolutely no doubt will happen) before the next general election.

    They also have to pay high interest to the government for Browns boom extending bailout. This has to be paid for. As a taxpayer, I want it back!

    Britains society has been living in debt La la land for far too long. Maybe the people who got in debt to the absolute maximum should have tried to live a bit more FOOLishly? Saving maybe?

    Instead of screaming for more debt to satisfy the addiction, maybe it is time to wean ourselves of it?

    I'm fed up paying to bail out other people out of their excesses.

    Report on 07 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • VioletsAreBlue
    Love rating 0
    VioletsAreBlue said

    It is no surprise that the credit crunch \ economic downturn has been used in many organisations as an excuse to rid off the oder knowledgeable, wiser employee by making them redundant and or voluntary serverance, the objective is to recruit at half the salary to reduce costs, the impact is the over 40's are taking the blunt and organisations are shortsighted to see that they are throwing out the knowledge, skill sets that made their organisation successful through the sheer hard work, loyalty and dedication of their older employees. Excuses, excuses......

    Report on 07 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • parsleyhay
    Love rating 0
    parsleyhay said

    The basic premis is that Banks and Building Societies actually have money to lend.

    The BOE can set rates at what they like, if there is no money to lend what does it matter what the rate is, with the pressure on the £ there are currently a flight of funds out of the UK to more secure and higher interest countries.

    The government also being 'greedy' in loans passed to RBS/Lloyds/BOS etc are set at 12%, but banks are expected to lend at BOE rates.

    The goal post are mounted on roller skates - easier to move them.........

    Report on 07 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Bluggs
    Love rating 0
    Bluggs said

    I have an offset mortgage with the Woolwich. That got taken over by Barclays – who I NEVER would have signed with.

    All through 2006 and 2007 as interest rates rose they immediately put up my rate, explaining that they “had” to take notice of the BoE rate.

    Both that AND the Libor rate have been cut but my Mortgage interest rate has NOT been cut even by a quarter of one percent.

    If I move of course, transfer fees will trash any savings I have made so far so the Bank I never would have signed with is enjoying me as a slave customer. I haven’t seen a word about Barclays in all the recent press – do they have some special status which means you can’t criticise them?

    Report on 07 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • peepobaby
    Love rating 49
    peepobaby said

    Lending is very risky so anything between 5-7% is quite reasonable. After all you can still get 5% on savings.

    Report on 07 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • CamaroJace
    Love rating 0
    CamaroJace said

    I feel so very bad for all investors, the whole thing is just a big stitch-up for them. I took my mortgage out at a fixed rate 5 years ago with c&g. There is very little difference on my fixed rate then to what they will offer me at renewal now (my 5 year fixed term is about to expire). In addition, we have all been a little big naughty with our plastic friends, yet the interest rates on credit cards haven't changed. Some are around 29.9%. If the credit card industry were forced to reduce their rates then I'm sure a lot of people would sigh a huge amount of relief. Let's face reality, they are making a fortune at the moment. They are being charged a lot less to borrow their money, yet they haven't passed that discount on to their customers.

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • peeers
    Love rating 0
    peeers said

    It is al very well complaining about Bankers adjusting rates. It seems to me most of the complaints are about the poor return offered on savings. Obviously, no organisation can be expected to pay high rates and reduce mortgage rates at the same time. Most of the complaints about mortgage rates seem to be centred on the enforcement of ‘collars’.

    As I understand it, collars are written into mortgage contracts in order to protect Banks from the catastrophe we are all now facing. This in turn allowed them to offer a reduced rate. It’s not fair, in my opinion to lay blame now.

    The Author, Rachel Robson, says to top it off she is on a fixed rate mortgage.

    OK so bad luck, presumably the prospect of a fixed rate was appealing at the time. Personally I am on a VR mortgage with HSBC which guarantees me a rate no more than 1% over BoE base. I have to admit in taking out the ‘contract’it was a stroke of luck on my part rather than good judgement. My conscience is clear; I have been paying a top rate to date. Banks have to make money; most readers have personal axes to grind. I suppose at the end of the day it sells newsprint. It cuts no ice with me. A contract is a contract and we all had choices

    No point in crying thief now.

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • seagull104
    Love rating 2
    seagull104 said

    I don't understand any of this interest rate play. All businesses, including banks and building societies, MUST make a profit. Otherwise they go bust (unless Gordon thinks they shouldn't). How does reducing interest rates make them more profitable? It might be interesting to see the operating margins of the various financial institutions so we could invest with the most efficient but then that would mean borrowers might be more tightly scrutinised which would mean Gordon's instructions to lend, lend and lend more might not always be followed. Strange Times!

