Nationwide closing my accounts with no explanation

System

This is all speculation on our part.

As long as they haven't registered negative information with 3rd parties (e.g. CIFAS) and given you the relevant notice period then they are within their rights to end the relationship without further info.

Open another account elsewhere and move on. You can obviously do the SAR etc if you wish but Nationwide don't want your custom.

takman

GingerBob wrote: »

If the "information" (i.e. speculation, hearsay, rumour) is in the public domain then the scum at Nationwide should be obliged to tell you what it is. These financial institutions are getting away with murder at the moment. Customers all assumed to be criminals when if fact it's the institutions themselves that have been shown to be criminals - HSBC for instance.

What a stupid thing to say!. Financial institutions should be able to choose who they do business with and shouldn't have to give details of their decision making process. If they revealed all their sources of information this would then make it a lot easier for people commiting fraud to cover their tracks and get away with it!.

Imagine a scenario where you have been asked by someone to lend them £50. Then a family member of theirs who you trust asks you not to lend them the money because they have a drug problem which the are helping them with, but don't say they told you. Would you then go up to the person and give them all the details of what you were told and by who and that you won't lend them the money. This would then get you involved in the situation and not help the situation at all!

Carnival789

this must be quite unsettling so you have my sympathies OP.

Although banks Ts and Cs may state that they can close accounts for absolutely no reason at all, I find it hard to believe that any bank would ACTUALLY close someone's account for no reason at all. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There obviously is a reason but they don't want to say what it is.

The 3 most obvious reasons that spring to mind to me are:

1) that they have realised the account is being used just to make use of benefits (eg interest rate%), rather than as a "normal" current account.

2) the bank has previously written off debts to the account holder and want to close any "risk" products that the person holds. (If this were the case I wouldn't expect them to be particularly secretive about it though).

3) fraud/ML concerns

It should be easy to rule out (or in!) the first two of course.

Unfortunately, banks don't need proof that you are a fraudster or a money launderer - they just need to think that you MIGHT be one (and in my experience one particular bank would sometimes base this on evidence that I would call, well, rather flimsy).

One point on the CIFAS marker - my understanding is that certain CIFAS markers are no longer visible on your credit report. This changed a while back, I think it was because showing these markers was, in itself, deemed as "tipping off".

GingerBob_3

takman wrote: »

What a stupid thing to say!. Financial institutions should be able to choose who they do business with and shouldn't have to give details of their decision making process. If they revealed all their sources of information this would then make it a lot easier for people commiting fraud to cover their tracks and get away with it!.

Imagine a scenario where you have been asked by someone to lend them £50. Then a family member of theirs who you trust asks you not to lend them the money because they have a drug problem which the are helping them with, but don't say they told you. Would you then go up to the person and give them all the details of what you were told and by who and that you won't lend them the money. This would then get you involved in the situation and not help the situation at all!

Er no!


Financial institutions should have limits placed on them as to when they can and can't close accounts. This is clearly one area of regulation that needs looking at.


You would never get a letter from your electricity company suddenly closing you down; they aren't allowed to reject you. If you'd been a regular shopper at Tesco for years then suddenly a letter arrived from the local branch manager banning you from the shop you'd be mad as hell, wanting to know what's going on! So what's the difference with the banks? Why should they be able to close you down with impunity? Why should they not give you a proper reason? If criminality is involved - and here I mean on the part of the customer, not the bank, as the bank would be the more likely criminal party - you'd presumably know anyway, so there's no secrecy issue here.


Reading the threads on this board one can see there's far too much of this thing going on. Having a bank account closed for no reason is potentially a big problem and should not be taken lightly. To say the bank has every right to do so, just as the customer has every right to go to another bank, is a simplistic view no worthy of argument. They should not have every right to do so.


As for the comparison of the family member taking drugs; what a load of guff!

gunsandbanjos

Sounds like you've got a cat 06 CIFAS for whatever reason, this won't show on your public facing experian report you posted a screenshot of.

takman

GingerBob wrote: »

Er no!


