Santander free forever bank account changes

neilsedaka

GeoffTF said:

neilsedaka said:

GeoffTF said:

You did not get an account that was free for all eternity, but you did get one that was free for a very long time.

What is the difference between "forever" and "all eternity" and "very long time" please? My interpretation of "forever" is no time limit.

Forever and all eternity are the same. A very long time was 10 to 20 years, in this case. The advertising said that it was not really forever. The original and subsequent Terms and Conditions said that the bank could impose a charge or close the account whenever it pleased.

The advertising until around 2010 said "free forever".

amyfairweather

GeoffTF said:

neilsedaka said:

GeoffTF said:

You did not get an account that was free for all eternity, but you did get one that was free for a very long time.

What is the difference between "forever" and "all eternity" and "very long time" please? My interpretation of "forever" is no time limit.

The advertising said that it was not really forever.

Actually, it said the following:

Renfrewman

The Abbey no longer exists.

Smurrfmo

This thread is very humourous at times, now we are being told that forever doesn't mean forever.  It's like having a thread on henhouse security where the fox pops up to offer his opinion.

amyfairweather

Renfrewman said:

The Abbey no longer exists.

Irrelevant.

The same advertising and slogans were used not only when Santander took over and still used the Abbey branding, but then also by Santander themselves until circa 2010.

GeoffTF

Smurrfmo said:

This thread is very humourous at times, now we are being told that forever doesn't mean forever.  It's like having a thread on henhouse security where the fox pops up to offer his opinion.

No, that is not we are saying at all. We are saying that the marketing claim was incorrect, because the Terms & Conditions made it very clear that the account was not free forever. Free for ever is impossible anyway. This planet will not be here forever.

born_again

Smurrfmo said:

This thread is very humourous at times, now we are being told that forever doesn't mean forever.  It's like having a thread on henhouse security where the fox pops up to offer his opinion.

The bank that offered "Forever" is no longer exists.
So it would be easy to say that due to them no longer existing. Forever stopped at that point. 

Just like any other company that is no longer trading, can not fulfil any such obligations. Even if they are taken over by someone else. 
Just ask Mike Ashley, he has bought many high street names, & has no obligation to anything prior to him buying them.

Section62

Renfrewman said:

The Abbey no longer exists.

If you mean 'Abbey National plc' then that is incorrect.  (as well as irrelevant, and debated several times already in this thread)

The company (02294747) previously known as 'Abbey National plc' continues to exist as an entity, under the new name 'Santander UK plc'.

'Santander UK plc' retained the assets and liabilities of 'Abbey National plc'.  It was a renaming/rebranding only.

amyfairweather

born_again said:

Smurrfmo said:

This thread is very humourous at times, now we are being told that forever doesn't mean forever.  It's like having a thread on henhouse security where the fox pops up to offer his opinion.

The bank that offered "Forever" is no longer exists.
So it would be easy to say that due to them no longer existing. Forever stopped at that point. 

Just like any other company that is no longer trading, can not fulfil any such obligations. Even if they are taken over by someone else. 
Just ask Mike Ashley, he has bought many high street names, & has no obligation to anything prior to him buying them.

What you say would be correct had Santander not carried on advertising these accounts.

You can see evidence of that in post 6 on page 10 of this thread.

amyfairweather

GeoffTF said:

Smurrfmo said:

This thread is very humourous at times, now we are being told that forever doesn't mean forever.  It's like having a thread on henhouse security where the fox pops up to offer his opinion.

No, that is not we are saying at all. We are saying that the marketing claim was incorrect, because the Terms & Conditions made it very clear that the account was not free forever. Free for ever is impossible anyway. This planet will not be here forever.

It would be unlawful to advertise something whilst having terms and conditions that state otherwise.

As to your secondary point, in that scenario, 'forever' (and therefore these accounts) would cease the moment this planet ceases to exist and not a moment before.