Outrageous Santander closing account without notice or explanation

datz

brassbound said:

I should like to bring to your notice what I think is a egregious example of mistreatment by a bank.

I have banked with Santander (in its various iterations and takeovers) firstly as GiroBank, then Midland, then Alliance Leicester, and finally as Santander, since about 1955.

During those nearly seventy years I would claim to have caused the bank no trouble, with accounts always in credit and my credit cards always paid off in full each month. 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.

On 3rd May my wife and I received without warning four identical letters, one for each account. (Not unusually for this bank, they were dated no less than ten days earlier, 24th April!)

---

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

....[then followed Notice of closing on 26th June]..... "Unfortunately we are not able to give you further information about how we made our decision"

---

OK, so perhaps not entirely relevant to this discussion, but Midland bank were taken over by HSBC, not Santander. [edit: nm, mentioned in the post above]

Ignoring that, this just seems to be another instance of 'computer says no'. Welcome to modern service provision, where it is often cheaper and/or easier to eject people than it is to investigate or deal with.

Like you, they are entitled to end the banking relationship - without justification - and assuming they have provided you with the appropriate notification, as specified by the terms and conditions that you both agreed to. Try not to take it too personally.

Find someone else to bank with, and hopefully don't repeat whatever spooked Santander (banks really don't like any sort of perceived risk in this very regulatory environment).

km1500

well I still think it should for be prohibited to close your account and not to give you an explanation

can you imagine if you woke up in the morning and found that your mobile phone wasn't working and you called EE or whoever and they said yes we've terminated your account and we're not telling you why 

I suppose the reaction on here would be oh well there are other providers you can go to - well I just don't think it's good enough

Miles86

km1500 said:

well I still think it should for be prohibited to close your account and not to give you an explanation

can you imagine if you woke up in the morning and found that your mobile phone wasn't working and you called EE or whoever and they said yes we've terminated your account and we're not telling you why 

I suppose the reaction on here would be oh well there are other providers you can go to - well I just don't think it's good enough

Well on that issue you have parliament to thank. Primary legislation prevents a bank telling you that they suspect you of money laundering, hence all these type of policy decisions are not explained. One for your MP.

Momanns

It will be another one of the very many posts about people having accounts closed and not disclosing the full set of facts to the forum.

It is far more likely that the OP has omitted information than a high street bank closing profitable accounts without any reasonable cause.  

p00hsticks

km1500 said:

can you imagine if you woke up in the morning and found that your mobile phone wasn't working and you called EE or whoever and they said yes we've terminated your account and we're not telling you why 

But this is not comparable with the situation the OP finds themself in, as despite their misleading thread title, they explain in their first post that they've actually been given several months notice.,

Banks do have the authority to freeze and/or close accounts immediately when they suspect fraud or money laundering - indeed they have a legal obligation to do so - but this is not what is happening here. The bank have made a commercial decision that - for whatever reason- they no longer wish to have the OP as a customer and have given them notice to move to another provider.

robatwork

p00hsticks said:

km1500 said:

can you imagine if you woke up in the morning and found that your mobile phone wasn't working and you called EE or whoever and they said yes we've terminated your account and we're not telling you why 

But this is not comparable with the situation the OP finds themself in, as despite their misleading thread title, they explain in their first post that they've actually been given several months notice.,

Banks do have the authority to freeze and/or close accounts immediately when they suspect fraud or money laundering - indeed they have a legal obligation to do so - but this is not what is happening here. The bank have made a commercial decision that - for whatever reason- they no longer wish to have the OP as a customer and have given them notice to move to another provider.

Agreed - and if a bank has made that decision NOT based on AML legislation but, like here, on a commercial basis I would argue there is an ethical/moral duty to inform the customer. This isn't Dave's Model Railways refusing to serve you because you once stared at a Hornby Flying Scotsman sideways. Banks are so central to our lives they should do everything they can within the law to inform customers regarding their decisions. A customer for many decades so it seems.

Katiehound

sutton111 said:

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.

I also noted that discrepancy. 
 National Girobank / Giro plc was taken over by Alliance & Leicester which was later taken over by Santander.
Abbey National doesn't figure  in this progression (except yes ,they were also taken over by Santander!)
Actually Girobank didn't start until 1968, so prior to that it might have been a Post Office bank book!!

born_again

datz said:

Ignoring that, this just seems to be another instance of 'computer says no'. Welcome to modern service provision, where it is often cheaper and/or easier to eject people than it is to investigate or deal with.

While a computer may flag this up. All account closures such as this are handled by actual people. As they have to be aware of FCA regulations.
Given the recent fine. They maybe going through accounts & checking all details are up to date. If customer fails to respond, then after so long. This Acc closure is the ultimate option. 
I know we have been through this & the number of people who simple say "Well we have been with you for years, no I will not give you updated details" is amazing. They then got closure letters. Then decided to provide details... Even as staff we had to prove who we were if we had a account.

Given the Op 60 day notice. This is not going to be a AML issue. That would be immediate closure. This is a purely business decision.

p00hsticks

robatwork said:

p00hsticks said:

km1500 said:

can you imagine if you woke up in the morning and found that your mobile phone wasn't working and you called EE or whoever and they said yes we've terminated your account and we're not telling you why 

But this is not comparable with the situation the OP finds themself in, as despite their misleading thread title, they explain in their first post that they've actually been given several months notice.,

Banks do have the authority to freeze and/or close accounts immediately when they suspect fraud or money laundering - indeed they have a legal obligation to do so - but this is not what is happening here. The bank have made a commercial decision that - for whatever reason- they no longer wish to have the OP as a customer and have given them notice to move to another provider.

Agreed - and if a bank has made that decision NOT based on AML legislation but, like here, on a commercial basis I would argue there is an ethical/moral duty to inform the customer. This isn't Dave's Model Railways refusing to serve you because you once stared at a Hornby Flying Scotsman sideways. Banks are so central to our lives they should do everything they can within the law to inform customers regarding their decisions. A customer for many decades so it seems.

I'm not sure I agree - looking at it the other way, would you expect customers to have explain to a bank exactly why they have decided to take their custom elsewhere ? 

TheBanker

robatwork said:

p00hsticks said:

km1500 said:

can you imagine if you woke up in the morning and found that your mobile phone wasn't working and you called EE or whoever and they said yes we've terminated your account and we're not telling you why 

But this is not comparable with the situation the OP finds themself in, as despite their misleading thread title, they explain in their first post that they've actually been given several months notice.,

Banks do have the authority to freeze and/or close accounts immediately when they suspect fraud or money laundering - indeed they have a legal obligation to do so - but this is not what is happening here. The bank have made a commercial decision that - for whatever reason- they no longer wish to have the OP as a customer and have given them notice to move to another provider.

Agreed - and if a bank has made that decision NOT based on AML legislation but, like here, on a commercial basis I would argue there is an ethical/moral duty to inform the customer. This isn't Dave's Model Railways refusing to serve you because you once stared at a Hornby Flying Scotsman sideways. Banks are so central to our lives they should do everything they can within the law to inform customers regarding their decisions. A customer for many decades so it seems.

The commercial decision could be related to AML legislation. The bank may have concluded that the customer's risk profile would result in the need for enhanced monitoring in order to meet their AML obligations, but there is no commercial justification for employing additional staff to undertake that monitoring. Therefore the account is closed.

The thing is, it's not negotiable and giving a reason would just result in an attempt by the customer to negotiate, so what would be the point other than delaying the inevitable? 

In the past, I've been involved in decisions to close accounts. It's not something banks do lightly and all such cases are subject to senior level review before the letters are issued.