Santander free forever bank account changes

Smurrfmo

My free forever account was provided in 2010 by Santander itself.  Even the very partial FOS investigator did not claim Santander did not inherit the accounts, nor did Santander argue this.

Zanderman

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.

Well, not quite. 

If the fox popped up to offer opinion that would like Santander actually replying on here, and, despite some posters being apparently convinced that others are in Santander employ and only here to argue Santander's case, I think that is very very very unlikely. Why on earth would they bother? They've no need to. Why put effort here? The outcome will be determined by FOS or beyond, whatever is said on here or on facebook or wherever. The battle ground isn't here.

What is happening is that some posters are querying, quite genuinely, whether there is, possibly, an argument that the 'forever' promise is not unbreakable. That's not the fox popping up. That's a fellow hen farmer querying whether the security deemed secure is, actually, genuinely secure. It's a discussion about hen-house security and whether it is fallible, despite entrenched belief, that's all.

Section62

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.

The law is quite happy dealing with the concept of "forever"... ever heard of "perpetuity"?

The "This planet will not be here forever" argument is very unlikely to wash with a court - we could all be dead tomorrow (perhaps if the Earth is destroyed by aliens) but that doesn't mean a bank can't offer a 1 year fixed-rate account, because we don't know if we will still be here in 12 months time to see it mature.

If asked, a court is likely to say that for practical purposes 'forever' should be interpreted as something like the lifetime of the customer, or else the continued existence of the company.

Renfrewman

amyfairweather said:

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.

Take Abbey to Court then.

Section62

Renfrewman said:

amyfairweather said:

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.

Take Abbey to Court then.

You mean "Santander UK plc" ?

Futuristic

Section62 said:

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.

If asked, a court is likely to say that for practical purposes 'forever' should be interpreted as something like the lifetime of the customer, or else the continued existence of the company.

This is what you said for the FOS on your high horse writing dozens of long winded comments of crystal ball but you seem to have piped down from that since we now have 2 complaints being thrown out and no doubt escalating it will result in the same. I guess we have moved on to being a professional in the courts now. 

For any sane person who operates a successful business, the r/r of time and money in the courts doesn't sound so great over an extra £120 a year so always laughable when someone here mentions going to court and then will you continue using the “untrustworthy” bank you took to court? 

GeoffTF

amyfairweather said:

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.

Abbey and Santander did precisely that. Misleading advertising happens all the time, and companies are frequently ordered to take it down. There are remedies if they persist with the misleading advertising. I do not believe that you could get a court order for Santander to remove advertising that they have not used for more than ten years. Abbey and Santander certainly should not have published misleading advertising, but that is another matter.

GeoffTF

Section62 said:

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.

The law is quite happy dealing with the concept of "forever"... ever heard of "perpetuity"?

The "This planet will not be here forever" argument is very unlikely to wash with a court - we could all be dead tomorrow (perhaps if the Earth is destroyed by aliens) but that doesn't mean a bank can't offer a 1 year fixed-rate account, because we don't know if we will still be here in 12 months time to see it mature.

If asked, a court is likely to say that for practical purposes 'forever' should be interpreted as something like the lifetime of the customer, or else the continued existence of the company.

That is not relevant, because the accounts were never free forever. My point was that it was obvious that the advertising could not be taken literally. Potential customers should have checked the Terms & Conditions.

Renfrewman

Section62 said:

Renfrewman said:

amyfairweather said:

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.

Take Abbey to Court then.

You mean "Santander UK plc" ?

NO              

GeoffTF

Renfrewman said:

Section62 said:

Renfrewman said:

amyfairweather said:

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.

Take Abbey to Court then.

You mean "Santander UK plc" ?

NO              

Why do you suggest taking Abbey to Court for something Santander did after it had taken over Abbey? I do not think that would work very well.