Santander free forever bank account changes

Smurrfmo

MeteredOut said:

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?

Well that is the nub of the issue, you know my view but there is another issue for Santander here in that the reference is to the free forever "tariff", which would suggest that it doesn't matter what type the account is or what it is called called.

Pretty sure Santander will be monitoring this thread by now so a hi to them as well.  Feel free to come on and explain yourself if you wish. 

jbryce

amyfairweather said:

Hopefully, the following documentation will assist many here.

As you will see, it was not just Abbey National / Abbey / Alliance & Leicester who advertised free forever, Santander themselves did as well (see images 5-8).  Unfortunately, I only have a phone camera at present, but will try to scan these if possible.

Abbey National and Santander are the same company which changed its name.
If you were previously with Alliance & Leicester or Girobank, it was taken over by Santander and your account moved across.
If you were previously with Bradford & Bingley, it went bust, and your FSCS compensation was paid to you by the government opening a Santander Account in your name, paying the compensation money into it and giving you access to the account. I don't think Bradford & Bingley ever had business accounts though.

MeteredOut

Smurrfmo said:

MeteredOut said:

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?

Well that is the nub of the issue, you know my view but there is another issue for Santander here in that the reference is to the free forever "tariff", which would suggest that it doesn't matter what type the account is or what it is called called.

Pretty sure Santander will be monitoring this thread by now so a hi to them as well.  Feel free to come on and explain yourself if you wish. 

They've certainly painted themselves into a difficult position here.

It reminds me somewhat with what Vanguard did recently when they changed their SIPP fees from % of fund value only to % of fund value with a minimum amount. It meant that many customers with low-value pots moved to low-cost providers, but the general consensus was that these people were not making VG any money, so they were happy to exchange a bit of bad press for an increase in their average revenue per customer.

I suspect Santander are following the same premise.

Carpetbeetle999

Further to my earlier post showing original documentation it clearly states YOU'LL enjoy free banking forever. It doesn't state anywhere that the promise is account specific. So it relates to the person not the account as far as I'm concerned. 

MeteredOut

Carpetbeetle999 said:

Further to my earlier post showing original documentation it clearly states YOU'LL enjoy free banking forever. It doesn't state anywhere that the promise is account specific. So it relates to the person not the account as far as I'm concerned. 

This one?  You can't just pick bits out; its clearly in the context of "the Abbey Business Bank Account".



I'm not trying to justify Santander's stance, but you'll need more than that IMO.

scooby32

Here’s my letter from 2008

Section62

MeteredOut said:

Smurrfmo said:

MeteredOut said:

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?

Well that is the nub of the issue, you know my view but there is another issue for Santander here in that the reference is to the free forever "tariff", which would suggest that it doesn't matter what type the account is or what it is called called.

Pretty sure Santander will be monitoring this thread by now so a hi to them as well.  Feel free to come on and explain yourself if you wish. 

They've certainly painted themselves into a difficult position here.

It reminds me somewhat with what Vanguard did recently when they changed their SIPP fees from % of fund value only to % of fund value with a minimum amount. It meant that many customers with low-value pots moved to low-cost providers, but the general consensus was that these people were not making VG any money, so they were happy to exchange a bit of bad press for an increase in their average revenue per customer.

I suspect Santander are following the same premise.

The difference is Vanguard didn't promise to charge on a %age basis, with no minimum fee, "forever".  IIRC the Vanguard terms I signed up to gave them scope to alter the fee-charging structure as needed.

born_again

Smurrfmo said:

born_again said:

OrangeBlueGreen said:

I saw the post with the answer on the live chat saying "We will not open complaints relating to this" - page 7 of this thread, very first post. Genuine questions: can banks really do that? I thought they had to log them even if they then have template responses sent out to say they don't believe they've done anything wrong and refer to the Ombudsman if customers want to take it further.

I'm not surprised Santander are doing this but it's about the principle so I hope they do another U-turn as this is not fair on customers who signed up for this. "Free forever" was beyond risky and stupid to advertise from a business point of view, but this is of the bank's own doing. The anger should be directed at the product and marketing teams of the time, not towards customers who took this out in good faith.

Santander really are the Ryanair of banks from a customer service point of view. This is the same Santander who are taking over TSB and in their communication say "having successfully acquired and integrated Abbey in 2004 and both Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley in 2008. It has a proven track record in successful banking platform migrations." I am sure many of us remember how their systems were continuously down during the A&L and B&B integrations, how they were always bottom of customer service leagues and how awful their reputation was at the time with accounts being charged even though they'd never gone over the overdraft limit or interest when overdrafts were never used.

Failing to log a complaint is a serious issue FOS will take a very dim view of that stance.

I logged a complaint and had a complaint reference number, so it's not true.

Lost me there.. I was not saying they will not log a complaint.
If Santander fail to log a complaint, as per poster said, I was quoting. Then they will be in trouble with FOS.

The fact they logged yours is good.👍

chestercoops

Just had an email from Santander asking me my general views of business banking with them! 

Maybe everyone is getting one 

EarthBoy

This whole saga reminds me of the Equitable Life case.  They guaranteed a minimum level of bonuses on their policies, but tried to renege on this guarantee when they decided they could no longer afford it.  The case went to the House of Lords, where Equitable Life lost the case, and were told that they had to honour the guarantees.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10725923

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equitable_Life_Assurance_Society_v_Hyman

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000720/equite-1.htm