We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Back account closed no reason
Options
Comments
-
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.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.
Agreed - I'm just saying that it's extremely common and happening to thousands of people.0 -
funkycredit said: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.3
-
eskbanker said:funkycredit said: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.So it limits exactly what I've done doesn't it? Luckily I'm the individual and KNOW what I've *not* done.The *only* thing I may have breached is the multiple accounts, but I've a chat record confirming it's fine and then it was opened no problem. How is any of that my fault?At worst they should have said "we are closing your accounts in X days due to account irregularities" or similar. They should NOT block all access to funds, charge me the fee, allow me to go OD then report this to the CRA's. Sorry. That's nonsense.It's the banks fault. It's their problem. It's their doing. 100%.1
-
It appears your 'friend' at the start of the thread has now become you.If you are 'winning' as you said at 4.59pm why do you need to ask for advice ?0
-
-
My error. Obliged to you Ed-1
0 -
Old_Lifer said:It appears your 'friend' at the start of the thread has now become you.If you are 'winning' as you said at 4.59pm why do you need to ask for advice ?
I am winning. I'm simply stating that NatWest are behaving appallingly and explaining my issues as an innocent bank customer who fell foul to unlawful rules, activities and actions.0 -
funkycredit said:The *only* thing I may have breached is the multiple accounts, but I've a chat record confirming it's fine and then it was opened no problem. How is any of that my fault?At worst they should have said "we are closing your accounts in X days due to account irregularities" or similar. They should NOT block all access to funds, charge me the fee, allow me to go OD then report this to the CRA's. Sorry. That's nonsense.It's the banks fault. It's their problem. It's their doing. 100%.
Having said that, if you've opened multiple Reward accounts against their terms, while formally declaring in the account application that you've read and accepted those terms, then you do have at least some culpability, despite apparently inaccurate contradictory information being provided by one of their employees - that doesn't override Ts & Cs, although obviously you can, and presumably will, claim that you believed and were influenced by that advice!1 -
funkycredit said:Ed-1 said:
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.
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 12 Election 2024: The MSE Leaders' Debate
- 344.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 450.1K Spending & Discounts
- 236.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 609.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.6K Life & Family
- 249K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards