Back account closed no reason

funkycredit

eskbanker said:

funkycredit said:

I've had my NatWest accounts closed. No warning. Nothing. The reason? I opened too many accounts. 

There's nothing in their terms for this. There was no SAR submitted to the NCO and they're in direct breach of their own terms.

Their published terms preclude you from opening multiple accounts of certain types, such as Reward, so if you opened more than one while accepting these terms then you'd have been in breach of them.

funkycredit said:

There was no SAR submitted to the NCO and they're in direct breach of their own terms. 

I HAVE taken legal action and not only am I looking a serious compensation, but I'm suing for damages based on the whole fiasco as well as forcing them to show the security procedure in detail. Refer to Lonsdale v NatWest for case law. 

Assuming you're referring to Suspicious Activity Reports to the NCA, as opposed to data protection Subject Access Requests, these only come into play if there's any suspicion of illegal activity, so if they're just taking a simple commercial decision not to retain your business then there's no obligation for them to liaise with any other authority.

Of course I'm referring to that hence I quoted the case law. 

Nope. I had 2 Reward - as allowed in their Ts & Cs. I then opened an RBS. Again, their terms were fine for me to open a standard RBS one. I knew I couldn't get another reward so didn't. 

They're in the wrong. That's not in question. It's the court outcome I'm looking forward to. They can't buy me off and that's frustrating them more. 

They should have considered the consequences prior to closure.

funkycredit

eskbanker said:

Ed-1 said:

eskbanker said:

funkycredit said:

I've had my NatWest accounts closed. No warning. Nothing. The reason? I opened too many accounts. 

There's nothing in their terms for this. There was no SAR submitted to the NCO and they're in direct breach of their own terms.

Their published terms preclude you from opening multiple accounts of certain types, such as Reward, so if you opened more than one while accepting these terms then you'd have been in breach of them.

I've seen at least 2 reports on this forum that Natwest/RBS have withdrawn facilities immediately (and put you through the whole funds release claims process nonsense) for apparently opening "too many accounts". These are not multiple Reward accounts. They are/were invariably Select accounts.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77633044#Comment_77633044

funkycredit said:

I've also opened multiple NatWest Rewards & Halifax Rewards to get the monthly reward payments up - again, only risked x2 of each with both banks and same for wife. All in we do quite well for an hour of transfers every month. 

When I opened the second reward account I was advised (and have the chat saved on pdf) that I could open a second rewards in my sole name. So I did. 

I've broken no rules.  

eskbanker

funkycredit said:

eskbanker said:

funkycredit said:

I've had my NatWest accounts closed. No warning. Nothing. The reason? I opened too many accounts. 

There's nothing in their terms for this. There was no SAR submitted to the NCO and they're in direct breach of their own terms.

Their published terms preclude you from opening multiple accounts of certain types, such as Reward, so if you opened more than one while accepting these terms then you'd have been in breach of them.

funkycredit said:

There was no SAR submitted to the NCO and they're in direct breach of their own terms. 

I HAVE taken legal action and not only am I looking a serious compensation, but I'm suing for damages based on the whole fiasco as well as forcing them to show the security procedure in detail. Refer to Lonsdale v NatWest for case law. 

Assuming you're referring to Suspicious Activity Reports to the NCA, as opposed to data protection Subject Access Requests, these only come into play if there's any suspicion of illegal activity, so if they're just taking a simple commercial decision not to retain your business then there's no obligation for them to liaise with any other authority.

Of course I'm referring to that hence I quoted the case law. 

You referred to 'NCO', which is neither NCA nor ICO, two separate organisations interested in SARs but with entirely different meanings, so it seemed worth clarifying.

It's still not clear to me why you see that case as relevant if there was no SAR, as it seems to revolve around obligations to disclose SARs - are you suggesting that there was a SAR that they're not telling you about, or perhaps trying to argue that lack of a SAR signified no suspicion of unlawful activity and therefore removes one reason for immediate closure?

funkycredit said:
I had 2 Reward - as allowed in their Ts & Cs.

funkycredit said:
When I opened the second reward account I was advised (and have the chat saved on pdf) that I could open a second rewards in my sole name. So I did. 