Financial institutions should have limits placed on them as to when they can and can't close accounts. This is clearly one area of regulation that needs looking at.


You would never get a letter from your electricity company suddenly closing you down; they aren't allowed to reject you. If you'd been a regular shopper at Tesco for years then suddenly a letter arrived from the local branch manager banning you from the shop you'd be mad as hell, wanting to know what's going on! So what's the difference with the banks? Why should they be able to close you down with impunity? Why should they not give you a proper reason? If criminality is involved - and here I mean on the part of the customer, not the bank, as the bank would be the more likely criminal party - you'd presumably know anyway, so there's no secrecy issue here.


Reading the threads on this board one can see there's far too much of this thing going on. Having a bank account closed for no reason is potentially a big problem and should not be taken lightly. To say the bank has every right to do so, just as the customer has every right to go to another bank, is a simplistic view no worthy of argument. They should not have every right to do so.


As for the comparison of the family member taking drugs; what a load of guff!

Why should the banks not be allowed to choose who they do business with?. Other businesses such as shops and pubs can choose not to do business with you for non discriminatory reasons. Every business and individual should have the right to choose who they do business with. When they inform you of closure you have more than enough time to switch to another bank. But obviously by the way you call all banks "criminals" shows you have a biased view against them.

When they close an account this isn't logged anywhere so this doesn't stop you opening an account elsewhere. If businesses had to inform people of why they didn't want to do business with you this would cause a lot of issues. It would clog the courts up with people challenging these accusations for no benefit.

If a bank suspects you of fraud it's a lot better for the customer if they do not give a reason. Rather than them sending out documents stating you have been accused of fraud. This would then mean they have to do detailed investigations before they could close any account which would cost time and money. This extra time would also allow people who are committing fraud to finish what they are doing.

If someone was duped into transfering their life savings into a fraudsters account. I'm sure they would rather the bank to be able to take immediate action to stop the funds dissappearing. Rather than your system of them having to tread very carefully before they can close or freeze an account.

CYPER

Littleoldme wrote: »

Might actually be because of your job and the security clearance you need as that might make you a "higher risk" in their definition.

That clearance was done 1 year ago, so I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with my accounts closure.

Carnival789 wrote: »

this must be quite unsettling so you have my sympathies OP.

Although banks Ts and Cs may state that they can close accounts for absolutely no reason at all, I find it hard to believe that any bank would ACTUALLY close someone's account for no reason at all. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There obviously is a reason but they don't want to say what it is.

The 3 most obvious reasons that spring to mind to me are:

1) that they have realised the account is being used just to make use of benefits (eg interest rate%), rather than as a "normal" current account.

2) the bank has previously written off debts to the account holder and want to close any "risk" products that the person holds. (If this were the case I wouldn't expect them to be particularly secretive about it though).

3) fraud/ML concerns

It should be easy to rule out (or in!) the first two of course.

Unfortunately, banks don't need proof that you are a fraudster or a money launderer - they just need to think that you MIGHT be one (and in my experience one particular bank would sometimes base this on evidence that I would call, well, rather flimsy).

One point on the CIFAS marker - my understanding is that certain CIFAS markers are no longer visible on your credit report. This changed a while back, I think it was because showing these markers was, in itself, deemed as "tipping off".

1 - Not the case, I actually pay them money for the FlexPlus and have never claimed on the provided benefits. Btw the renewal date is middle of Janury, so this might be related somehow.
The free FlexAccount I have not used much recently, but got 3 active direct debits out of it, where they take money every month - one is for a mobile operator and another is for a credit card from another bank.

2 - No debts, no CCJ, no bad credit. The only credit products I have are 2 credits cards + overdrafts on current accounts. And I have always paid everything on time.

3 - Probable case and it really bugs me that I cannot find out the specifics of this.

gunsandbanjos wrote: »

Sounds like you've got a cat 06 CIFAS for whatever reason, this won't show on your public facing experian report you posted a screenshot of.