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • spica1
    Love rating 0
    spica1 said

    Hi robward1, I am also with A&L on the .75 tracker for another 5 years and they have told me twice that there is no collar. ie 0% interest, we pay .75%. Happy days eh

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • DerKrobsen
    Love rating 0
    DerKrobsen said

    As usual the wrong tree is being barked up.

    The rate drop being passed on in the lenders' Standard Variable Rate is a red herring.

    It is the new deals that will get the market moving and these are not very attractive. Tracker margins have gone from a typical 0.5% a year or so ago to a typical 2.5% and more now, plus a fee of course.

    And savers' rates have decreased.

    Whoopee that Bank of England rates will drop again today but that will be as helpful as the VAT cut.

    Mind you that's all they can do - rates. A function of monetarism, with control of the money supply the only concern, the committee should have been abolished the day Gordon reinvoked Keynes to spend his way out of trouble.

    Maybe they'll try a bit harder to contain house price inflation in future, to avoid this all happening again! (Unlikely)

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • RiverAsUsual
    Love rating 0
    RiverAsUsual said

    It's an absolutely scandalous and pathetic series of moves by the Bank of England!

    Making savers pay for the greed of over-zealous property purchases is like hitting us twice for trying to save up to afford a sensible mortgage.

    It seems like the BoE are more interested in dragging out this housing slump than letting market forces return to normality at a proper speed.

    People took out mortgages at an expense they decided that they could afford so why are they trying to reduce these peoples costs at the expense of us savers? SO THEY HAVE MONEY TO SPEND ON THE HIGH STREET!! But most of them are just using this free cash to reduce their debts now they realise their stupidity, so in reality our savings suffer to pay off others credit card debts etc.

    Now I see banks and building societies ripping most of us off again with no obligation to even pass on these cuts to the greedy and stupid by implementing collars so pocketing a big wad of £££££ for their own coffers.

    I've now totally lost confidence in the BoE to be fair, pandering to those in debt and aiding and abetting the banks/building societies rip off of savers when they know damn well they will make big profits from these rate reductions.

    Savers rates shouldn't really even be affected by rate drops as our savings are still being used to make a 10%(?!) profit on the stock markets etc.

    It all seems a big scam to recapitalise the banks that lost billions with poor investments as quickly as possible at our expense. Talk about a no-lose gamble!!!

    So a message to the BoE- Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes saying you are doing it for the people, because some of us know you would INSIST on passing on the rate cuts to ALL mortgage-holders irrespective of what type of mortgage they have. YOU DON'T because you are helping to refinance the banks. YOU ARE A DISGRACE!!!

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldmillman
    Love rating 1
    oldmillman said

    robward1 -- first post

    Most A+L fixed rate deals don't go on to A+L's svr, then go on to a follow on rate which in your case is BOE +0.75%.

    Please - other Fools - check the wording on your statement / mortgage offer before you make incorrect comments.

    Secondly no point in blaming the BOE for not doing enough. The mortgage lenders need to be made to pass on the full rate cuts (see how much N. Rock's svr has reduced in since the Govt took it over!) 3 month LIBOR needs to come down.

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • OLH
    Love rating 0
    OLH said

    I transferred to Birmingham Midshires (when my original Building Society merged with another)many years ago (now of course Halifax) on a 0.5 above base tracker (without a 'collar') and this has been adhered to through ups and downs. When rates were going up, those on fixed rates were laughing and many others were frantically swapping lenders to get lower rates without paying attention to the SVR they would hit after the deal expired. At the moment I am profiting from the down but no doubt when the ups return there will again be scrambles to swap. My advice would be to pick a lender you are happy with and a rate you are happy with, having considered all the implications, and stick with it unless there are very sound reasons to change.

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Pitachok
    Love rating 21
    Pitachok said

    Why are savers complaining? Yes their interest rates have come down but so has inflation - the RPI was 3% in November, a fall of 2% since the summer, with more likely in December and January. We might even see 0% in 2009.

    Savers whinging that they can't 'live off' the interest on their cash anymore clearly don't understand that they never could - their savings were being eroded by inflation.

    And anyone complaining that they can't save for a deposit for a house because interest rates have fallen a few percent has to be joking. House price inflation is -14% this year, which I think you'll find is substantially worse than any savings rate.

