Santander free forever bank account changes

GingerTim

Now being reported in the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners

With Santander's explanation:

'Santander told the Guardian that accounts that predated the 2008 merger of Abbey and Alliance & Leicester were migrated into its Business Every Day account in 2015 and that the terms and conditions of that contract did not include the free for ever promise.'

chestercoops

Lightning360 said:

So these confirm it is the account that is free, not a lifetime deal with Santander forever. I think Santander is perfectly correct to close the current account and transfer you to a paying account

As you can see Santander advertised business banking free forever.  So one would assume this would be honoured throughout its lifetime to those customers who opened a business bank account under these terms.  If the company choose to change the account then okay but it is still a business account and therefore banking free forever should still apply.

i think it is hoping many will have forgotten about these terms.

clairec666

I've been following this thread with interest even though it doesn't personally affect me. Everyone's speculating on whether Santander should be able to do this, and while we all agree that it's all morally wrong, we need someone with specific legal expertise to confirm that it's legally wrong. Clearly Santander have tried to do this before and were thwarted, so must have looked into what options were available to them before trying this new approach. They will be wanting these new charges to come in seamlessly with minimal fuss and no damage to their reputation - they won't care about a proportion of their business customers jumping ship and moving to another provider that will offer them free banking, and they will expect a fair number to begrudgingly accept the new charges because it's less hassle than transferring to a new provider. As I recall someone saying earlier on this thread, it's a massive headache informing all your clients of your new account details AND making sure they've actually taken notice.

What I would suggest is:

• Get some legal expertise, instead of endless speculation
• Make a massive fuss, alert as many people as possible, and get the media involved
• Help each other to find alternative free banking accounts, even though they are unlikely to have a "free forever" promise

Smurrfmo

clairec666 said:

 Everyone's speculating on whether Santander should be able to do this, and while we all agree that it's all morally wrong, we need someone with specific legal expertise to confirm that it's legally wrong. 

Well as well as being an affected customer I am a lawyer and I can't see how it is legally right.  The legal reasoning and provision used appears to have more holes than a colander when set against the explicit promise made and the very restricted circumstances in which that promise could ever be broken (none of which apply).  But only an Ombudsman can definitively rule on this issue or indeed the courts.  If I was the lawyer who signed this off at Santander I would be a bit worried as the backlash will only grow, as it did last time they tried this.    

clairec666

Smurrfmo said:

clairec666 said:

 Everyone's speculating on whether Santander should be able to do this, and while we all agree that it's all morally wrong, we need someone with specific legal expertise to confirm that it's legally wrong. 

Well as well as being an affected customer I am a lawyer and I can't see how it is legally right.  The legal reasoning and provision used appears to have more holes than a colander when set against the explicit promise made and the very restricted circumstances in which that promise could ever be broken (none of which apply).  But only an Ombudsman can definitively rule on this issue or indeed the courts.  If I was the lawyer who signed this off at Santander I would be a bit worried as the backlash will only grow, as it did last time they tried this.    

Thanks for your input. What concerns me is that customers may have unwittingly agreed to new terms in 2015 - from the Guardian article, "Santander told the Guardian that accounts that predated the 2008 merger of Abbey and Alliance & Leicester were migrated into its Business Every Day account in 2015 and that the terms and conditions of that contract did not include the free for ever promise." Hopefully somebody is able to dig out the T&Cs from this changeover.

Section62

clairec666 said:

...
What I would suggest is:

• Get some legal expertise, instead of endless speculation...

People don't need to get legal advice on this.  The Financial Ombudsman Service is there to deal with disputes between financial service providers and their customers.  The service is free to the end user.

If what Santander is doing is legally wrong (and here the spirit is as important as the literal) then FOS will say so.

Getting (paid for) legal advice prior to making a complaint to FOS is a waste of money - if they don't uphold the complaint then the consumer is free to consider legal action afterwards.

janusd

Smurrfmo said:

99% of small businesses can complain to the Financial Ombudsman.  As long as your small business has (1) turnover less than £6.5 million and (2) a balance sheet total of less than £5 million, or employs fewer than 50 people, you'll be fine.  It would be rude not to in this egregious case.

FOS also have a separate website for small businesses - though I think complaints go through the main site, so probably won't matter which route you take.

https://sme.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/

transcendental said:

I am in the same predicament and have been researching which banks offer free business bank accounts. The co-op looks like a good bet.

I applied yesterday for an account with HSBC Kinetic - waiting for an application approval in the app - but they did just send a request for turnover information to be completed online via Adobe eSign... having checked out all the free options, that was the one that suited my needs and seemed to have the fewest complaints... if approved, that will be my backstop solution while I figure out what to do next with Santander.