What makes you think that? And is there publicly available information confirming that this marker will not appear on my credit report?
Btw Nationwide offered me £25 compensation for not answering my online message promptly. Maybe I should use the money to pay for the CARs.

takman wrote: »

Why should the banks not be allowed to choose who they do business with?. Other businesses such as shops and pubs can choose not to do business with you for non discriminatory reasons. Every business and individual should have the right to choose who they do business with. When they inform you of closure you have more than enough time to switch to another bank. But obviously by the way you call all banks "criminals" shows you have a biased view against them.

When they close an account this isn't logged anywhere so this doesn't stop you opening an account elsewhere. If businesses had to inform people of why they didn't want to do business with you this would cause a lot of issues. It would clog the courts up with people challenging these accusations for no benefit.

If a bank suspects you of fraud it's a lot better for the customer if they do not give a reason. Rather than them sending out documents stating you have been accused of fraud. This would then mean they have to do detailed investigations before they could close any account which would cost time and money. This extra time would also allow people who are committing fraud to finish what they are doing.

If someone was duped into transfering their life savings into a fraudsters account. I'm sure they would rather the bank to be able to take immediate action to stop the funds dissappearing. Rather than your system of them having to tread very carefully before they can close or freeze an account.

I have no issues with Nationwide closing my accounts. My gripe is with their refusal to tell me why. The reason could be something that might affect me in the future or it might be based on false information. In both cases I should have the opportunity to remedy it.

And if I can get that information from another source (CIFAS for example) then it makes no sense for Nationwide to refuse to give it to me.
Or if I can't get the information at all then that is not right. If I am guilty of something I should have the opportunity to prove myself innocent. This sounds like even worse than witch hunting in the middle ages: we will burn you at the stakes, but we will not tell you why.

colsten

CYPER, I have nothing to add by way of explanation but I am 100% with you. If Nationwide state that they closed your accounts due to adverse information about you that is in the public domain, they should be saying what that public domain information is. As you say there is nothing untoward on your credit files, may be some Nationwide clerk just made a mistake? For example, confusing you with someone else of the same name?

If you are convinced there cannot possibly be any adverse information about you, I think you should fight this all the way. As you said, it's not really about having accounts with Nationwide but about them making claims about your personal standing that they are unable / unwilling to substantiate.

As a next step, I would write to their CEO, Mr. Graham Beale, gjbeale2 at nationwide.co.uk

If you get no joy there, you can take it to the FOS, or probably better still, to the Press. There was one very recent, similar case (I think it was a Barclays customer) that I read about in the Telegraph. I'll try to find that article.

eskbanker

GingerBob wrote: »

Having a bank account closed for no reason is potentially a big problem and should not be taken lightly. To say the bank has every right to do so, just as the customer has every right to go to another bank, is a simplistic view no worthy of argument. They should not have every right to do so.

...which is also a simplistic view not worthy of argument! The 'argument' gets pretty tedious very quickly if it consists of:

Other posters: Banks have the right to choose customers.
GingerBob: Well they shouldn't have that right [opinion].
Other posters: Well they do have that right [fact].
GingerBob: Well they shouldn't.
Other posters: Well they do.

<repeat ad nauseam until someone gets bored>

GingerBob_3

eskbanker wrote: »

...which is also a simplistic view not worthy of argument! The 'argument' gets pretty tedious very quickly if it consists of:

Other posters: Banks have the right to choose customers.
GingerBob: Well they shouldn't have that right [opinion].
Other posters: Well they do have that right [fact].
GingerBob: Well they shouldn't.
Other posters: Well they do.

<repeat ad nauseam until someone gets bored>

You are confusing issues here and misrepresenting what I say.


I didn't say banks should not have the right to choose customers. I said they should not be able to close accounts the way they do. And I offered a reason why - because it potentially causes big problems for the customer.


To another poster - am I biased against the banks? You bet I am!