Santander free forever bank account changes

LadyJaz

Section62 said:

sdd56 said:

...

Just a reminder in case some are not aware - if you are a sole trader, it's not essential to have a separate business account, you can use a personal account. HMRC don't care as long as you keep track of all your incomings and outgoings. 

Many of the banks do care though - if they see business-like activity on a personal account where this is prohibited by their terms and conditions then they may close the account down.  And many banks do prohibit business use of personal accounts.

This is a problem I have faced in looking at alternatives should the FOS not rule in our favour. I have a second current account with another bank but they charge for their business accounts (though not as much as Santander is proposing) and prohibit business use of personal accounts. I've been thinking that a possible work around for those of us who are online based (rather than brick and mortar) who are not running conventional businesses and are only making modest amounts of money each month, is to use our paypal business account as our main business account and then just transfer personal income into our current account. But of course entities like google and amazon associates pay direct to bank accounts so I'm not sure if that would be permitted on personal current accounts? Any one know?

Section62

LadyJaz said:

Section62 said:

sdd56 said:

...

Just a reminder in case some are not aware - if you are a sole trader, it's not essential to have a separate business account, you can use a personal account. HMRC don't care as long as you keep track of all your incomings and outgoings. 

Many of the banks do care though - if they see business-like activity on a personal account where this is prohibited by their terms and conditions then they may close the account down.  And many banks do prohibit business use of personal accounts.

This is a problem I have faced in looking at alternatives should the FOS not rule in our favour. I have a second current account with another bank but they charge for their business accounts (though not as much as Santander is proposing) and prohibit business use of personal accounts. I've been thinking that a possible work around for those of us who are online based (rather than brick and mortar) who are not running conventional businesses and are only making modest amounts of money each month, is to use our paypal business account as our main business account and then just transfer personal income into our current account. But of course entities like google and amazon associates pay direct to bank accounts so I'm not sure if that would be permitted on personal current accounts? Any one know?

It will vary by bank and circumstances, all we really know is people posting on the forum saying they have an unexpected notice of account closure and the only thing they can think of is some ebay or facebook selling which the bank might have taken offence at.

Anyone thinking of going down that route would probably be sensible to open an account with a bank they don't currently use and keep it stricty for that purpose rather than using their main personal account.

eskbanker

Have any of Santander's complaint rejection responses clarified the specific rationale for doing so?

Curious about whether they might try to argue timebarring, i.e. that the time to complain was in 2015, when the commitment to free banking was effectively removed (even though charges weren't actually introduced then), and therefore it's now out of time to complain about them breaking promises as such (which would then take complaints out of FOS scope too)?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/68640758/#Comment_68640758 was anticipating this sort of thing, but I don't know if it'll play out that way....

Section62

eskbanker said:

Have any of Santander's complaint rejection responses clarified the specific rationale for doing so?

Curious about whether they might try to argue timebarring, i.e. that the time to complain was in 2015, when the commitment to free banking was effectively removed (even though charges weren't actually introduced then), and therefore it's now out of time to complain about them breaking promises as such (which would then take complaints out of FOS scope too)?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/68640758/#Comment_68640758 was anticipating this sort of thing, but I don't know if it'll play out that way....

I think it will be a case of when the customer became aware - as per the conversation the other day - if Santander weren't clear and explicit that the 2015 changes paved the way for charging then customers may have a reasonable argument they were unaware that charging would be introduced until now.

Any hint that the future plans were being kept quiet or obfuscated would possibly open the door to complainants.

"Fair, clear and not misleading."

subjecttocontract

I'm puzzled as to how the different potential outcomes can be progressed.
* FOS reject the complaints......does that mean legal action in court is the only option ?
* FOS uphold the complaints......can Santander still go ahead with charging for accounts ? 

LadyJaz

eskbanker said:

Have any of Santander's complaint rejection responses clarified the specific rationale for doing so?

This is what they said to me:

"The business banking landscape has evolved significantly over the last decade, and whilst we’ve made investment into our customers a priority to keep pace in the market, we haven’t changed or increased the account fee. To continue providing excellent service, fair value and innovative solutions, we are simplifying our product range and introducing a new Business Current Account – Classic.

These changes are implemented under Section E of our General Terms and Conditions, which allow us to convert your existing account to another product in our range. We're no longer offering your current account type, and we’ve provided at least 2 months’ notice before the change, to allow you to consider your options."

I'm not convinced that being allowed 'to convert your existing account to another product in our range' is sufficient excuse to override their written guarantee of 'free business banking forever' when we opened the account. Fair enough coverting us to another account if this new account was free, or if they had negotiated with another bank to take us on with the 'free forever' promise, but it is a deliberate choice on their part to convert our free account to a fee one, not because they are required to do so in law, which was one of the only conditions they said they would end the free forever guarantee. They also cannot argue it was Abbey that made these promises as they continued to make them when they took over. Also they cannot argue that the financial landscape requires it as two major banks have just dropped their monthly fees. 

