Santander free forever bank account changes

eskbanker

born_again said:
You need to stop going on about "Forever" One word is not going to win your case, & look at the whole picture.

My point is Santander have this nicely wrapped up the the T/C that you agreed to, not once but twice.

I don't think it's helpful to be so dismissive - the word 'forever' is obviously fundamental to the debate, as is the extent to which it can be overridden by Ts & Cs, so the situation is considerably more nuanced than you suggest.

clairec666

Section62 said:

phillw said:

amyfairweather said:
Note: Santander did not state it would be free for 14 years or 50 years or 500 years, they said 'forever'.  You still don't seem to be able to get your head around that yet, for some reason.

Forcing Santander to carry on offering these accounts is a non-starter.  Whereas suing them for the equivalent costs of £9.99 per month, plus fees, plus time wasted on all this, moving forward is most certainly not.

I suggested earlier in the thread suing for as many years ahead up to your state retirement date.

They were free forever, until they removed the account. It's like lifetime guarantees are the lifetime of the product, which is when they stop supporting it.
...

If you have a quick read of one of the FOS investigator's opinions posted in the thread you'll see Santander haven't "removed the account".  Nor did the 2015 change to the terms and conditions open the door for charging, as has often been claimed in this thread.

The FOS Investigator's opinion is that Santander could have started charging right from the start, back when the accounts were being advertised as 'free forever'.  They think there is no change in the status of the account which has permitted charging to begin, compared to the original situation.

In which case, why did Santander have to back down in 2012?

big_ste

Carpetbeetle999 said:

Hi everyone, quick update. I've received my final response from the FOS at 9.20 this morning and they are siding with Satander. It's a pretty long winded email which goes into the reasons why and I won't bore you with the details surfice to say it's more or less the same statement as the first person who posted about their final response. As I've said on here, I was always in it for the long run but I had a feeling it wasn't going to go our way so opened a Virgin account last week and will be doing the transfer over at the weekend. As previously mentioned I think I was one of the first to go to the ombudsman in mid July so I'd expect that everyone will be hearing from the FOS immently.
To those taking this further with small claims court etc I wish you good luck but for me it's time to move on. Thanks to you all for the sounding board on here, it's been great for the most part. 

totally fake was i then

eskbanker

clairec666 said:

Section62 said:

The FOS Investigator's opinion is that Santander could have started charging right from the start, back when the accounts were being advertised as 'free forever'.  They think there is no change in the status of the account which has permitted charging to begin, compared to the original situation.

In which case, why did Santander have to back down in 2012?

Santander would presumably argue that they didn't have to back down then but simply chose to, in response to adverse publicity, etc, rather than the issue being decided in court or by the regulator, so were potentially just kicking the can down the road rather than accepting that they didn't have the right to introduce charges.  Not saying I'd agree with that position though, but just that the 2012 U-turn doesn't necessarily constitute a precedent to rely on....

fest0r

eskbanker said:

born_again said:
You need to stop going on about "Forever" One word is not going to win your case, & look at the whole picture.

My point is Santander have this nicely wrapped up the the T/C that you agreed to, not once but twice.

I don't think it's helpful to be so dismissive - the word 'forever' is obviously fundamental to the debate, as is the extent to which it can be overridden by Ts & Cs, so the situation is considerably more nuanced than you suggest.

The majority of pro Santander posts are not trying to be helpful in any way.

Baseless claims that free business account holders are somehow being subsidised by other customers. Conveniently forgetting about Santander's other free account holders with far less restrictive accounts. When someone posted info showing that Santander lost more customers than other banks, it was jumped on immediately. Even if it was true, it has nothing do with this situation, even if it did, Santander have so many global customers that it doesn't matter. A self-soothing mantra combined with propaganda.

The running theme has been to persuade people not to take any action. "Impartial" posts, repeatedly suggesting that people should give up.

clairec666

eskbanker said:

clairec666 said:

Section62 said:

The FOS Investigator's opinion is that Santander could have started charging right from the start, back when the accounts were being advertised as 'free forever'.  They think there is no change in the status of the account which has permitted charging to begin, compared to the original situation.

In which case, why did Santander have to back down in 2012?

Santander would presumably argue that they didn't have to back down then but simply chose to, in response to adverse publicity, etc, rather than the issue being decided in court or by the regulator, so were potentially just kicking the can down the road rather than accepting that they didn't have the right to introduce charges.  Not saying I'd agree with that position though, but just that the 2012 U-turn doesn't necessarily constitute a precedent to rely on....

Fair enough.... I assumed from what I've read that they were backed into a corner and had to back down rather than lose in court. This is what led me to think that the 2015 T&C changes would be pivotal, but this goes against what the FOS is saying.

eskbanker

clairec666 said:

eskbanker said:

clairec666 said:

Section62 said:

The FOS Investigator's opinion is that Santander could have started charging right from the start, back when the accounts were being advertised as 'free forever'.  They think there is no change in the status of the account which has permitted charging to begin, compared to the original situation.

In which case, why did Santander have to back down in 2012?

Santander would presumably argue that they didn't have to back down then but simply chose to, in response to adverse publicity, etc, rather than the issue being decided in court or by the regulator, so were potentially just kicking the can down the road rather than accepting that they didn't have the right to introduce charges.  Not saying I'd agree with that position though, but just that the 2012 U-turn doesn't necessarily constitute a precedent to rely on....

Fair enough.... I assumed from what I've read that they were backed into a corner and had to back down rather than lose in court. This is what led me to think that the 2015 T&C changes would be pivotal, but this goes against what the FOS is saying.

Looking back on this forum, the 2012 thread equivalent to this one was started on 16 July, and the reversal was announced on 6 September:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4074653/mse-news-santander-to-charge-for-free-business-accounts
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2012/09/santander-u-turn-saves-free-business-banking/

I haven't read through all 55 pages of it but would be surprised if the matter had been rigorously scrutinised by regulator or courts, and the decision reviewed, all within less than eight weeks after it was announced.

The two competing interpretations of 2012 have been mentioned several times previously in this thread, i.e.

1. They had to back down last time so they must be more confident of their legal position this time
2. They messed up before so have probably got it wrong again (or have forgotten about the U-turn)

amyfairweather

The FOS (as in Ombudsman) have said nothing.

So far, we’ve only had attempts by a junior investigator to brush this issue under the carpet.  

It’s their job to prevent the service from being overwhelmed and get rid of people.

It’s clearly working as only 1 of those who have received a response so far, that we know of, have “been bothered” enough to escalate to an ombudsman decision.

That’s their prerogative, but there was little point in starting the process if you’re not prepared to see it through.

Santander are happy because plenty of customers have already gone elsewhere, the FOS investigator has ensured a few more have given up and the rest will just pay up.  The number of troublemakers prepared to see this through is minimal as seen on this board and Facebook.  However, it is a point of principle and we will see it through to the end, no matter how many obstacles are put in the way.

GingerTim

What's a 'junior investigator'? That doesn't seem to be a job title at the FOS.

eskbanker

GingerTim said:

What's a 'junior investigator'? That doesn't seem to be a job title at the FOS.

It's just being used in a pejorative manner to signify someone other than an actual ombudsman, but, as with much of this thread, it's been covered already, as recently as last week:

born_again said:

amyfairweather said:
...the junior investigator...

The person making the decision is a "Investigator", not a junior one, as there is no such thing.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81707927/#Comment_81707927