Abbey/Santander Zero - no it aint!

Degenerate

td_007 wrote: »

You have conveniently overlooked the bullet title:
> 0% cash advance fee
It’s reassuring to know that if you ever unexpectedly need cash from an ATM, you’ll pay zero fees for cash withdrawals1

Clearly the text under the bullet point refers to the advance fee ONLY.

That's an absurd interpretation. The text is an elaboration of what the bullet point means. "0% cash advance fee" could by itself be taken to mean what you are saying, but the accompanying text unequivocally states that there are zero fees for cash withdrawals from an ATM. You're just trying to gloss over it because it doesn't support your case.

The footnote as I have detailed before highlights some additional charge that may be applied by the ATM provider - the word independent can also refer to Santander operations in Argentina which are independent from the UK operations. A basic understanding of how MNCs operate will help you understand how companies create different legal entities in different geographies for various reasons.

Already been over this. The local banking operations may function independently from each other, but they are controlled by the same parent company which is ultimately responsible for living up to the commitments it makes via it's subsidiaries. In that sense they are not independent - MNCs do not get to wash their hands of their obligations so easily.

speedbird1973

Degenerate wrote: »

That's an absurd interpretation. The text is an elaboration of what the bullet point means. "0% cash advance fee" could by itself be taken to mean what you are saying, but the accompanying text unequivocally states that there are zero fees for cash withdrawals from an ATM. You're just trying to gloss over it because it doesn't support your case.

Already been over this. The local banking operations may function independently from each other, but they are controlled by the same parent company which is ultimately responsible for living up to the commitments it makes via it's subsidiaries. In that sense they are not independent - MNCs do not get to wash their hands of their obligations so easily.

Degenerate - Santander in the UK is a limited company. It has it's own shares and it's own shareholders. Banco Santander is a public company. It's quoted 4 times on the NYSE alone! Just because things fall under 1 brand it doesn't mean they are legally the same!

However no point in carrying on the argument, the entire board disagree with, as does Banco Santander - SO you can either single handedly change everthing (in which case I'll benefit, so I owe you a beer or two), or you can never go to Argentina because you'll have to pay ATM fees!

Typhoon2000

I was in Argentina last year and I think just about every ATM I could find then charges every foreign ATM cards 11 Pesos per withdrawal. Seem like a Sandander UK credit card is deemed foreign in Argentina (which I guess it is)

Degenerate

speedbird1973 wrote: »

Degenerate - Santander in the UK is a limited company. It has it's own shares and it's own shareholders.

It has one shareholder. It's a wholly owned subsidiary of...

Banco Santander is a public company. It's quoted 4 times on the NYSE alone!

Parent companies cannot escape liabilty for their subsidiary's actions so easily, as I have been pointing out clearly enough.

Just because things fall under 1 brand it doesn't mean they are legally the same!

It's not the brand, It's the ownership.

speedbird1973

Degenerate wrote: »

It has one shareholder. It's a wholly owned subsidiary of...



Parent companies cannot escape liabilty for their subsidiary's actions so easily, as I have been pointing out clearly enough.



It's not the brand, It's the ownership.

Nothing to add as we just go around in circles.. With respect to "cannot escape liability" can you quantify that.. exactly what can they do what can't they do and why are they doing it? You've obviously spotted something the entire world as missed out on it.. what do you plan to do about it?

callum9999

Degenerate wrote: »

My mistake, you didn't miss it - I completely disagree with your conclusion though. Santander banks in different countries may be different legal entities, but they are owned and controlled by the same parent entity, which ought to honour its promises regardless of location.

Well no as they are run seperately - they might as well be different banks. Although this example is never going to happen, it's like HSBC America saying you get £10 extra free when you withdraw from their cash machines, and expecting HSBC UK to foot the bill for any Americans doing it over here.

I was under the impression cash machines tell you the charges before you confirm though - presumably not in Peru then.

