Outrageous Santander closing account without notice or explanation

Bridlington1

Middle_of_the_Road said:

Bridlington1 said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

Seems everyone thinks this kind of treatment is ok. A sad reflection of the times we now live in.
We're just expected to not take it personally, and accept this is the way banks can behave, dismissing years of patronage, with a pathetic standard letter, and that's the end of it.

Unfortunately, this is how things are, and this can happen to anyone, anytime. If it were to happen to you, I wonder if you'll be so understanding and not feel the slightest aggravation. 

You may remember that in March I received 3 letters from each of the LBG banks telling me that they will be closing all my accounts next week.

Although I agree it would be nice if the banks provided some sort of explanation as to why they are closing your accounts, a bank has a right to stop banking with you at any time as you have to stop banking with them. It does mention in the Ts&Cs that the bank can close your accounts subject to the appropriate period of notice. The bank has done this. 

OP. Reading between the lines my suspicion in this case would be Santander suspected you were using your current account for business purposes resulting in them getting slightly rattled but it could be for any number of reasons.

There usually is a reason behind account closures, in my case I strongly suspect it was because I'd opened too many short-lived donor accounts with them in a short period then opened several savings accounts for the YouGov finance points.

Your best bet now would be to switch your current account elsewhere, preferably to somewhere offering a large switching incentive and ensure you have at least one other current account held with a different banking group.

Yes, I read your posts documenting your previous banking relationship with LBG and their decision to terminate your many accounts.

I resisted making any comments at that time, as it was clear you were somewhat blindsided. Imagine then, how someone feels when the same occurs after a lifetime of banking in a responsible and respectful manner, exclusively with said bank.

I wasn't sure about how I felt regarding your situation. On the one hand I applauded your tenacity in extracting any possible benefit the banks made available. On the other, I felt you had acted disingenuously.

I can tell you now, I've seen the light. These banks deserve no respect or measure of fair play.
If they can dismiss a customer such as the OP (innocent until proven guilty) with a shabbily constructed letter, (clearly containing a glaring contradiction), then yes, I accept the banks should be taken for all we can get.

Regarding the OP using personal accounts. I see no offence in closing a business account if the said business is no longer trading, and depositing proceeds in their personal current account.

As has been said, banking is a business. We should have no illusions that they care about their customers. To that end, after finishing up here, I am going to switch my Santander account (which they recently paid me £200 to switch into) to Natwest. I was stupidly thinking I owed them a modicum of loyalty.

It did come as quite a shock to me at the time and was certainly very stressful at the time. I can imagine it will be a significantly worse experience to have a bank close all your accounts after a lifetime of banking in a responsible and respectful manner, exclusively with one bank. Upon re-reading my post I admit I did sound unsympathetic and I can assure you I didn't intend it to come across that way. I usually try to keep any emotion out of any of my posts in an attempt to keep them and the discussions that follow as objective as possible. 

My point was mainly that a bank can and will close accounts for whatever reason they wish, so long as it isn't because of the individual's race, sex, religion etc and once this decision has been made there is nothing that can be done to reverse it, just as you can and have decided to terminate your relationship with the bank yourself and are not forced to decide to give the bank another go in the future on the grounds that the bank has done nothing wrong to you personally. This may sound harsh, it could well be, but it is life I'm afraid, you can't reasonably expect to have it both ways.

I can assure you though I was not acting disingenuously during that thread, I had acted very short-shortsightedly and downright foolishly in the run up to the account review I admit but I was not disingenuous. I have seen several long and drawn out threads about people having issues with banks etc and it taking ages to get anywhere so when I started my thread I tried to be as open and honest as possible because A. I thought it would be quicker to get answers if I provided all the facts as quickly and as concisely as possible, and B. because I genuinely wanted that thread to be of some use to others, and judging by some feedback I have received I am convinced it was of some use. I don't know what I can say to convince you of that fact, I suppose you'll just have to take my word for it so that's up to you.

There usually is some reason why the banks choose to close someone's accounts. In my case it was because I'd gone overboard with the donor accounts and YouGov finance bribe. In this case though reading between the lines I hazarded a guess that Santander believed the OP was using his/her personal account for business purposes, which is, as has been mentioned, a breach of their Ts&Cs. There could well be other reasons and we are unlikely to ever discover exactly what triggered the review.

I believe all, be they individuals or organisations including banks deserve to be treated with some respect. You owe the banks no loyalty though, which is a different matter, just as the bank owes you no loyalty. At the end of the day though the banks are businesses and they are there to make money. They offered you £200 to switch your current account to them as a loss leader, largely so that you will be more likely to take out far more profitable products, i.e. loans, mortgages, investments etc with them later down the line and bring them those lovely transaction fees they get if you use their debit/credit cards.

Middle_of_the_Road said:

eskbanker said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:
...a shabbily constructed letter, (clearly containing a glaring contradiction)...

There isn't a glaring contradiction that's clear to me, what are you thinking of?

There's an argument that they could have said "unfortunately we can't won't offer you banking facilities anymore" and "we are not able willing to give you further information" though....

