Around 90 bank and building society variable rate savings accounts now pay at least 5.75 per cent interest.

That’s the same as the Bank of England’s base lending rate, so it might sound like a cause for celebration.

However, with around 900 accounts on the market, that’s only 10 per cent matching or beating base – and a depressing 800-plus lagging behind.

And many of the leading 90 aren’t as generous as they might seem.

Rachel Thrussell, head of savings at search engine Moneyfacts.co.uk, points out: “The rate is only part of the picture when it comes to a competitive savings account. Too many of the high paying accounts come with restrictions and conditions.”

According to Moneyfacts, more than three-quarters of the accounts paying base rate or above apply restrictions, conditions or introductory bonuses.

Many are open to old or new members or customers only, or the interest rate falls dramatically when the short-term bonus expires.

Others allow a limited number of free withdrawals, charge an interest penalty or limit the amount you can take.

Others still have age restrictions or insist the money is used for a specific purpose.

In other words, the vast majority are not worth having.

If you bank with one of the ‘big four’, it’s high time you switched.

Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds TSB and NatWest may be the current account providers of choice for the majority of us, but their customer service is rotten and their interest rates are even worse.

In a survey by Which?, the big four each scored just two out of five for customer satisfaction and all have current accounts which pay a pathetic 0.1 per cent credit interest.

There’s no need to put up with this.

Among the accounts awarded ‘best buy’ status by Which?, Alliance & Leicester’s Premier Direct pays 6.5 per cent and got three stars for satisfaction, while the Halifax/Bank of Scotland High Interest Account paying 6.17 per cent got a similar satisfaction rating.

Nationwide’s FlexAccount, meanwhile, pays 4.24 per cent and achieved a four-star rating.

Switching banks isn’t difficult either – more than seven out of ten Which? members who’ve already voted with their feet say it was easy.

First the good news: bank customers reclaimed £1 billion worth of excessive penalty charges in the first half of this year.

Now the bad news: if you’re thinking of following their example, prepare for a wait.

The Financial Services Authority says banks can hold off on making any further refund decisions until a test case on these charges ordered by the Office of Fair Trading is decided – and that won’t be before next year.

Even more good news: there’s a very strong chance this case will go against the banks, so it should be worth the wait.

In the meantime, there’s no harm getting your claim in so it’s dealt with as soon as a decision is made.

For help with wording it, visit websites set up by the Consumer Action Group or Which?

And once you’ve done that, how about resolving to stay in the black so you don’t incur any more charges?

Back in May, I wrote about the bizarre offer of “overdraft repayments cover” (sic) sent to my 84-year-old mother-in-law by Halifax’s insurance arm.

She has never had an overdraft in her life, is almost 20 years over the age limit stated in the ready completed application form’s small print and, as a pensioner, also breaks the policy’s “must be in paid employment” and “paying National Insurance” rules.

Yet Halifax was keen to charge her £93.60 a year to cover her non-existent debt.

When I phoned to find out what it was playing at, I was told its computer system reckoned she was only 43.

Very flattering, but simply not true.

So I wrote to complain – and this week received a reply including the utterly unhelpful and blindingly obvious admission that “this information appears to have been incorrect” plus a bunch of flowers for my mother-in-law.

What we didn’t get was any kind of explanation of how it could have happened – or a promise that it wouldn’t happen again.

At last some good news. It seems that almost two-thirds of us don’t trust our bank.

Yes, that is good news.

A poll by MortgageSorter.co.uk found 62 per cent of people don’t think their account provider puts their best interests first, and fewer than one in ten said they had complete faith in their bank.

In an ideal world we would all be able to trust financial institutions to behave decently and not try to rip us off at every turn with over-priced, shoddy products.

But, sadly, that’s not where we live.

As MortgageSorter’s Edward Parry points out: “The banks’ main priority is pleasing their shareholders, not serving the public.

“The big five – Royal Bank of Scotland, Halifax/Bank of Scotland, Barclays, HSBC and Lloyds TSB – reported a combined profit of around £38 billion last year.

“That works out at more than £100 million a day, and you don’t make that kind of money by putting customers first.”

Which is why, no matter what kind of financial product you’re after, it’s vital to shop around for the best possible deal to suit your needs – and not the banks’.

The personal details of 62,000 Bank of Scotland mortgage holders have vanished in the post.

Apparently the computer disc containing their names, addresses, dates of birth and account numbers was on its way to a credit reference agency – but never arrived.

The bank, part of the giant HBOS group, says, ‘There is no suggestion that the disc was stolen’, adding that it seems to have been ‘mislaid’.

That’s some small consolation, I suppose, coming as it does a couple of months after a briefcase containing the mortgage details of 13,000 customers of sister company Halifax was stolen from an employee’s car.

And then, of course, there was the time that an HBOS banking customer who asked for a copy of her statement received the names, sort codes and account numbers of 75,000 other account holders instead.

It’s good to know our confidential data is in such safe hands.

Halifax/Bank of Scotland has just made my mother-in-law the (it would like to think) generous offer of what it calls ‘overdraft repayments (sic) cover’.

I’m still struggling to comprehend this latest bit of financial junk mail.

Will the banks ever run out of new ways to try to part us from our cash? It would be impressive if it wasn’t so horrifying.

Why on earth are they targeting an 84-year-old woman who has never been overdrawn in her life with this kind of overpriced, useless insurance that amounts to little more than scaremongering?

The less-than-detailed ‘eligibility details’ in tiny print on the front of the form, which they have so conveniently filled in on her behalf, state that you must be in paid work and making National Insurance contributions.

Well, as I said, she’s 84 - as the bank’s own records should clearly show. Does she sound eligible to you?

And to clear up any further doubt, the policy summary over the page states that you must be under 65. You do the maths.

Although of perfectly sound mind, she is easily confused by financial matters - as, again, the bank’s records giving me power of attorney will confirm - and would more than likely have signed and returned the form if I hadn’t intercepted it.

For £93.60 a year (assuming the bank�s insurance division had still failed to notice that she wasn’t eligible) she would have been covered in case she became unable to repay her non-existent overdraft.

No doubt they would have suddenly noticed she wasn’t eligible if she tried to make a claim.

When I phoned the HBOS insurance helpline number to point all this out, the explanation I received left me even more alarmed.

The reason they’d sent this mailing to my elderly mother-in-law? According to their records, she’s only 43. And why would that be? Because they’ve got her down as having my date of birth rather than her own.

The woman I spoke to admitted: ‘That’s obviously a big error on our behalf.’

She’s not wrong and I’ll be writing to complain - I’ll keep you posted about the response.

If you were thinking of taking action to reclaim your bank charges, don’t be put off by the news that a district judge at Birmingham County Court has ruled against a Lloyds TSB customer who was trying to do just that.

This is just one case that’s gone in favour of the banks, and a county court decision doesn’t set a precedent in the way a High Court decision would.

Thousands of people have already reclaimed millions of pounds in unfair charges, and many more will follow.

Several websites, including Which?, have pages explaining the procedure. So go on and stake your claim.