My point is not whether it was in the T&C's or was not in the T&C's. It was in the T&C's.
My point is that it should never have been in the T&C's in the first place.
It is sneaky devious behavioral aimed at taking advantage of the financially illiterate.
"financially illiterate" - does that now mean someone who doesn't read repeated plain english instructions as to the nature of the product they are availing of? This was not a complex issue - you are being a touch overdramatic in your language above.
People are adults and should be trusted to decide on what products to choose. Expert advice may be suitable in some cases. However, an adult should be able to look at a fixed term deposit product, understand the nature of its conditions (length of term, withdrawal limits, maturity date, etc) and then make a decision.
I'd also be interested to see if the cooling off period applies to the reinvested amount. This is not a new account. The OP signed up to an agreement over a year ago, not 10 days ago.
The only questions that I see are relevant are:
Was the nature of the product made clear to the OP at the time of opening the account? Was the OP reminded of the nature of the product shortly before maturity date?
The answer appears to be 'yes' to both. I would say enhanced Consumer protection might be better aimed at issues not caused by peoples' reluctance to read what they are signing up to.
None of the above is intended as a slight on the OP, who has been upfront and honest about their role in this coming to pass.