    Interest rates have to come down to give the banks a chance to lend to sensible borrowers, let alone the reckless ones amongst us. With house prices falling there will be plenty of prudent borrowers finding they have less than 25% equity in their homes and so unable to get a good mortgage deal.

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • chailland
    Love rating 0
    chailland said

    I am surprised at Bluggs comments about his Woolwich Offset mortgage as I also have one. My interest rate did go up in 2006 and 2007 but remained competitive with other mortgages and the rate has come down with each bank rate reduction being passed on in full, to the latest rate of 2.85%. This is confirmed in my payments due in January dropping to about 50% of payments at the peak rate. Perhaps it it is worth contacting Barclays,

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • DerKrobsen
    Love rating 0
    DerKrobsen said

    Ref Pitachok, the reason inflation is down is after prices went so high after the oil price hike. It's a measure of rate of increase.

    So the rate has stopped increasing quite so fast but the overall cost of living remains higher. It certainly hasn't reduced. Unlike savings rates.

    Bank base rate has come down but banks have put their margins up in addition to reducing their risk by insisting on larger deposits. Their income multiples have hardly changed.

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Hardtruth
    Love rating 66
    Hardtruth said

    Anyone still think that the BoE and MPC is indpendent? With incompetence on this scale I think it's clear who is pulling on the strings.

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • whiterabbit93307
    Love rating 0
    whiterabbit93307 said

    As DerKrobsen has already said. It is first time buyers who will push the housing market and the deals being offered are just shocking for anything above 75%ltv. Perhaps if they actually passed the rate cuts on to new customers rather than the 6,7,8%+ deals that are available we would see a little more optimistic future for the housing market. There are few out there that can save nearly £40k and pay rent at the same time. So should we just turn into a nation of tenants lining the landlords pockets?

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • TheHeroTheDavid
    Love rating 0
    TheHeroTheDavid said

    Hello Peeps

    Pitachok is actually spot on. Before we had a Fiat money syste (money created out of thin air by decree) no one earned any interest on their savings. It didn't matter because there was no general inflation. A Fiat currency creates money as debt& charges interest upon this debt, hence perpetual inflation, as there is always more debt (debt plus interest), than money.

    Incomes from savings may have been made by investing in the production of goods & services.

    Savers in this era have only got a return by depositing money in financial institutions which in turn reinvest this (well not really, it's used as a deposit to gain 10 times+ more funds from the central bank in a process known as fractional reserve banking).

    Both taxation, & inflation erode most of the benefit anyway, & returns after this in excess of 2% are historically very uncommon.

    The irony of this is, that savers are moaning that the very risky lending which the banks engaged in, actually benefited them over the last few years.

    However, the problem has not been people borrowing too much, rather that banks abandoned their lending protocols. Partly, this was due to not capitalist, but left wing/democrats insisting that finance, & home ownership should be availabe for the poorest & riskiest (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - inventions of Casrter & Clinton).

    Debt was openly extended towards people prudence would have avoided.

    The next problem came through employing science PhD "quants" to come up with new formulas to repackage debt, which was then circulated around with the abandon of a drug dealers game of pass the parcel. No one new what was inside, but they'd take it anyway.

    All this circulation created new deposits, & new wealth & expansion for the banks, which was all going to fail as soon as someone defaulted, & a domino effect of fear & reality checking occurred.

    Gordon Brown has already borrowed billions more into existence bailing out the banks. Unfortunately this fiscally challenged fool had already borrowed £200BN during the boom years, added another £200BN at least of off balance sheet liabilities with the PFI iniative, & sold of our gold $10BN. This is forgetting the extra million + public sector jobs he has created, & the apocalyptic debt to be endured when the public sector final salary - retire at 60 pension scheme starts to really start squeezing. Those pensions, originally meant to run for 18 years, now find that they will be paying for 30. The liabilties are monumental.

    Happily, this debt & the vast interest upon it,& all the concomitant financial hardship, & drop in living standards, will be paid off by the children, grand, & great granchildren, of those who claim to build a better world for them now! Don't forget, that most graduates now leave university with debts of £30,000, unlike dear old mum, dad, & the grandparents.

    It really is time for the older generation to stop being so selfish & think of what their actions will leave behind!

    Unfortunately, for savers who have squirreled away all their life, without the benefit of a pension plan, & foregone ephemeral luxuries in the past, for a more comfortable future,things seem likely to get far worse.

    There are rumours that Brown the Clown wants to print even more money! £200Bn again to start.