And as much as you go on about it, the ATM charge is absolutely nothing to do with Santander UK. Some shops add in a % charge when you pay by credit card. Santander would not foot that bill and it is exactly the same principle. The two banks may share a name, but Santander UK is no more connected to Santander South America than it is to HSBC or NatWest.

Degenerate

callum9999 wrote: »

Well no as they are run seperately - they might as well be different banks. Although this example is never going to happen, it's like HSBC America saying you get £10 extra free when you withdraw from their cash machines, and expecting HSBC UK to foot the bill for any Americans doing it over here.

If HSBC America were to launch such an absurd product under the HSBC brand and promote this benefit as being available at any HSBC ATM, the American customers would indeed be perfectly entitled to expect it in the UK. They may be "run seperately" but they are under the same overall control. Which of the subsidiary companies foots the bill would be an internal matter for the HSBC group, which if it is exercising appropriate corporate governance should have all it's children singing from the same hymn book.

The two banks may share a name, but Santander UK is no more connected to Santander South America than it is to HSBC or NatWest.

Nonsense. The two companies in question are wholly owned by the same parent, thus forming part of the same multinational. To suggest they are no more connected to each other than any other two random companies is blatantly untrue. The name has nothing to do with it, it's the ownership, and it's funny how all these random forum IDs that mysteriously keep popping up to argue with me refuse to address that point...

callum9999

Degenerate wrote: »

If HSBC America were to launch such an absurd product under the HSBC brand and promote this benefit as being available at any HSBC ATM, the American customers would indeed be perfectly entitled to expect it in the UK. They may be "run seperately" but they are under the same overall control. Which of the subsidiary companies foots the bill would be an internal matter for the HSBC group, which if it is exercising appropriate corporate governance should have all it's children singing from the same hymn book.


Nonsense. The two companies in question are wholly owned by the same parent, thus forming part of the same multinational. To suggest they are no more connected to each other than any other two random companies is blatantly untrue. The name has nothing to do with it, it's the ownership, and it's funny how all these random forum IDs that mysteriously keep popping up to argue with me refuse to address that point...

I mean they are no more connected operationally. For example, I walked into an HSBC bank in America and there was absolutely nothing, whatsoever, they could help with regarding my HSBC UK account. It's the same as if I walked into an Abbey branch in England and started asking them about my HSBC account.

You're right, it shouldn't be, but thats the way it is. It really doesn't matter they are owned by the same group, if they are run seperately they are run seperately.

Holland and Barratts own Julian Graves. As a Julian Graves employee, I couldn't help a Holland and Barratts customer any better than Tescos could. Just because a group owns an array of different entities - doesn't mean they are integrated in any way.

Degenerate

speedbird1973 wrote: »

Nothing to add as we just go around in circles.. With respect to "cannot escape liability" can you quantify that.. exactly what can they do what can't they do and why are they doing it?

They can't make contractual promises on behalf of the group via one subsidiary that they then renege on via another subsidiary. It hasn't affected me personally, but anyone affected by the charge would have standing to sue the parent company.

Why are they doing it? Incompetence obviously, but that's no excuse.

Degenerate

callum9999 wrote: »

I mean they are no more connected operationally. For example, I walked into an HSBC bank in America and there was absolutely nothing, whatsoever, they could help with regarding my HSBC UK account. It's the same as if I walked into an Abbey branch in England and started asking them about my HSBC account.

You're right, it shouldn't be, but thats the way it is. It really doesn't matter they are owned by the same group, if they are run seperately they are run seperately.

Holland and Barratts own Julian Graves. As a Julian Graves employee, I couldn't help a Holland and Barratts customer any better than Tescos could. Just because a group owns an array of different entities - doesn't mean they are integrated in any way.

Being organizationally seperate does not exempt them from their obligations - it's up to the parent to sort out comminications between the group companies to make sure that their responsibilities are met.

I would add, I'm not sure how true this is for Santander anyway - they have made significant moves towards consolidating their international operations. I've found myself talking to Spanish people about my Abbey current account on several occasions.