Lloyds bank account closure

F1shyFingers

missile said:

I had never heard of "protective CIFAS" and had to google it.
That might well be cause for concern and a red flag to any bank?

No, it wouldn't.

But the reason someone felt the need to do so might.

Daliah

missile said:

I had never heard of "protective CIFAS" and had to google it.
That might well be cause for concern and a red flag to any bank?

It would by itself not be a reason for a bank to terminate an existing relationship.

Though theoretically, it could be connected to the OP’s issue. For example, if some Lloyds accounts in OP’s name had been opened fraudulently by a third party, and OP registered the protective CIFAS once they became aware of the fraudulent action. However, this is not what the OP described, so it’s probably not what happened.

It would be helpful if the OP could clarify why the protective CIFAS was established.

[Deleted User]

grumbler said:

Deleted_User said:

Olinda99 said:

"Sounds like from what you posted you broke Lloyds T&C's of your personal ..."

It shouldn't have to 'sound like' - the customer should be told why the account was closed.

  they wish to simply dissolve the relationship. 

25.1 This agreement continues until you or we cancel or end it. The table below shows how this agreement (or any account, benefits package or service) can be ended. If we end it, we will act in a manner we think is reasonable in the circumstances and will try to reduce the inconvenience to you.
If we reasonably think that:
• there is illegal or fraudulent activity on or connected to the account;
• you are or may be behaving improperly (for example, in a threatening or abusive way);
• by continuing the agreement we (or another company in the Lloyds Banking Group) may be exposed to action from any government, regulator or other authority or may break a regulatory requirement; or
• you have seriously or repeatedly broken this agreement in any

other way

- Notice - None

Any other reason. - Two months (in writing).

https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/current-accounts/personal_banking_terms_and_conditions.pdf

IMHO, "to simply dissolve" falls under "any other reason"

Immediate closure implicitly accuses the customer of breaking the agreement or illegal/fraudulent activity.

If it's the former, then there is no reason to keep the reason secret. Even if it's the latter, general "illegal/fraudulent activity" can't be seen as "tipping".

So, IMHO, the bank's behaviour is nowhere close to declared "reasonable".

This same question pops up every few months. 

It could be for either immediate closure or standard notice reasons. Giving a written reason invites further pointless contact and may leave them open to legal action. 

grumbler

Deleted_User said:

grumbler said:

Deleted_User said:

Olinda99 said:

"Sounds like from what you posted you broke Lloyds T&C's of your personal ..."

It shouldn't have to 'sound like' - the customer should be told why the account was closed.

  they wish to simply dissolve the relationship. 

25.1 This agreement continues until you or we cancel or end it. The table below shows how this agreement (or any account, benefits package or service) can be ended. If we end it, we will act in a manner we think is reasonable in the circumstances and will try to reduce the inconvenience to you.
If we reasonably think that:
• there is illegal or fraudulent activity on or connected to the account;
• you are or may be behaving improperly (for example, in a threatening or abusive way);
• by continuing the agreement we (or another company in the Lloyds Banking Group) may be exposed to action from any government, regulator or other authority or may break a regulatory requirement; or
• you have seriously or repeatedly broken this agreement in any

other way

- Notice - None

Any other reason. - Two months (in writing).

https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/current-accounts/personal_banking_terms_and_conditions.pdf

IMHO, "to simply dissolve" falls under "any other reason"

Immediate closure implicitly accuses the customer of breaking the agreement or illegal/fraudulent activity.

If it's the former, then there is no reason to keep the reason secret. Even if it's the latter, general "illegal/fraudulent activity" can't be seen as "tipping".

So, IMHO, the bank's behaviour is nowhere close to declared "reasonable".

Giving a written reason invites further pointless contact and may leave them open to legal action. 

Well, that's exactly what I call "arrogant and caddish behaviour". This is no more "pointless " than common "please" and "thank you", especially given the amount of waste paper that we all keep receiving from banks.

Legal challenges? Of course it's easier to forget "not innocent until proven guilty" principle that applies pretty much everywhere except banks.

[Deleted User]

grumbler said:

Deleted_User said:

grumbler said:

Deleted_User said:

Olinda99 said:

"Sounds like from what you posted you broke Lloyds T&C's of your personal ..."

It shouldn't have to 'sound like' - the customer should be told why the account was closed.

  they wish to simply dissolve the relationship. 

25.1 This agreement continues until you or we cancel or end it. The table below shows how this agreement (or any account, benefits package or service) can be ended. If we end it, we will act in a manner we think is reasonable in the circumstances and will try to reduce the inconvenience to you.
If we reasonably think that:
• there is illegal or fraudulent activity on or connected to the account;
• you are or may be behaving improperly (for example, in a threatening or abusive way);
• by continuing the agreement we (or another company in the Lloyds Banking Group) may be exposed to action from any government, regulator or other authority or may break a regulatory requirement; or
• you have seriously or repeatedly broken this agreement in any

other way

- Notice - None

Any other reason. - Two months (in writing).

https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/current-accounts/personal_banking_terms_and_conditions.pdf

IMHO, "to simply dissolve" falls under "any other reason"

Immediate closure implicitly accuses the customer of breaking the agreement or illegal/fraudulent activity.

If it's the former, then there is no reason to keep the reason secret. Even if it's the latter, general "illegal/fraudulent activity" can't be seen as "tipping".

So, IMHO, the bank's behaviour is nowhere close to declared "reasonable".

Giving a written reason invites further pointless contact and may leave them open to legal action. 

Well, that's exactly what I call "arrogant and caddish behaviour". This is no more "pointless " than common "please" and "thank you", especially given the amount of waste paper that we all keep receiving from banks.

Legal challenges? Of course it's easier to forget "not innocent until proven guilty" principle that applies pretty much everywhere except banks.

There is no legal challenge here. Either party is able to dissolve the relationship.

A court is not going to make a bank conduct business with the OP against it's will.

The best they MAY get is something for the lack of notice (assuming it's not warranted) The court will ask why the OP didn't just open accounts elsewhere ASAP and to quantify their actual loss. 

sheramber

grumbler said:

Deleted_User said:

grumbler said:

Deleted_User said:

Olinda99 said:

"Sounds like from what you posted you broke Lloyds T&C's of your personal ..."

It shouldn't have to 'sound like' - the customer should be told why the account was closed.

  they wish to simply dissolve the relationship. 

25.1 This agreement continues until you or we cancel or end it. The table below shows how this agreement (or any account, benefits package or service) can be ended. If we end it, we will act in a manner we think is reasonable in the circumstances and will try to reduce the inconvenience to you.
If we reasonably think that:
• there is illegal or fraudulent activity on or connected to the account;
• you are or may be behaving improperly (for example, in a threatening or abusive way);
• by continuing the agreement we (or another company in the Lloyds Banking Group) may be exposed to action from any government, regulator or other authority or may break a regulatory requirement; or
• you have seriously or repeatedly broken this agreement in any

other way

- Notice - None

Any other reason. - Two months (in writing).

https://www.lloydsbank.com/assets/media/pdfs/current-accounts/personal_banking_terms_and_conditions.pdf

IMHO, "to simply dissolve" falls under "any other reason"

Immediate closure implicitly accuses the customer of breaking the agreement or illegal/fraudulent activity.

If it's the former, then there is no reason to keep the reason secret. Even if it's the latter, general "illegal/fraudulent activity" can't be seen as "tipping".

So, IMHO, the bank's behaviour is nowhere close to declared "reasonable".

Giving a written reason invites further pointless contact and may leave them open to legal action. 

Well, that's exactly what I call "arrogant and caddish behaviour". This is no more "pointless " than common "please" and "thank you", especially given the amount of waste paper that we all keep receiving from banks.

Legal challenges? Of course it's easier to forget "not innocent until proven guilty" principle that applies pretty much everywhere except banks.

What paper do you receive from your bank?

I never receive anything.

What am I missing?

Futuristic

grumbler said:

That was my original point - we don't know only because of Lloyds' arrogant and caddish behaviour. I absolutely agree with other posters that mass media attention needs to be drawn to this sort of behaviour.

Seems you have some personal issues with banks in general/lloyds. Me neither have been spammed letters by banks, though I do make sure I haven't opted into such marketing  

The OP has several years of debt history posts, in some posts stating he won't be able to pay in his lifetime. Along with the CIFAS thingy he signed up to, it doesn't feel like the OP has clearly told everything in black and white for us to make any judgement on who is right / wrong here. 

sheramber

Well  the OP has not logged on again so we're not likely to find out.

grumbler

Futuristic said:

grumbler said:

That was my original point - we don't know only because of Lloyds' arrogant and caddish behaviour. I absolutely agree with other posters that mass media attention needs to be drawn to this sort of behaviour.

Seems you have some personal issues with banks in general/lloyds.

Nothing. Accounts with pretty much all high-street banks, few online-only, few BSs - and have never had any problems personally.

The OP has several years of debt history posts, in some posts stating he won't be able to pay in his lifetime. Along with the CIFAS thingy he signed up to, it doesn't feel like the OP has clearly told everything in black and white for us to make any judgement on who is right / wrong here.

OK, I think T&C are for both parties, not only for customers.

I guess the OP wasn't "behaving improperly (for example, in a threatening or abusive way)".

Why, when closing the account without a notice, the bank couldn't tell the OP that the account was closed for either "illegal or fraudulent activity" or "repeatedly breaking the agreement"? If the latter, it would be nice to specify  in what way the agreement was broken.

I am pretty sure in this case the OP wouldn't have come here with this thread.
And if the bank is scared of quoting "illegal or fraudulent activity" because of the possible "legal action", what's the point in saying this in the T&C? Why not to say simply "we can close your account if we feel so and without any notice"? Why twenty lines of nonsense like "act in a manner we think is reasonable ... and will try to reduce the inconvenience to you"?

Notepad_Phil

grumbler said:
...

Why, when closing the account without a notice, the bank couldn't tell the OP that the account was closed for either "illegal or fraudulent activity" or "repeatedly breaking the agreement"? If the latter, it would be nice to specify  in what way the agreement was broken.
...

If they did as you suggested then if the person was a fraudster or committing some illegal or potentially suspect activity then they would probably find it very useful to know that whatever they were doing had been detected so they can then modify their behaviour next time to avoid detection. And getting a reason back for everything but some particular set of activities, is just the same as telling someone that they were being closed for those activities.

I've never had an account closed, and I guess I would be annoyed if it ever happened , but in my opinion it is a very slippery slope that you risk going down if banks had to give out specific reasons why they have closed an account.