    The more money there is, the less value it has. It leads to price inflation, then hyper inflation, & could lead to the end of the currency.

    Governments historically have used inflation & taxation to erode their citizens wealth. It's no different now.

    The problem is that money has no intrisic value of its own, & we could all be left with worthless bits of paper.

    My advice would be, spend while you can, enjoy life while you can, buy gold, & for god's sake we must punish those who have led us down this road.

    If a builder came to fix your roof, & it fell down, how many of us are actually gullible enough to get the same builders back, & pay them again!

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • bluebox11
    Love rating 3
    bluebox11 said

    We too have a Woolich/Barclays mortgage and they seem to be one of the few lenders who are dropping their base rate inline with the BOE base rate. Bluggs should contact them soon as. We are on a tracker mortgage and only paying 0.27 above Barclays Base Rate

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • LateDeveloper
    Love rating 22
    LateDeveloper said

    Why anyone expects interest rates drops to be passed on,without legislation, is beyond me.

    Lets take a sensible look at this, the banks have made dodgy loans in the past, which they admit to, and are cash strapped due to investment markets dropping, and along comes the BOE and says hey we will cut interest rates. Now it is automatically assumed by everyone that the BOE base rate is dropped to help the consumer, err no, it is done to help the Banks recoup some of that cash they lost.

    It is only consumers that see a base rate cut and then through the news media, apply pressure to these banks, to get them to lower rates.

    From the banks point of view, a BOE base rate cut means more cash for them, and I am pretty sure they wouldn't pass on any rate cut if they could get away with it. As the dust settles from this, these banks will reap the justified reward (hopefully) of their approach and money grubbing ways, by having customers leave them and head towards the lenders that have proven to be fair with its borrowers.

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • gordonbanks42
    Love rating 11
    gordonbanks42 said

    LateDeveloper: it would be just indeed (and rather nice) if borrowers deserted lenders who are presently treating them unfairly. It's just what the economists would predict. Sadly many of those borrowers can't desert just now because they haven't got enough equity to get a new deal elsewhere (with the LTV requirements for new deals being rather demanding at the moment).

    So payback time is deferred until whenever one can afford to refinance and the "naughty" lenders are probably right in assuming that borrowers, however livid they might be at the moment, have memory spans that yer average salmon would look down on, and will have forgotten if not forgiven by the time it matters. Hence payback time may never come at all.

    I wonder whether in two years' time we will see side-notes on TMF "Best Buy" tables for mortgages, saying things like "but remember that these are the gits who stitched people up worse than most in 2008/9". Ed?

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Tibsie
    Love rating 1
    Tibsie said

    This is why I use Zopa for my savings (there are plenty of articles about them on the Fool) my money is lent to people without the profit margins of a bank in the way so I get all the interest the borrower pays (excluding a 0.5% fee).

    I don't have much in there but I'm getting an average of 9% on it, on recent loans I'm earning over 13%. Admittedly there is a little risk, if a borrower defaults I could lose up to £10 thanks to diversification and I don't have instant access but that's something I'm prepared to put up with.

    Tom

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • uk99applejack
    Love rating 0
    uk99applejack said

    I may be naive but I don't understand why a tracker mortgage should need a collar or floor. If the bank/building society calculates that it can work with a margin of say 1.75% (above base) on a particular product then the 1.75% produces them the same income/profit whatever the base rate falls to doesn't it?

    Report on 08 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • roborovski
    Love rating 0
    roborovski said

    Does anyone know what's going on with Stroud & Swindon? They were listed on previous articles of shameful building societies that were not passing on rate cuts. They've only cut their residential mortgage SVR to 6.59% and they've left their BTL SVR at a ridiculous 7.84%. I see they've withdrawn their new business buy to let products and the rest of their mortgage range is pretty ropey. It looks like they don't want to lend and want to get rid of their buy to let customers once discount rates end. I get the sense that they might have problems. Is anyone in the know?

    Report on 17 January 2009  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Credit card
company
Balance transfers rate and period Representative
APR
Apply
now

Barclaycard 27Mth Platinum Visa

0% for 27 months (3.5% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.9% PA (variable). BT fee is reduced from 3.9% to 3.5% (T&Cs apply).

NatWest Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).

Royal Bank of Scotland Platinum MasterCard

0% for 26 months (2.65% fee) Representative 18.9% APR (variable) Apply
Representative example: assumed borrowing of £1,200, representative 18.9% APR (variable). Purchase rate 18.95% PA (variable).
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV3