Outrageous Santander closing account without notice or explanation

brassbound

There have been over 50 replies to my original post, but I cannot see more than the first 5.  The little  >> logo is inert.  How do I see other comments? 

TheBanker

Are you using a mobile device? (I appreciate you probably can't see this...)

eDicky

Tap/click the page numbers...

35har1old

Katiehound said:

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!!

Abbey where the first to be taken over by Santander followed by B&B and then All & Lic but they where only all rebrand in 2010 to Santander 

adamp87

Momanns said:

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.  

Agreed. 99% of the time we see these posts information is omitted or not answered that something they’ve done has triggered the decision.

Miles86

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 trouble with that approach is that if a bank  provides reasons for all other closures it is potentially implicitly tipping off a customer whose closure letter does not say why that it is Money Laundering. Tipping off carries potential prison sentences, what would you do!!

robatwork

Miles86 said:

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 trouble with that approach is that if a bank  provides reasons for all other closures it is potentially implicitly tipping off a customer whose closure letter does not say why that it is Money Laundering. Tipping off carries potential prison sentences, what would you do!!

Dear Mr Brassbound,

We have noticed that on 15th December 2022, and then again on 18th December 2022 and 24th January 2023 that your personal current account 1919191919 19-19-19 was used for multiple business transactions:
TRANS1
TRANS2
...

You were previously notified  in a letter on 20th June 2022 that this was in violation of our terms and conditions.

As such we have decided to close all your accounts in 60 days from the date of this letter. You will no longer be able to open accounts with any financial organisation under the Santander group of companies. 

your sincerely

Santa Nder

Miles86

robatwork said:

Miles86 said:

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 trouble with that approach is that if a bank  provides reasons for all other closures it is potentially implicitly tipping off a customer whose closure letter does not say why that it is Money Laundering. Tipping off carries potential prison sentences, what would you do!!

Dear Mr Brassbound,

We have noticed that on 15th December 2022, and then again on 18th December 2022 and 24th January 2023 that your personal current account 1919191919 19-19-19 was used for multiple business transactions:
TRANS1
TRANS2
...

You were previously notified  in a letter on 20th June 2022 that this was in violation of our terms and conditions.

As such we have decided to close all your accounts in 60 days from the date of this letter. You will no longer be able to open accounts with any financial organisation under the Santander group of companies. 

your sincerely

Santa Nder

That's exactly the point. It would become known that a letter that gives a reason is not for AML reasons, and one that doesn't is. At that stage the bank is committing a criminal offence that has a prison sentence associated.

eskbanker

Miles86 said:

That's exactly the point. It would become known that a letter that gives a reason is not for AML reasons, and one that doesn't is. At that stage the bank is committing a criminal offence that has a prison sentence associated.

But if you take that line of argument to its logical extent, you could contend that a letter giving 60 days notice of closure is clearly different from one closing immediately, therefore the former wouldn't be allowed under tipping-off rules and so all closures should be immediate!

robatwork

Miles86 said:

robatwork said:

Miles86 said:

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 trouble with that approach is that if a bank  provides reasons for all other closures it is potentially implicitly tipping off a customer whose closure letter does not say why that it is Money Laundering. Tipping off carries potential prison sentences, what would you do!!

Dear Mr Brassbound,

We have noticed that on 15th December 2022, and then again on 18th December 2022 and 24th January 2023 that your personal current account 1919191919 19-19-19 was used for multiple business transactions:
TRANS1
TRANS2
...

You were previously notified  in a letter on 20th June 2022 that this was in violation of our terms and conditions.

As such we have decided to close all your accounts in 60 days from the date of this letter. You will no longer be able to open accounts with any financial organisation under the Santander group of companies. 

your sincerely

Santa Nder

That's exactly the point. It would become known that a letter that gives a reason is not for AML reasons, and one that doesn't is. At that stage the bank is committing a criminal offence that has a prison sentence associated.

To get this straight in my mind. You believe that sending the letter above the bank staff would be committing a criminal offence and could go to prison?