Back account closed no reason

eskbanker

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.

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.")?

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

Ah right, I took that statement at face value, I didn't realise you were just speculating and that you don't actually know the reason....

funkycredit

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.

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.")?

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

Ah right, I took that statement at face value, I didn't realise you were just speculating and that you don't actually know the reason....

No I don't know the reason (yet). They're saying they can't discuss so we're pushing full disclosure based on Lonsdale v NatWest. But they're saying no SAR was ever sent. 

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%. 

Old_Lifer

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 ?

Ed-1

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 ?

The OP wasn't funkycredit

funkycredit

Ed-1 said:

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 ?

The OP wasn't funkycredit

Nope. I'm just backing up the way NatWest is behaving is utterly vile. 🍻

Old_Lifer

My error.    Obliged to you Ed-1

funkycredit

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've no "friends" on here?

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. 

eskbanker

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%. 

Perhaps contrary to impressions, I'm not actually defending NatWest here, so yes, if they've been shutting down accounts without notice and without sufficient reason then they should definitely be held to account for that, although the degree to which they're actually obliged to disclose those reasons in detail is obviously up for debate, and hence that case you referred to, so it'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

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!

eskbanker

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.

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.

Didn't pick up on this when posted earlier - which specific legislation or FCA regulation mandates that without a SAR they have to allow immediate access to funds when closing/suspending/restricting accounts?

born_again

SAR's are filled in by bank staff when they feel that something is not right with a account and passed to the team that deal with checking accounts.
If the system flags up a account, there is NO SAR. A SAR does not have to be passed onto other parties either, as they are internal documents. They would only be passed on if it was felt that ML or financial crime was being committed, and that would not be anything that anyone but one of the team that deal with fraud would send on.
Breech of internal process or T/C do not need one.