I assume Santander would take weeks to give a final written answer to any complaint, then likely another 3 months for FOS to make their judgement - by which time Santander will have migrated the account and will be charging the monthly fee... this is a real hassle either way!

glasgowdan said:

Does anyone know if this has been brought to the attention of Martin?

or that lady who did the original MSE article previously mentioned? 

flickadee001 said:

I already have an account with First Direct, but not sure if they do this?

they won't, but their sister HSBC bank offers free (not necessarily forever!) business accounts - either Kinetic (app only) or Small Business... though you might need to research the others available to find you that is suitable for your business needs... and bear in mind, there may be credit checks involved.

clairec666 said:

Clearly Santander have tried to do this before and were thwarted, so must have looked into what options were available to them before trying this new approach. 

"must have"? - it's also possible that whoever made the decision might not necessarily have known about the free forever legacy situation of 20+ years ago.

if that letter had said to the effect that they can no longer afford to offer "free" accounts and that they will be closing my account in 3 months, I could have accepted that, thanked them for the last 20+ years and moved on.. but this idea that a) they want to migrate me automatically, b) they want to charge a monthly fee and now c) they think we somehow accepted the principle of standard day to day fees in 2015 is taking the proverbial.

Smurrfmo

clairec666 said:

Smurrfmo said:

clairec666 said:

 Everyone's speculating on whether Santander should be able to do this, and while we all agree that it's all morally wrong, we need someone with specific legal expertise to confirm that it's legally wrong. 

Well as well as being an affected customer I am a lawyer and I can't see how it is legally right.  The legal reasoning and provision used appears to have more holes than a colander when set against the explicit promise made and the very restricted circumstances in which that promise could ever be broken (none of which apply).  But only an Ombudsman can definitively rule on this issue or indeed the courts.  If I was the lawyer who signed this off at Santander I would be a bit worried as the backlash will only grow, as it did last time they tried this.    

Thanks for your input. What concerns me is that customers may have unwittingly agreed to new terms in 2015 - from the Guardian article, "Santander told the Guardian that accounts that predated the 2008 merger of Abbey and Alliance & Leicester were migrated into its Business Every Day account in 2015 and that the terms and conditions of that contract did not include the free for ever promise." Hopefully somebody is able to dig out the T&Cs from this changeover.

I wouldn't worry too much, the free forever was a core contract term, that could only be overridden when the customer exceeded transaction limits or due to changes to law, regulation or tax.  None of these apply here and definitely not some legal jiggery pokery about converting one account type into another.  How is this behaviour going to get through an Ombudsman who has to consider not just the law but fairness?  I think Santander are on to a hiding to nothing here, which to be fair will be richly deserved.  Still not too late to step back, although it will be embarrassing. 

Hoenir

clairec666 said:

Smurrfmo said:

clairec666 said:

 Everyone's speculating on whether Santander should be able to do this, and while we all agree that it's all morally wrong, we need someone with specific legal expertise to confirm that it's legally wrong. 

Well as well as being an affected customer I am a lawyer and I can't see how it is legally right.  The legal reasoning and provision used appears to have more holes than a colander when set against the explicit promise made and the very restricted circumstances in which that promise could ever be broken (none of which apply).  But only an Ombudsman can definitively rule on this issue or indeed the courts.  If I was the lawyer who signed this off at Santander I would be a bit worried as the backlash will only grow, as it did last time they tried this.    

Thanks for your input. What concerns me is that customers may have unwittingly agreed to new terms in 2015 - from the Guardian article, "Santander told the Guardian that accounts that predated the 2008 merger of Abbey and Alliance & Leicester were migrated into its Business Every Day account in 2015 and that the terms and conditions of that contract did not include the free for ever promise." Hopefully somebody is able to dig out the T&Cs from this changeover.

All account customers would have been sent these, Whether they bothered to read them or not is another matter. 

DullGreyGuy

Smurrfmo said:

clairec666 said:

 Everyone's speculating on whether Santander should be able to do this, and while we all agree that it's all morally wrong, we need someone with specific legal expertise to confirm that it's legally wrong. 

Well as well as being an affected customer I am a lawyer and I can't see how it is legally right.  The legal reasoning and provision used appears to have more holes than a colander when set against the explicit promise made and the very restricted circumstances in which that promise could ever be broken (none of which apply).  But only an Ombudsman can definitively rule on this issue or indeed the courts.  If I was the lawyer who signed this off at Santander I would be a bit worried as the backlash will only grow, as it did last time they tried this.    

So you have a copy of the terms then? Can you not post them? Or are you relying on your memory?

Ultimately the full terms are needed to see what provisions there were for them to vary the terms, if nothing else. There were eligibility criteria in the adverts for the accounts that have been posted so far and even if they couldn't get rid of the account in total they could potentially change the criteria to make it such that almost (or absolutely) meets the criteria for it therefore its a migration for not meeting revised terms. 

Surprised they used "forever", most would go with the more ambiguous "lifetime" with the terms hopefully defining it to be the lifetime of the product rather than customer or bank.