Middle_of_the_Road said:
after finishing up here, I am going to switch my Santander account (which they recently paid me £200 to switch into) to Natwest. I was stupidly thinking I owed them a modicum of loyalty.

Why did you think that?  You presumably didn't feel you owed any loyalty to the bank you previously switched away from?

"We regularly review our customers' accounts and need to let you know that unfortunately we can' offer you banking facilities anymore (sic).

This makes no sense, unless this is some new kind of written English.

I strongly suspect that was a typo on the OP's part and that the OP meant "we can't offer you banking facilities anymore." which would make perfect sense.

Middle_of_the_Road

Band7 said:

Middle_of_the_Road said:

"We regularly review our customers' accounts and need to let you know that unfortunately we can' offer you banking facilities anymore (sic).

This makes no sense, unless this is some new kind of written English.

It's either
we can't offer you banking facilities anymore.

Or

we can offer you banking facilities no longer.

You seem to assume the OP copied and pasted the text from a Santander letter. This may or may not have happened. They may have typed it.

Just one of the many things we don't actually know.

Yes, I take your point there. That's probably what's happened. 

Section62

born_again said:

It's not a case of the treatment being OK.

We only have one side of a story.
We have no idea exactly what Op has done, or not done with their account.

At present there are credit balances, arising from sales of my business and property during recent years.

Could imply that account has been sat inactive for several years. Which to a bank is a big risk. Or that bank thinks that the account is being used for business use, or other purposes, they have concerns over.

The OP said -

"I also used Santander for my business banking until about 2018.  At present there are credit balances, arising from sales of my business and property during recent years."

I would read that as meaning they had a business account until 2018, but the credit balance referred to relates to sale of the business (i.e. a personal asset) rather than sales made by the business.

If "business use" is the reason for account closure then it seems a bit harsh (if not completely wrong) to class the sale of a business (and property) to realise personal assets as a business transaction.

Robin9

Lots of guesses and the OP hasn't even looked in since he posted.

Middle_of_the_Road

Bridlington1 said:

I believe all, be they individuals or organisations including banks deserve to be treated with some respect. You owe the banks no loyalty though, which is a different matter, just as the bank owes you no loyalty. At the end of the day though the banks are businesses and they are there to make money. They offered you £200 to switch your current account to them as a loss leader, largely so that you will be more likely to take out far more profitable products, i.e. loans, mortgages, investments etc with them later down the line and bring them those lovely transaction fees they get if you use their debit/credit cards.

Thanks, I agree your posts were honest, measured and undoubtedly a useful warning to others.

Your paragraph above has really clarified for me how I'll consider the banking-customer relationship going forward.

Therefore I'm comfortable switching from Santander, as it's just business. 

dealyboy

Robin9 said:

Lots of guesses and the OP hasn't even looked in since he posted.

Yes however his name tagline has been removed. I suspect he has been writing his response the last few hours and having to change it every few minutes as the comments have been flying.

edit: and I don't think the OP agrees with any of them  .

Zanderman

dealyboy said:

Robin9 said:

Lots of guesses and the OP hasn't even looked in since he posted.

Yes however his name tagline has been removed. I suspect he has been writing his response the last few hours and having to change it every few minutes as the comments have been flying.

edit: and I don't think the OP agrees with any of them  .

The name tagline was removed following Robin9's request, its removal doesn't indicate the OP has been back.

The OP's statement about no notice is clearly incorrect (a 2 month date is clearly mentioned in the OP's post) and several replies suggest that business use might be the reason for closure, so I suspect he or she is, if they're even reading this, considering whether their exasperation, however understandable, might be a bit overstated.

dealyboy

@Zanderman said:

dealyboy said:

Robin9 said:

Lots of guesses and the OP hasn't even looked in since he posted.

Yes however his name tagline has been removed. I suspect he has been writing his response the last few hours and having to change it every few minutes as the comments have been flying.

edit: and I don't think the OP agrees with any of them  .

The name tagline was removed following Robin9's request, its removal doesn't indicate the OP has been back.

The OP's statement about no notice is clearly incorrect (a 2 month date is clearly mentioned in the OP's post) and several replies suggest that business use might be the reason for closure, so I suspect he or she is, if they're even reading this, considering whether their exasperation, however understandable, might be a bit overstated.

I said 'Yes' to agree with 'the OP hasn't even looked in since he posted.', noting that admin had removed the tagline. The second sentence was an ironic possible reason as to why he hasn't responded. My comment 'I don't think the OP agrees with any of them' is a reference to the fact he hasn't thanked anybody, again irony. 

It is beginning to look that this was another one of those 'one post wonders', considering the thread started about 2:00pm I would have expected responses to the many helpful comments to an (understandably) agitated posting.

enthusiasticsaver

If there are large amounts of money going in due to sales of business and property  I suspect they either think you are using it as a business account or they suspect some sort of money laundering. Unfortunately once they have decided they don't want to hold your account any more there is little you can do.  They are covered in the T and Cs. 

sutton111

The Midland Bank was never under the Santander umbrella. It was the Midland Bank, 'The Listening Bank' then it became HSBC in the late nineties. Abbey Nation was Santander in its previous iteration.