Debanked by Lloyds

GeoffTF

EarthBoy said:

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.

The independent enquiry found that his account had been closed for commercial reasons. Farage said it was a whitewash, but he would, wouldn't he?

pecunianonolet

I am aware that the the case discussed in previous posts sparks controversy if it was right or not, about criteria met and records revealing certain details. However, his case isn't really part of this LBG case. I understand that the investigations and whatever is ongoing may help with a change in regulation in the future or will help customers with greater clarity of the reasoning behind, even if it is purely a commercial decision. 

Knowing at least the reason will help with an objection and appeal to the decision. I just can't imagine that banks can hide the reason legitimately for all those closures because they are all in relation to criminal activities or money laundering. Most of those closures will likely be because of commercial reasons. If that is the case, just be straight and tell me as customer.

According to this article around 1000 accounts are closed each day having increased sharply over the years. With the always greater reliance on AI and not being told a reason it is almost impossible to assess a case objectively and proof to the bank the opposite. The rate of error and how many closures have been successfully overruled is as far as I know unknown.

Let's take my Halifax case from a year ago.

The DSAR revealed that they had recorded in their data file about me that I moved to my address only in 2023 when in fact I moved there in 2017. My employment status was marked down as unknown, when I provided that I am employed full time. The date I became a customer was down as 1st April 2021 (how ironic), when in fact I opened the account with Halifax in, I think, March 2023 (when their switch offer was on). My Lloyds account was opened in January 2023 when they had a switch incentive. I never banked or had any relationship with LBG before. 

All the above data is correct with all 3 CRA. When I walked into the local Bank of Scotland branch, as they can access Halifax records and showed rental contract, employment contract, 3 most recent payslips, etc. The manager corrected all data he had access to in the system. Made a record that all files, passports, even a national insurance number record was seen and we literally added every possible data entry. He admitted he never came across such a case in over 10 years working for them.

Yet, this didn't matter and Halifax stayed stubbornly with their decision and closed down current account, regular saver but let me keep for whatever reason their Instant Saver and I still can see the account in the app. My Lloyds account has been totally unaffected. 

Feels like being prosecuted in court but not being told for what. 

If a bank has a tight net and criteria of who they accept or not, again for commercial reasons, just tell me that you don't want me. Being left in the dark just isn't the nicest feeling. Also, could reduce their workload because raising a complaint and requesting a DSAR takes up ressource and causes internal cost. That cost is probably far greater than paying out an incentive of a 5er each month for Halifax or a few cinema tickets or a Disney+ subscription for Lloyds. Somebody taking it to the Ombudsman isn't even part of the story and causes even more cost.

Last but not least, a bank is free to choose the eligibility criteria when offering an incentive and could tighten this  quite a bit.

To the particular case, no letters have been received yet. 

GeoffTF

pecunianonolet said:

According to this article around 1000 accounts are closed each day having increased sharply over the years. With the always greater reliance on AI and not being told a reason it is almost impossible to assess a case objectively and proof to the bank the opposite. The rate of error and how many closures have been successfully overruled is as far as I know unknown.

The FOS publishes statistics on the number of cases that it overrules (a small proportion of the total number of closures). There will also be cases that the banks overrule themselves.

GeoffTF

Having said that, I believe that the proposal to make banks give 90 days notice and a reason for closure, whenever that is legal, is a good one. I also do not see why money mules should not be allowed an account that only accepts their salary or benefits as incoming payments. I do not see why someone guilty of insurance fraud should not be allowed a prepaid debit card, with the issuing bank not being liable to provide compensation if the card is claimed to have been lost or stolen.

Kim_13

EarthBoy said:

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.

And even when they did offer him an ordinary NatWest account, it was just that - a personal account. They wouldn't offer him a business account, which would 'cancel' him as he wouldn't be able to receive any work related payments. Had he accepted the personal account in resolution of the matter and used that account for everything because he didn't have anything else, he would have (rightfully) had it closed for breaching the terms and using a personal account for business. With that said, odd that the whole debacle has come up again in a thread about the bank that ultimately banked him. 

I opened a Regular Saver with Halifax last week and will wait until later in the year before closing the Everyday Saver, just in case. 

If OP has been told to cut up cards, then it seems they are being debanked. There would be no cards issued to now be redundant if they had simply been declined the savings account applied for.

Most of the discrepancies on your DSAR are glaring but as to the date of opening, the date recorded is the date the account was fully opened, not the date you applied for it. If you applied toward the end of March, it would be perfectly possible for an account not to be opened until 1 April.

pecunianonolet

Kim_13 said:

EarthBoy said:

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.

Most of the discrepancies on your DSAR are glaring but as to the date of opening, the date recorded is the date the account was fully opened, not the date you applied for it. If you applied toward the end of March, it would be perfectly possible for an account not to be opened until 1 April.

@Kim_13, that is correct about the the opening date variance you describe but not if 2 years are in between. Opening date stated was 2021 when the account was opened in 2023. 

nyermen

As someone who works in financial software (ie. my customers are banks), none of our software holds any such analysis (we have software covering retail, SME, commercial, & treasury - ie. most stuff).  Of course banks could build their own stuff internally (larger ones often do have inhouse developement, eg. Deutschebank was rumoured for a time to have more developers than microsoft...).

But - based on my time working with many of them, Im not aware that many care at all about political views etc of the "ordinary person", and I doubt they're wasting much time (and staff...) thinking about it.  (People such as Farage - PEP's - may be a different perspective, they might want to avoid the possibility of reputation - by the time its a publicly awkward protest, its too late after all)

What I suspect is more likely (and I do know happens), is customers are considered as "how profitable" they are.  That can be both borrowers ($$$ for the bank) and savers (you have money in a lower earning interest account? From an FTP (funds transfer pricing) perspective, a profit if its cheaper than they would borrow from elsewhere). Good example is a consistently healthy current account balance as they generally pay no interest.

Not particularly profitable to the bank?  Opening and closing lots of accounts (remember, FCA/PRA regulatory requirements have costs around customer activities, savings have to be reported eg. to the FSCS, etc)?  Its possible they may do a periodic "lets get rid of the bottom 5%".

Other forumites like @eskbanker may have more experience here, albeit they may have better things to do than speculate

One point:  We do have interfaces to KYC (know your customer) of course.  These would normally operate on "customer first application" as well as at periodic points (eg. opening new accounts).  These look into eg. credit histories and potentially other areas.