Jump to content
  • The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.

  • Join The Silver Forum

    The Silver Forum is one of the largest and best loved silver and gold precious metals forums in the world, established since 2014. Join today for FREE! Browse the sponsor's topics (hidden to guests) for special deals and offers, check out the bargains in the members trade section and join in with our community reacting and commenting on topic posts. If you have any questions whatsoever about precious metals collecting and investing please join and start a topic and we will be here to help with our knowledge :) happy stacking/collecting. 21,000+ forum members and 1 million+ forum posts. For the latest up to date stats please see the stats in the right sidebar when browsing from desktop. Sign up for FREE to view the forum with reduced ads. 

Is Royal Mints legal tender promise worthless?


Guest

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, StackemHigh said:

I'm quite sure that when it's time to sell whoever is buying will pay at least face value. 

It could be that we've all had a knee jerk to the devious tactics employed by 

THE GREEDY ROYAL MINT. 

Emperors new clothes may apply going forward. But the fl tactics employed by the mint deserve our comment and critical appraisal. 

Mine thing is certain and that is if there is no critical comment worse will happen in future.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 hours ago, Scuzzle said:

And I thought the "fixed penalty" was £100 exactly.

But its not a court fine or "debt", its a fixed penalty paid to your local authority / constabulary. Legal loopholes just like the original issue.. If you decided to contest the penalty in court, and the judge in court then "fines" you, cool your good to use the legal tender.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then the fine would probably be a lot more than £100 for wasting time and costing them court expenses.

I certainly wouldn't buy any now, from RM or a private seller for face value.  Just like I don't pay RM prices for older silver proof and piedfort coins.

I'm glad I didn't buy any £100 coins or the £50.  I did buy the proof Britannia with the same design but for below the RM price.

 

I agree they shouldn't have bothered with the £20 for £20 or similar and just marked them as £1 or £5 coins if they were only commemorative keepsakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having just read up on this and the Daily Mail article, I am now mightily p*ssed off.

I bought three of the original £20 for £20 coins a few years ago and thought maybe they would go up, maybe not, but at least I could cash them in at the bank for a total of £60 if nothing else. Seems like this is no longer true.

I feel completely duped by the Royal Mint and, if some have suggested, a legal action comes forth I will be joining in.

This sort of blatant mis-representation need to be challenged.

At the end of the day its only £60 that's long gone however, on a point of principle, I will never buy anything from the Royal Mint again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, doogs said:

Having just read up on this and the Daily Mail article, I am now mightily p*ssed off.

I bought three of the original £20 for £20 coins a few years ago and thought maybe they would go up, maybe not, but at least I could cash them in at the bank for a total of £60 if nothing else. Seems like this is no longer true.

I feel completely duped by the Royal Mint and, if some have suggested, a legal action comes forth I will be joining in.

This sort of blatant mis-representation need to be challenged.

At the end of the day its only £60 that's long gone however, on a point of principle, I will never buy anything from the Royal Mint again.

I am with you on this as I too thought at worst case the face value was intrinsically safe as the coins would be accepted by some banks or the Post Office.
Now that the Mint has formally instructed banks not to accept them ( why was this necessary ?? ) at face value, I feel shafted.
Not only does this practice stink, I bet a lot of elderly people thought they would buy some of these coins for their children and grandchildren as something different to a premium bond. No-one expects them to rise in value much but £50 is £50 - but not any longer.
A coin dealer will give you spot at best so this is perhaps a topic to raise with our MPs perhaps and it discredits the Royal Mint in my opinion.
Has a similar stench to MPs expenses !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pete said:

Now that the Mint has formally instructed banks not to accept them ( why was this necessary ?? ) at face value
 

Because some people were buying large quantities and cashing them in for face value. As the RM was committed to paying this and only having received the same amount for them, they were effectively losing money on each one; being left with a lump of silver worth very little and with extensive costs of manufacture and marketting, credit card costs etc.