I've broken no rules.  

Two sole accounts is a clear breach of what's currently in their terms, even if an employee advised you otherwise.

Grumpy_chap

funkycredit said:

I've very deep pockets and no matter how much they try to bail, I'll see them in court. 

I expect, in the vast majority of cases, the bank have deeper pockets than you.

funkycredit

That's just a typo. Sorry - thought it was clear that I was talking Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). 

That case is relevant as to the bank trying to hide behind "security processes" aka avoid explaining themselves. So it's extremely important as they always say "we can't discuss it. It's a security measure". If so then a SAR must have been submitted to the NCA. If not and they're utilising their rules then they've illegally withheld my money pending completion of an unlawful form with unreasonable requests. 

Either way - they've breached their own terms and the law. 

So all in, if you don't know then leave it. The OP and others in this situation will fully understand what I'm saying here. 

funkycredit

Grumpy_chap said:

funkycredit said:

I've very deep pockets and no matter how much they try to bail, I'll see them in court. 

I expect, in the vast majority of cases, the bank have deeper pockets than you.

I expect you'll be surely mistaken. They won't fight a losing battle hence they're trying to settle it already. 

They're already in trouble for abusing the legal process -> https://mol.im/a/9089443

Ed-1

eskbanker said:

funkycredit said:

eskbanker said:

funkycredit said:

I've had my NatWest accounts closed. No warning. Nothing. The reason? I opened too many accounts. 

There's nothing in their terms for this. There was no SAR submitted to the NCO and they're in direct breach of their own terms.

Their published terms preclude you from opening multiple accounts of certain types, such as Reward, so if you opened more than one while accepting these terms then you'd have been in breach of them.

funkycredit said:

There was no SAR submitted to the NCO and they're in direct breach of their own terms. 

I HAVE taken legal action and not only am I looking a serious compensation, but I'm suing for damages based on the whole fiasco as well as forcing them to show the security procedure in detail. Refer to Lonsdale v NatWest for case law. 

Assuming you're referring to Suspicious Activity Reports to the NCA, as opposed to data protection Subject Access Requests, these only come into play if there's any suspicion of illegal activity, so if they're just taking a simple commercial decision not to retain your business then there's no obligation for them to liaise with any other authority.

Of course I'm referring to that hence I quoted the case law. 

You referred to 'NCO', which is neither NCA nor ICO, two separate organisations interested in SARs but with entirely different meanings, so it seemed worth clarifying.

It's still not clear to me why you see that case as relevant if there was no SAR, as it seems to revolve around obligations to disclose SARs - are you suggesting that there was a SAR that they're not telling you about, or perhaps trying to argue that lack of a SAR signified no suspicion of unlawful activity and therefore removes one reason for immediate closure?

funkycredit said:
I had 2 Reward - as allowed in their Ts & Cs.

funkycredit said:
When I opened the second reward account I was advised (and have the chat saved on pdf) that I could open a second rewards in my sole name. So I did. 

I've broken no rules.  

Two sole accounts is a clear breach of what's currently in their terms, even if an employee advised you otherwise.

Even if they can hide behind one of their immediate closure reasons (based on a spurious suspicion alone), the point is what right do they have to withhold the money without a SAR as that is what they do.

funkycredit

Ed-1 said:

eskbanker said:

funkycredit said:

eskbanker said:

funkycredit said:

I've had my NatWest accounts closed. No warning. Nothing. The reason? I opened too many accounts. 

There's nothing in their terms for this. There was no SAR submitted to the NCO and they're in direct breach of their own terms.

Their published terms preclude you from opening multiple accounts of certain types, such as Reward, so if you opened more than one while accepting these terms then you'd have been in breach of them.

funkycredit said:

There was no SAR submitted to the NCO and they're in direct breach of their own terms. 

