Bank account being close

GeordieGeorge

newatc said:

If I decided to close a bank account (which I have done) then I am happy to tell the bank why when they ask. It doesn't seem to much to ask that if a bank decides to "close" your account that they tell you the reasons why.

The banks will run an algorithm to decide which accounts that they want to exit, based on identifying those who they think don’t make commercial sense to continue with.

If they start explaining how that works then people will game the system.

colsten

newatc said:

If I decided to close a bank account (which I have done) then I am happy to tell the bank why when they ask. It doesn't seem to much to ask that if a bank decides to "close" your account that they tell you the reasons why.

Banks are prohibited by law to tell customers if they are suspected of fraud or money laundering. The minute they would give you a reason other than fraud or money laundering, it would be easy for fraudsters and money launderers to work out whether they are being investigated. Thereby banks would be breaching their legal obligation if they made exceptions.

The subject of account closures is not a regular occurrence, except perhaps in the Natwest group of banks. The jury is still out on whether they are overzealous or whether they attract customers who are abusing their banking facilities, or the Natwest staff.

The_Fat_Controller

I think the OP's ongoing issue with bankruptcy and the Official Receiver could have something to do with the closure of their account.

Thrugelmir

colsten said:

newatc said:

If I decided to close a bank account (which I have done) then I am happy to tell the bank why when they ask. It doesn't seem to much to ask that if a bank decides to "close" your account that they tell you the reasons why.

The subject of account closures is not a regular occurrence, except perhaps in the Natwest group of banks. The jury is still out on whether they are overzealous or whether they attract customers who are abusing their banking facilities, or the Natwest staff.

Perhaps Natwest were one of the weakest banks previously with regards to account supervision. Now have the tools to undertake a thorough review. . 

thewinelake66

Interesting to read this thread. It's easy to be unsympathetic. Until it happens to you.

It happened to me yesterday (FirstDirect). I do understand that the bank can be charged with a "tipping-off" offence if they tell you why. However, it seems that they could at least tell you that!
I was wondering what the trigger was for First Direct to terminate (with immediate effect) my accounts with them. Reading through, someone suggested that trading cryptocurrency could be a trigger. Now that is very interesting, as I did buy some bitcoin a couple of months back.
So while I don't believe there's a rule in the T&Cs forbidding this, if a bank wants a quiet life, then anyone indulging in such activiities shows some deviation from the norm, and there's a perverse (and cold-hearted) logic to this. Not a well-known fact, though.

From now on I shall have one "boring" account that I use for pure domestic stuff and a more adventurous account that I'd use for anything vaguely out of the ordinary - eg. cryptocurrency, online bookmakers, maybe other investments (eg wind farms)

When the ombudsman is looking for cases of "discrimination" - what does that mean? Would it help to be a person of colour? LGBTQ+ or something? Clearly the banks are discriminating in the purest sense of the word...

eskbanker

thewinelake66 said:

When the ombudsman is looking for cases of "discrimination" - what does that mean? Would it help to be a person of colour? LGBTQ+ or something? Clearly the banks are discriminating in the purest sense of the word...

Where have you formed the impression that 'the ombudsman is looking for cases of "discrimination"'?

How would a bank even be aware of a customer's ethnicity or sexuality?  If they were to ask for such data on applications it would certainly raise eyebrows!

Discriminating based on what some customers do is likely to be fair game, but discriminating based on what they are less so, especially if it relates to protected characteristics....

thewinelake66

Indeed - I was raising those absurd examples somewhat sarcastically! But someone up the thread said that the ombudsman would only be prepared to help in cases of discrimination. I wondered what that really means. Perhaps I need to word it a bit more clearly!

thewinelake66

dunstonh said:

would the financial ombudsman be able to help me?

No business is required to offer their services to you.  So, as long as its not discrimination, they can choose to withdraw their services and the FOS cannot and will not intervene.

What does "discrimination" mean here, please?

csgohan4

thewinelake66 said:

dunstonh said:

would the financial ombudsman be able to help me?

No business is required to offer their services to you.  So, as long as its not discrimination, they can choose to withdraw their services and the FOS cannot and will not intervene.

What does "discrimination" mean here, please?

Choosing who to do their business is, is that discrimination? A customer cannot be forced be forced to do business with someone either 

Thrugelmir

thewinelake66 said:

So while I don't believe there's a rule in the T&Cs forbidding this,

A business can chose who transacts business with. That's their choice. Covered fully in the T&C's. 

By default big business works at the macro not the micro level. If there's an activity in the wider world which exposes the bank to regulatory risk. Then the board will shoot from the hip. Not worth their bother to retain every customer. They've more than enough good ones to let somebody else have those that they've no interest in.