The Lemon Fool

didds wrote:

swill453 wrote:However from what I've heard the typical response is that you get a warning and told "don't do it again".

Scott.

yeah. at least thats what happened to me about 20 or so years ago when I inadvertently did it (brainf4rt moment).

The 2nd ISA got opened absolutely fine then I got a letter saying "you shoudnt have done that. Please remember for future. But for now weve converted it to another non ISA fund." And that was it.

That's somewhat more than a warning. Your mistaken ISA subscription was, in effect, cancelled!

PinkDalek wrote:

didds wrote:

swill453 wrote:However from what I've heard the typical response is that you get a warning and told "don't do it again".

Scott.

yeah. at least thats what happened to me about 20 or so years ago when I inadvertently did it (brainf4rt moment).

The 2nd ISA got opened absolutely fine then I got a letter saying "you shoudnt have done that. Please remember for future. But for now weve converted it to another non ISA fund." And that was it.

That's somewhat more than a warning. Your mistaken ISA subscription was, in effect, cancelled!

well, yes. But there was no dire warning of terrible consequence. I merely ended up at the position I would have been had I not had a brainf4rt.

Hardly a "warning".

Thank you. I stand corrected. The Which? website says this: "In addition to only being able to pay in a certain amount of money in each tax year, another restriction is that you can only pay into one of each kind of Isa in the same tax year."

GoSeigen wrote:It’s against the rules, probably for the sound reason that it is far easier to track the contributions if they are with a single provider.
GS

swill453 wrote:Yes I know. And all such transactions are submitted to HMRC, so as I said will be trivially easy to cross-reference by NI number.
Scott

It may be that my post was too cryptic.
By counterposing those quotes I meant to highlight that it’s either one thing or the other.
Either the rule that you must only subscribe to one type of ISA is for HMRC’s benefit in being able to pinpoint any transgressions, OR it is so easy for HMRC to track what you’re doing that there’s no real need for the rule.

...Uh?

GrahamPlatt wrote:

GoSeigen wrote:It’s against the rules, probably for the sound reason that it is far easier to track the contributions if they are with a single provider.
GS

swill453 wrote:Yes I know. And all such transactions are submitted to HMRC, so as I said will be trivially easy to cross-reference by NI number.
Scott

It may be that my post was too cryptic.
By counterposing those quotes I meant to highlight that it’s either one thing or the other.
Either the rule that you must only subscribe to one type of ISA is for HMRC’s benefit in being able to pinpoint any transgressions, OR it is so easy for HMRC to track what you’re doing that there’s no real need for the rule.

D'you know what? It might just be that one person has one perspective and another a different perspective -- and one might not have a clue [me].

Whether the rule is needed or not is moot: it exists nonetheless.

GS

richlist wrote:It's good to know the rules but £20K @ say 0.5% is only £100 a year and not an amount worth getting very excited about.
But I now know what I can & can't do.

Yes, and of course, you still lose money in real terms, the amount depending on whether you use the RPI or CPI inflation rate. Sticking money in a savings account/ cash ISA merely makes that loss slightly lower than it would be if you kept the cash at home.

Steve

stevensfo wrote:

richlist wrote:It's good to know the rules but £20K @ say 0.5% is only £100 a year and not an amount worth getting very excited about.
But I now know what I can & can't do.

Yes, and of course, you still lose money in real terms, the amount depending on whether you use the RPI or CPI inflation rate. Sticking money in a savings account/ cash ISA merely makes that loss slightly lower than it would be if you kept the cash at home.

Steve

It does a little more than that in my case. My savings interest usually exceeds the tax free allowance so placing as much out of the grasp of HMRC as I can keeps me happy. I really dislike paying tax on savings interest.

GrahamPlatt wrote:Looks like I have been labouring under a misapprehension. However, given how demonstrably easy it as to circumvent this rule (while keeping to the letter), I would refer you to Lord Sumption’s view.

That sounds like a red light all by itself! Strictly IMO.

Why would anyone want a cash ISA anyway? Maybe they think that interest rates are suddenly going to rise.

Dod