Santander free forever bank account changes

Lightning360

Smurrfmo said:

If Santander think they have pulled a rabbit from a hat with these legal shenanigans they are wrong.  For their case to be accepted the original promise of free business banking forever would have to mean nothing and the circumstances in which it could be withdrawn would have to mean nothing as the promise could be overcome by merely changing the account type.  Will an independent decision maker uphold this?  I can't see it.

It wouldn't mean nothing. It would be free banking forever whilst the account/product exists, which is what most of these "free forever" promises in business means.

GingerTim

I'd be interested in seeing the 2015 Ts&Cs that Santander refer to and seem to be relying upon, if anyone has them.

Smurrfmo

I've had a look at the documentation posted earlier in the thread and it is fairly clear to me at least that the free business banking forever promise is made to the customer and is not account specific.  There are many phrases such as "With the Free Banking Forever Tariff provided you operate within the specified transaction limits you need never pay any bank charges".  But an independent decision maker will rule on this issue.

Smurrfmo

GingerTim said:

I'd be interested in seeing the 2015 Ts&Cs that Santander refer to and seem to be relying upon, if anyone has them.

I have posted them above.

Section62

Smurrfmo said:

If Santander think they have pulled a rabbit from a hat with these legal shenanigans they are wrong.  For their case to be accepted the original promise of free business banking forever would have to mean nothing and the circumstances in which it could be withdrawn would have to mean nothing as the promise could be overcome by merely changing the account type.  Will an independent decision maker uphold this?  I can't see it.

It might come down to a test of reasonableness.

Clearly if a bank offers "free business banking forever" on its "ACME business account" and a day later moves customers onto the "ACME+ business account" and imposes a charge, that would be very wrong and unfair.  Likely the same for a week, month or a year later.  So is there a point in time where the account change would become 'fair'?

The common understanding of the word "forever" doesn't contain such a restriction, although a reasonable person might think that "forever" has some kind of time limit in this context, for example if the provider goes out of business or there is some kind of external event.

But Abbey/Santander explicitly covered off the likely external events in the original blurb - allowing for changes in the law, regulation or taxation.  If they wanted to be able to pull the "this account type doesn't exist anymore" move then the original blurb and T&Cs should have said something about "forever" only meaning until they decide to change the product name/type.  Had they done so, customers would have been forewarned that the promise was not "forever", but rather only until commercial considerations led to an abandonment of the promise.

By spelling out when "forever" didn't mean "forever", Abbey/Santander have created a reasonable customer expectation that rabbits like this one wouldn't be pulled out of hats.

GingerTim

Smurrfmo said:

GingerTim said:

I'd be interested in seeing the 2015 Ts&Cs that Santander refer to and seem to be relying upon, if anyone has them.

I have posted them above.

Thank you!

Section62

Lightning360 said:

Smurrfmo said:

If Santander think they have pulled a rabbit from a hat with these legal shenanigans they are wrong.  For their case to be accepted the original promise of free business banking forever would have to mean nothing and the circumstances in which it could be withdrawn would have to mean nothing as the promise could be overcome by merely changing the account type.  Will an independent decision maker uphold this?  I can't see it.

It wouldn't mean nothing. It would be free banking forever whilst the account/product exists, which is what most of these "free forever" promises in business means.

How often have you seen a "free forever" promise made by a business?

Can you share some examples so we can compare and contrast the small print?

MeteredOut

Smurrfmo said:

I've had a look at the documentation posted earlier in the thread and it is fairly clear to me at least that the free business banking forever promise is made to the customer and is not account specific.  There are many phrases such as "With the Free Banking Forever Tariff provided you operate within the specified transaction limits you need never pay any bank charges".  But an independent decision maker will rule on this issue.

A leading question, but are the transaction limits constrained to the account or the customer?

unclevanya

Just raised a complaint via the telephone and was given a complaint reference number.  Not too difficult.

I will watch this space and the news and see what happens.  Over 20 years banking with Santander maybe it is time to look elsewhere.  Lets see what happens.

Smurrfmo

Section62 said:

Smurrfmo said:

If Santander think they have pulled a rabbit from a hat with these legal shenanigans they are wrong.  For their case to be accepted the original promise of free business banking forever would have to mean nothing and the circumstances in which it could be withdrawn would have to mean nothing as the promise could be overcome by merely changing the account type.  Will an independent decision maker uphold this?  I can't see it.

It might come down to a test of reasonableness.

Clearly if a bank offers "free business banking forever" on its "ACME business account" and a day later moves customers onto the "ACME+ business account" and imposes a charge, that would be very wrong and unfair.  Likely the same for a week, month or a year later.  So is there a point in time where the account change would become 'fair'?

The common understanding of the word "forever" doesn't contain such a restriction, although a reasonable person might think that "forever" has some kind of time limit in this context, for example if the provider goes out of business or there is some kind of external event.

But Abbey/Santander explicitly covered off the likely external events in the original blurb - allowing for changes in the law, regulation or taxation.  If they wanted to be able to pull the "this account type doesn't exist anymore" move then the original blurb and T&Cs should have said something about "forever" only meaning until they decide to change the product name/type.  Had they done so, customers would have been forewarned that the promise was not "forever", but rather only until commercial considerations led to an abandonment of the promise.

By spelling out when "forever" didn't mean "forever", Abbey/Santander have created a reasonable customer expectation that rabbits like this one wouldn't be pulled out of hats.

I agree with this, their previous policy of setting out the limited circumstances where the promise would not apply is a major problem they will now have to overcome.  And I am struggling to see how they will do it.