As to the changes in 2015, it was not communicated to me in any way that such changes ended the free forever banking promise. I believed it was a promise made to the customer and would apply regardless of what the account was called. If they were ending the promise they should have made this as clear as their 'free forever' account when they were trying to attract customers. Then we could have complained at the right time. 

Futuristic

subjecttocontract said:

I'm puzzled as to how the different potential outcomes can be progressed.
* FOS reject the complaints......does that mean legal action in court is the only option ?
* FOS uphold the complaints......can Santander still go ahead with charging for accounts ? 

Yes for first. You're out of options.

Second, the way I see is if FOS uphold they will just tell them to give you free banking for another year or two and maybe compensation (few hundred typically) (ie. extra notice/time) then be charged so still won't be free forever.

What people here also miss out is the fact every small-business Santander customer, even paid are being moved to a new "Classic" account. They are basically getting rid of every existing old account packages for this new one. This will probably work in Santander's favour when FOS review these I assume.  

Nasqueron

Section62 said:

eskbanker said:

Have any of Santander's complaint rejection responses clarified the specific rationale for doing so?

Curious about whether they might try to argue timebarring, i.e. that the time to complain was in 2015, when the commitment to free banking was effectively removed (even though charges weren't actually introduced then), and therefore it's now out of time to complain about them breaking promises as such (which would then take complaints out of FOS scope too)?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/68640758/#Comment_68640758 was anticipating this sort of thing, but I don't know if it'll play out that way....

I think it will be a case of when the customer became aware - as per the conversation the other day - if Santander weren't clear and explicit that the 2015 changes paved the way for charging then customers may have a reasonable argument they were unaware that charging would be introduced until now.

Any hint that the future plans were being kept quiet or obfuscated would possibly open the door to complainants.

"Fair, clear and not misleading."

When they knew or could reasonably have known - that will be where it comes down

Section62

Futuristic said:

subjecttocontract said:

I'm puzzled as to how the different potential outcomes can be progressed.
* FOS reject the complaints......does that mean legal action in court is the only option ?
* FOS uphold the complaints......can Santander still go ahead with charging for accounts ? 

Yes for first. You're out of options.

Depends on what 'reject' means.  There's a FOS complaints process to follow if FOS 'reject' a complaint incorrectly.  It is only the end of the road if an ombudsman decision is made, but only for that individual complaint (unless FOS take them all as one block).

Futuristic said:

Second, the way I see is if FOS uphold they will just tell them to give you free banking for another year or two and maybe compensation (few hundred typically) (ie. extra notice/time) then be charged so still won't be free forever.

That would probably leave FOS open to challenge that the decision was irrational.  If they uphold the complaint that 'free forever' banking has been unfairly removed then imposing a brand new condition of "free for another year or two" is inconsistent with their own finding.

Santander making an offer to 'buy out' the historic promises might be a runner though.

Futuristic said:

What people here also miss out is the fact every small-business Santander customer, even paid are being moved to a new "Classic" account. They are basically getting rid of every existing old account packages for this new one. This will probably work in Santander's favour when FOS review these I assume.

I don't think it has been missed, it just isn't particularly relevant to the complaints.  What happens to paying customers doesn't directly impact on those who have a contract for 'free forever' banking.

If FOS favoured Santander's position based on other classes of customer having their accounts redesignated then again their finding might be vulnerable to challenge on irrationality grounds.

eskbanker

Nasqueron said:

Section62 said:

eskbanker said:

Have any of Santander's complaint rejection responses clarified the specific rationale for doing so?

Curious about whether they might try to argue timebarring, i.e. that the time to complain was in 2015, when the commitment to free banking was effectively removed (even though charges weren't actually introduced then), and therefore it's now out of time to complain about them breaking promises as such (which would then take complaints out of FOS scope too)?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/68640758/#Comment_68640758 was anticipating this sort of thing, but I don't know if it'll play out that way....

I think it will be a case of when the customer became aware - as per the conversation the other day - if Santander weren't clear and explicit that the 2015 changes paved the way for charging then customers may have a reasonable argument they were unaware that charging would be introduced until now.

Any hint that the future plans were being kept quiet or obfuscated would possibly open the door to complainants.

"Fair, clear and not misleading."

When they knew or could reasonably have known - that will be where it comes down

It's 'ought' rather than 'could', i.e. a complaint can be timebarred:

(2) more than:

(a) six years after the event complained of; or (if later)

(b) three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint;

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/2/8.html#DES223

Clearly some customers recognised the significance of the 2015 change, so it would come down to an FOS (or maybe ultimately FCA or even a court) view as to what would constitute 'reasonable', 'clear', etc.