Debanked by Lloyds

WillPS

Opening multiple accounts (even savings accounts) in a short space of time is a common theme in the leadup to these "reviews" it seems.

PocketWatchMan

WillPS said:

Opening multiple accounts (even savings accounts) in a short space of time is a common theme in the leadup to these "reviews" it seems.

Possibly but there are a multitude of other reasons. With the digital world the way it is, your activity, your location, your internet history, is all linked and exceptionally easy to trace. With the story of Farage being de-banked a while ago, that provided headline fodder and tabloid clicks but the real story was the very small print at the bottom :- that literally tens of thousands of regular people (well in excess of 10,000) have been de-banked because of their online activity. To be clear, there is no suggestion of anything illegal, or immoral, it was simply because they had the 'incorrect' opinions on a multitude of issues. 

Speculator

Was going to open their standard regular saver but won't bother now. Thanks for the warning.

GeoffTF

PocketWatchMan said:

Possibly but there are a multitude of other reasons. With the digital world the way it is, your activity, your location, your internet history, is all linked and exceptionally easy to trace. With the story of Farage being de-banked a while ago, that provided headline fodder and tabloid clicks but the real story was the very small print at the bottom :- that literally tens of thousands of regular people (well in excess of 10,000) have been de-banked because of their online activity. To be clear, there is no suggestion of anything illegal, or immoral, it was simply because they had the 'incorrect' opinions on a multitude of issues. 

The FCA conducted an investigation and was unable to find a single case.

Emily_Joy

born_again said:

Can you have more than one regular saver at same bank?

In the case of Lloyds bank, Club Lloyds account holders are allowed to hold a Monthly Saver (£250/month, 5.25%) and a Club Lloyds Monthly Saver (£400/month, 6.25%) at the same time.

Nasqueron

PocketWatchMan said:

WillPS said:

Opening multiple accounts (even savings accounts) in a short space of time is a common theme in the leadup to these "reviews" it seems.

Possibly but there are a multitude of other reasons. With the digital world the way it is, your activity, your location, your internet history, is all linked and exceptionally easy to trace. With the story of Farage being de-banked a while ago, that provided headline fodder and tabloid clicks but the real story was the very small print at the bottom :- that literally tens of thousands of regular people (well in excess of 10,000) have been de-banked because of their online activity. To be clear, there is no suggestion of anything illegal, or immoral, it was simply because they had the 'incorrect' opinions on a multitude of issues. 

Farage was not "debanked", he no longer qualified for the Coutts account as his net worth was too low and his mortgage ended, it was a standard business transaction of a snobby bank kicking out someone whose delusions of grandeur didn't match his bank balance. They allowed him to move to a "lesser" account at NatWest which he didn't like but he could still use the group, so not debanked. Coutts/NatWest made the mistake of writing down the stuff you're meant to say off the record about customers which he was able to get via FoI. If they'd simply had a meeting and sent him a polite letter saying he no longer qualified for an account and here's the alternatives, he wouldn't have been able to make anything out of it.

dcs34

Nasqueron said:

PocketWatchMan said:

WillPS said:

Opening multiple accounts (even savings accounts) in a short space of time is a common theme in the leadup to these "reviews" it seems.

Possibly but there are a multitude of other reasons. With the digital world the way it is, your activity, your location, your internet history, is all linked and exceptionally easy to trace. With the story of Farage being de-banked a while ago, that provided headline fodder and tabloid clicks but the real story was the very small print at the bottom :- that literally tens of thousands of regular people (well in excess of 10,000) have been de-banked because of their online activity. To be clear, there is no suggestion of anything illegal, or immoral, it was simply because they had the 'incorrect' opinions on a multitude of issues. 

Farage was not "debanked", he no longer qualified for the Coutts account as his net worth was too low and his mortgage ended, it was a standard business transaction of a snobby bank kicking out someone whose delusions of grandeur didn't match his bank balance. They allowed him to move to a "lesser" account at NatWest which he didn't like but he could still use the group, so not debanked. Coutts/NatWest made the mistake of writing down the stuff you're meant to say off the record about customers which he was able to get via FoI. If they'd simply had a meeting and sent him a polite letter saying he no longer qualified for an account and here's the alternatives, he wouldn't have been able to make anything out of it.

Bragging to journalists at posh drinks events about your customer's private financial affairs also wasn't a particularly great look.

it was clear they were actively seeking to remove him as a customer; other people fall below the minimum levels and get to remain as customers because its usually more trouble/effort to remove them.

Nasqueron

dcs34 said:

Nasqueron said:

PocketWatchMan said:

WillPS said:

Opening multiple accounts (even savings accounts) in a short space of time is a common theme in the leadup to these "reviews" it seems.

Possibly but there are a multitude of other reasons. With the digital world the way it is, your activity, your location, your internet history, is all linked and exceptionally easy to trace. With the story of Farage being de-banked a while ago, that provided headline fodder and tabloid clicks but the real story was the very small print at the bottom :- that literally tens of thousands of regular people (well in excess of 10,000) have been de-banked because of their online activity. To be clear, there is no suggestion of anything illegal, or immoral, it was simply because they had the 'incorrect' opinions on a multitude of issues. 

Farage was not "debanked", he no longer qualified for the Coutts account as his net worth was too low and his mortgage ended, it was a standard business transaction of a snobby bank kicking out someone whose delusions of grandeur didn't match his bank balance. They allowed him to move to a "lesser" account at NatWest which he didn't like but he could still use the group, so not debanked. Coutts/NatWest made the mistake of writing down the stuff you're meant to say off the record about customers which he was able to get via FoI. If they'd simply had a meeting and sent him a polite letter saying he no longer qualified for an account and here's the alternatives, he wouldn't have been able to make anything out of it.

Bragging to journalists at posh drinks events about your customer's private financial affairs also wasn't a particularly great look.

it was clear they were actively seeking to remove him as a customer; other people fall below the minimum levels and get to remain as customers because its usually more trouble/effort to remove them.

As I said, saying stuff off the record, not keeping it formal

Farage didn't qualify for an account, he was moved down a tier and kicked up a fuss about it because of he viewed it as a slight. If the banks had not been so foolish and simply offered him the downgrade or the choice to move on, the story would have died, instead he got to make up all this stuff about being debanked, which he wasn't, and the boss wouldn't have lost her job. As banks are commercially sensitive, I doubt there is any evidence of people in the same situation as him keeping their accounts unless they were willing to admit it.

Also, banks are commercial operations, they don't need to offer accounts to anyone and can close an account without justification, they just picked the wrong guy to do it not by the book.

EarthBoy

Nasqueron said:

Farage didn't qualify for an account, he was moved down a tier and kicked up a fuss about it because of he viewed it as a slight. If the banks had not been so foolish and simply offered him the downgrade or the choice to move on, the story would have died, instead he got to make up all this stuff about being debanked, which he wasn't, and the boss wouldn't have lost her job. As banks are commercially sensitive, I doubt there is any evidence of people in the same situation as him keeping their accounts unless they were willing to admit it.

Also, banks are commercial operations, they don't need to offer accounts to anyone and can close an account without justification, they just picked the wrong guy to do it not by the book.

That's not how I read the evidence.  It's clear that NatWest wanted shut of him because of who he was, basically, and his views.  Then it came to light that he technically no longer met the criteria for Coutts, so they used this as an excuse to boot him out, despite not doing the same to other people who no longer met the criteria.

He wasn't "moved down a tier"; they closed his accounts.  They didn't offer him an ordinary NatWest account until after all the media coverage blew up in their faces and they tried to backtrack.

Section62

GeoffTF said:

PocketWatchMan said:

Possibly but there are a multitude of other reasons. With the digital world the way it is, your activity, your location, your internet history, is all linked and exceptionally easy to trace. With the story of Farage being de-banked a while ago, that provided headline fodder and tabloid clicks but the real story was the very small print at the bottom :- that literally tens of thousands of regular people (well in excess of 10,000) have been de-banked because of their online activity. To be clear, there is no suggestion of anything illegal, or immoral, it was simply because they had the 'incorrect' opinions on a multitude of issues. 

The FCA conducted an investigation and was unable to find a single case.

Is that really a fair summary of the situation?

The FCA press release from September 2023 tells a slightly different story.  None of the banks self-reported cases where they had closed accounts primarily due to someone’s political views.  But the FCA said "...further work is needed for us to be sure."  This also only applied to the period between July 2022 and June 2023.

There appear to be several strands to the FCA investigation which were ongoing (not finished) at that time, and what some media sources reported as definitive conclusions appear to be based only on the FCA's "initial findings" of what the banks were self-reporting.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-sets-out-initial-findings-bank-account-access-and-closures

Google doesn't have anything more recent than that for the search "FCA debanking".  Unless anyone knows otherwise?