Profile picture with thanks to Carl Vernon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that the Mint has formally instructed banks not to accept them ( why was this necessary ?? ) at face value

 

Because some people were buying large quantities and cashing them in for face value. As the RM was committed to paying this and only having received the same amount for them, they were effectively losing money on each one; being left with a lump of silver worth very little and with extensive costs of manufacture and marketting, credit card costs etc.

I have no doubt that this is true. They have a marketing cost and they have a credit card handling cost and probably many other costs associated with these products.

However, it is also true that there is an implied promise to the buyer that these coins will have a cash value in the future equal to that face value. They are clearly in breach of that implied promise.

Judging by the reaction of the press and people on YouTube and these forums, there is a common agreement that they breach of implied promise despite the fact that they are probably not breaking the law.

If they were to say that they have marketing costs which would mean they cannot give a full refund only about 95% say, and explain the reasons why, then this would be understood and accepted by most buyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Because some people were buying large quantities and cashing them in for face value. As the RM was committed to paying this and only having received the same amount for them, they were effectively losing money on each one; being left with a lump of silver worth very little and with extensive costs of manufacture and marketting, credit card costs etc.

Silly them [ sic The Royal Mint ]!!
The Canadian's stamp $5 face value on one ounce and the Australian's & American's $1.
Even the good old one ounce Britannia has a face value of £2 so this is a bit of a blunder.
Why should the Royal Mint get off so lightly at the expense of the normal man / woman in the street.
The Mint could have written to the banks setting a limit on the transactions to stop those few who tried to make a fast buck or gain airmiles or credit card points.

Pasted from Wikipedia ref-legal tender -

"Formally, it is anything which when offered in payment extinguishes the debt."
"Restaurants that do not collect payment until after a meal is served must accept any legal tender for the debt incurred in purchasing the meal."

Who wants to test this form of payment in your local Chinese restaurant ?
Ans: Make up a sentence containing the following words - Meat-cleaver, bollocks, chopping

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Silly them [ sic The Royal Mint ]!!
The Canadian's stamp $5 face value on one ounce and the Australian's & American's $1.
Even the good old one ounce Britannia has a face value of £2 so this is a bit of a blunder.
Why should the Royal Mint get off so lightly at the expense of the normal man / woman in the street.
The Mint could have written to the banks setting a limit on the transactions to stop those few who tried to make a fast buck or gain airmiles or credit card points.

Pasted from Wikipedia ref-legal tender -

"Formally, it is anything which when offered in payment extinguishes the debt."
"Restaurants that do not collect payment until after a meal is served must accept any legal tender for the debt incurred in purchasing the meal."

Who wants to test this form of payment in your local Chinese restaurant ?
Ans: Make up a sentence containing the following words - Meat-cleaver, bollocks, chopping

Laughing  ~ imagine the Royal Mint Christmas night out at The China Village  Llantrisant Rd, Llantwit Fardre, Pontypridd.  "Now look here my good fellow, Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning you know..................run everyone!"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Who wants to test this form of payment in your local Chinese restaurant ?

Ans: Make up a sentence containing the following words - Meat-cleaver, bollocks, chopping

Hopefully we can divert the bollock-chopping meat-cleaver weilding restauranteur to the offices of the Royal Mint where payment will be taken in kind.

Now back on-topic.

Which individual employed by the Royal Mint is guilty of this HUGE theft. I need a name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

Because some people were buying large quantities and cashing them in for face value. As the RM was committed to paying this and only having received the same amount for them, they were effectively losing money on each one; being left with a lump of silver worth very little and with extensive costs of manufacture and marketting, credit card costs etc.

The mint didn't seem to have a problem selling hundreds of coins to the same person/credit card even though it had place a limit of single figures per household.. The only problem was the returning of the coins. So really the mint was just as responsible (or irresponsible) as the guy returning them

Having your cake and eating it comes to mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that the next £20 for £20 coin will have an even lower mintage, possibly 50,000.