I HAVE taken legal action and not only am I looking a serious compensation, but I'm suing for damages based on the whole fiasco as well as forcing them to show the security procedure in detail. Refer to Lonsdale v NatWest for case law. 

Assuming you're referring to Suspicious Activity Reports to the NCA, as opposed to data protection Subject Access Requests, these only come into play if there's any suspicion of illegal activity, so if they're just taking a simple commercial decision not to retain your business then there's no obligation for them to liaise with any other authority.

Of course I'm referring to that hence I quoted the case law. 

You referred to 'NCO', which is neither NCA nor ICO, two separate organisations interested in SARs but with entirely different meanings, so it seemed worth clarifying.

It's still not clear to me why you see that case as relevant if there was no SAR, as it seems to revolve around obligations to disclose SARs - are you suggesting that there was a SAR that they're not telling you about, or perhaps trying to argue that lack of a SAR signified no suspicion of unlawful activity and therefore removes one reason for immediate closure?

funkycredit said:
I had 2 Reward - as allowed in their Ts & Cs.

funkycredit said:
When I opened the second reward account I was advised (and have the chat saved on pdf) that I could open a second rewards in my sole name. So I did. 

I've broken no rules.  

Two sole accounts is a clear breach of what's currently in their terms, even if an employee advised you otherwise.

Even if they can hide behind one of their immediate closure reasons (based on a spurious suspicion alone), the point is what right do they have to withhold the money without a SAR as that is what they do.

Exactly.  

Thats what I'm arguing (and winning) over. They MUST issue a SAR (which blocks access to funds) *or* use their terms but allow me access to my funds. 

They've done both. Blocked me. Treated me like a criminal. Charging me the fee but cancelled all DD's etc and revoked the unused overdrafts which made my score plummet as a result of their recording on the CRA's.

They've several thousands of mine but they're charging a fee making me overdrawn with no facility since closure - and no way to get out of OD as my funds are in a holding account.  

They're screwed and they know it.  

eskbanker

funkycredit said:

That case is relevant as to the bank trying to hide behind "security processes" aka avoid explaining themselves. So it's extremely important as they always say "we can't discuss it. It's a security measure". If so then a SAR must have been submitted to the NCA. If not and they're utilising their rules then they've illegally withheld my money pending completion of an unlawful form with unreasonable requests. 

Either way - they've breached their own terms and the law.

You previously said they told you the reason was too many accounts, not security reasons ("I've had my NatWest accounts closed. No warning. Nothing. The reason? I opened too many accounts.")?

funkycredit said:

So all in, if you don't know then leave it. The OP and others in this situation will fully understand what I'm saying here. 

Nobody on here can say with any certainty why OP's friend's account was closed, but it was clearly for a different reason than your situation if they only had a single account, so best not to try to draw too many parallels between different scenarios....

funkycredit

eskbanker said:

funkycredit said:

That case is relevant as to the bank trying to hide behind "security processes" aka avoid explaining themselves. So it's extremely important as they always say "we can't discuss it. It's a security measure". If so then a SAR must have been submitted to the NCA. If not and they're utilising their rules then they've illegally withheld my money pending completion of an unlawful form with unreasonable requests. 

Either way - they've breached their own terms and the law.

You previously said they told you the reason was too many accounts, not security reasons ("I've had my NatWest accounts closed. No warning. Nothing. The reason? I opened too many accounts.")?

funkycredit said:

So all in, if you don't know then leave it. The OP and others in this situation will fully understand what I'm saying here. 

Nobody on here can say with any certainty why OP's friend's account was closed, but it was clearly for a different reason than your situation if they only had a single account, so best not to try to draw too many parallels between different scenarios....

They never told me this. I deduced this based on ruling out the other factors and lawful reasons.  

Agreed - I'm just saying that it's extremely common and happening to thousands of people.