Nationwide closing my accounts with no explanation

takman

colsten wrote: »

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.

What the letter says is that they used all the information sources available to them to make the decision and that includes information sources in the public domain. So this leaves it very vague as to what information used. They won't go into detail because it may reveal information about their anti fraud checks. This information has to be kept secret otherwise it will make it easier for fraudsters to not get caught out by these checks.

minorsqueeze

You done anything dodgy on Facebook or Twitter? That's in the public domain.

colsten

CYPER wrote: »

Interestingly my surname was printed with one letter wrong, which I found odd, considering that these types of letters are usually automated.

More reason to think they might have mixed you up with someone of a similar name?

CYPER wrote: »

He repeated the same line over and over again: After a review of your account and based on information available in the public domain we decided to close your account as you no longer meet our criteria.

takman, going by this, the OP has clearly been told that the accounts were going to be closed "based on information available in the public domain"

meer53

colsten wrote: »

More reason to think they might have mixed you up with someone of a similar name?

takman, going by this, the OP has clearly been told that the accounts were going to be closed "based on information available in the public domain"

It doesn't say that at all. It says a variety of sources "including information in the public domain" it could be due to one of the other sources. Nationwide aren't going to say why, they don't have to, despite GingerBobs anger. When lenders have to deliver a decline, they have scripts which have to be followed to the letter. Which is why the same thing is repeated.

jonesMUFCforever

If OP feels THAT strongly about the closure he has only one option - he needs to sue (at his own cost) for loss of bargain (banking facilities?)a judge will decide whether Nationwide can rely on their own terms and conditions.
They may be forced to reveal the reason for closure.
I agree that the Ombudsman will not intervene in cases like this.

colsten

meer53 wrote: »

It doesn't say that at all. It says a variety of sources "including information in the public domain" it could be due to one't have to, despit of the other sources. Nationwide aren't going to say why, they done GingerBobs anger. When lenders have to deliver a decline, they have scripts which have to be followed to the letter. Which is why the same thing is repeated.

By what Cyber posted, it does say that Nationwide said that "based on information available in the public domain " they were closing the accounts.

I do fully appreciate that lenders have scripts which have to be followed by the letter. That doesn't mean the scripts are correct, or that the operatives actually did follow the script. Nor does it mean that lenders are infallible.

We are very fortunate to live in a society where we are all innocent unless proven guilty. This right goes back several hundred years, and just about all of us take it for granted. If banks are trying to take this basic right away from ourselves, we absolutely must stand up against this outrageous violation to our rights.

I do not dispute the right of any company, or any individual, to refuse to do business with me. But I do absolutely dispute the right of any company or individual to state they will not do business with me because of adverse information about myself, available in the public domain. I hope you are astute enough to appreciate the difference.

colsten

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

If OP feels THAT strongly about the closure he has only one option - he needs to sue (at his own cost) for loss of bargain (banking facilities?)a judge will decide whether Nationwide can rely on their own terms and conditions.
They may be forced to reveal the reason for closure.
I agree that the Ombudsman will not intervene in cases like this.

The Ombudsman should absolutely be in a position to rule whether the reasons for closure were due to information in the public domain, or otherwise.

If the reason were in the public domain, it goes without saying that everybody - i.e. including the person concerned - is allowed to know what the reasons are.

If banks have their own commercial reasons for not wanting the custom of a particular person, they should be brave enough to say so. The T&Cs allow them to say so. So why don't they. To say the customer might have fallen foul of some unspecified but publically known offense of some sort or other is just plain ridiculous and unacceptable.

If I were in the OP's position, assuming all of the OP's reports are truthful, I would take Nationwide all the way to Court, on charges of defamation. But I would hold high hopes that this wouldn't be necessary as the office of Mr. Graham Beale would find myself a worthy and valued customer of Nationwide, and fire the jobsworth who felt otherwise.

takman

colsten wrote: »

By what Cyber posted, it does say that Nationwide said that "based on information available in the public domain " they were closing the accounts.

I do fully appreciate that lenders have scripts which have to be followed by the letter. That doesn't mean the scripts are correct, or that the operatives actually did follow the script. Nor does it mean that lenders are infallible.

We are very fortunate to live in a society where we are all innocent unless proven guilty. This right goes back several hundred years, and just about all of us take it for granted. If banks are trying to take this basic right away from ourselves, we absolutely must stand up against this outrageous violation to our rights.

I do not dispute the right of any company, or any individual, to refuse to do business with me. But I do absolutely dispute the right of any company or individual to state they will not do business with me because of adverse information about myself, available in the public domain. I hope you are astute enough to appreciate the difference.

You should go back and read the letter in the OP. It says that they used information from a variety of sources. But it says nothing about the information about the OP being adverse.
They also said they regularly monitor the accounts. So this will unlikely to be one piece of bad information. It will probably be due to a pattern of behaviour that their algorithms have decided is potentially fraudulent. So for them to release this information they would have to explain their internal fraud detecting algorithms which would then mean actual criminals can work around these to be undetected.

So this isn't some kind of conspiracy where a website names the OP as a master of a money laundering operation. It's more like a pattern of cash deposits and withdrawal combined with an unusual amount of current accounts listed on the credit report has flagged him up as an increased risk of committing fraud.

colsten

takman wrote: »

You should go back and read the letter in the OP.

It is you who should go back and read what has been posted by the OP. For example: "After a review of your account and based on information available in the public domain we decided to close your account". If that is so, they should say what precisely the "information available in the public domain" is. If they can't say what this information is, they should withdraw this statement, and formally apologise for it. If they are unwilling to do so, they should be happy to explain their position in a Court Of Law.

CYPER

takman wrote: »

So this isn't some kind of conspiracy where a website names the OP as a master of a money laundering operation. It's more like a pattern of cash deposits and withdrawal combined with an unusual amount of current accounts listed on the credit report has flagged him up as an increased risk of committing fraud.

I can assure you there are no such patterns. I wholeheartedly think that there is nothing associated with these 2 current accounts that can be considered fraud from where I stand.
The FlexAccount was opened summer of 2008 and was my main account for most of that time until recently.
The FlexPlus was opened January 2015 because it was a very good deal that I saw on HUKD and I just put the maximum amount allowed to generate interest.

So I checked Experian's CreditExpert, Equifax Clearscore and Callcredit's Noddle and all of them show excellent standing.