The Royal Mint will know that most people will shy away from them but ones who want a date run will still buy them and others who aren't aware of the fraud going on will still buy them also.

They'll be showing that they can still sell them and haven't bowed down to pressure to stop the programmed yearly editions.

How easy is it to get a question asked in Parliament about the Royal Mint's fraudulent tactics? Any coin collecting MP's around?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DRooster said:

 

Which individual employed by the Royal Mint is guilty of this HUGE theft. I need a name.

From a previous post.

I've just received an email from the Royal Mint having sent them a snotty note via their website.
 
Their reply below,(Complete with RM spin)
 
Dear xxx,
 
Thank you for taking the trouble to get in touch with us. 
In answer to your note, may I first make clear the fact that The Royal Mint does not promote commemorative coins as an investment - they are intended as keepsakes. The Royal Mint offers a specific portfolio for that purpose, for example, The Royal Mint’s bullion range.
 
Commemorative coins are not intended for daily commercial transactions, and therefore business and banks are not obliged to accept them. There is an arrangement with some main Post Offices to accept £5 crowns at their discretion in exchange for goods and services, but this does not extend to any other commemorative coins, including those in the face value range.
 
Only circulating legal tender coins are designed to be spent and traded at business and banks. Our face value coin range is aimed at collectors and gift buyers who appreciate the detailed hand finished process and expert skills used to make them.
 
In closing, the letter sent by Cheryl Morgan on behalf of The Royal Mint on the 5th January does not refer to a new policy. It has never been the case that banks have been obliged to accept £20, £50 and £100 commemorative pieces as cash, as they are not circulating legal tender; the letter is a reiteration of this fact, so that banks have confirmation that there has been no change to the existing policy.
 
Kind Regards
Allyson Bowden
Customer Service Manager
..............
 
NAME AND SHAME!!!!!
Cheryl Morgan, ? regional sales director UK, sent the letter to the banks on behalf of the RM 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MickB said:

 

How easy is it to get a question asked in Parliament about the Royal Mint's fraudulent tactics? Any coin collecting MP's around?

I was thinking about this today, maybe getting an online petition going, I believe if we can get 100,000 signatures then they have a debate in parliament, That's not going to be easy but if we can get some youtube heavy hitters involved maybe we have a chance, someone like Chris Duane comes to mind, He loves any opportunity to have a dig at government mints, even Max keiser, it's just a thought really.

All I'm asking for is for the mint to except refunds for these coins, I doubt many people would return them but it would give us some security when purchasing, I believe this would benefit the mint also as it would allow them to continue with this £ for £ program for years to come.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to get the 3 dames /  ladies from the BBC's Rip-Off-Britain to visit the Mint and expose the mis-selling.

Alternatively there is a tough looking bald fellow, I think he is called Don or Dom ?, who exposes rouge traders.

Someone with connections at the BBC ought to expose the Royal Mint for deceiving so many of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it's not worth five pound. It's a worthless piece of base metal

 Was doing a tidy up of some paperwork the other day and came across the mail shot from the mint advertising the 50 quid coin. Nowhere in it does it say it's just a collectable. But over and over again it keeps saying face value. And 50 for 50. No mention of the definition of legal tender whatsoever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, daz said:

Except it's not worth five pound. It's a worthless piece of base metal

 Was doing a tidy up of some paperwork the other day and came across the mail shot from the mint advertising the 50 quid coin. Nowhere in it does it say it's just a collectable. But over and over again it keeps saying face value. And 50 for 50. No mention of the definition of legal tender whatsoever

Hold onto this paperwork as you may be summonsed in our court case as a witness if someone takes matters further !!

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the first step maybe the small claims court. I think it was our Chancellor who had the idea he was certainly bragging about it. 

Has anyone asked for a defined on an early 20 coin yet?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Cookies & terms of service

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies and to our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use