Santander free forever bank account changes

Section62

eskbanker said:

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:
...

And "aware", not 'knew' or 'known'.

There's a difference between things a customer should be told, and things they could reasonably be expected to find out themselves.

The post you quoted on that old thread had the comment "FOS say that I cannot complain about something that has not happened yet" - which suggests for anyone who was aware of the alleged significance of the 2015 changes FOS were taking the view that a trigger event for complaining had not yet occured.  As you pointed out at the time, there's a circular argument in that.

neilsedaka

My FOS complaint in 2015 concluded with FOS writing ...

"I am unable to comment on hypothetical situations as there is no indication that Santander is going to introduce a fixed monthly fee. I appreciate that it said it was going to do this a few years ago and then decided to withdraw this, but we cannot look at a complaint about a fixed monthly fee until it actually happens."

neilsedaka

So, I now have a new formal complaint in writing with Santander via their online Chat portal which worked quite well although there were long pauses between each of their responses. The outcome so far is that I have a complaint reference number, and "You should get a written response from us within the next 7-10 working days."

neilsedaka

Screenshots from 2010

rickgott

I have written to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to lodge a complaint. More people need to do this to stave off their proposed charges for a second time. It was quick and easy to submit. I hope @Martin Lewis is on this one. It’s not the cost, it’s more the principle in my mind. 🧐

ForumUser7

rickgott said:

I have written to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to lodge a complaint. More people need to do this to stave off their proposed charges for a second time. It was quick and easy to submit. I hope @Martin Lewis is on this one. It’s not the cost, it’s more the principle in my mind. 🧐

I'd be surprised if someone within MSE wasn't looking into this, but just so you know - as far as I am aware - Martin isn't active on the forums.

eskbanker

rickgott said:

I have written to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to lodge a complaint. More people need to do this to stave off their proposed charges for a second time. It was quick and easy to submit. I hope @Martin Lewis is on this one. It’s not the cost, it’s more the principle in my mind. 🧐

Don't the ASA only consider current adverts?  They can compel companies to change the wording or even withdraw adverts, but don't believe they have any meaningful sanction over businesses who change their minds many years after making promises on old advertising, especially if such businesses are already regulated by a different authority?

subjecttocontract

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.

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.  

With court action, the trouble is the amount of money that is likely to be claimed by an account holder is going to be relatively small which may raise the question, is it cost effective. I guess there is the option of the small claims court but I don't know how hundreds of individual claims against Santander would be viewed. The practicalities of legal action need to be considered.

Section62

subjecttocontract said:

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.

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.  

With court action, the trouble is the amount of money that is likely to be claimed by an account holder is going to be relatively small which may raise the question, is it cost effective. I guess there is the option of the small claims court but I don't know how hundreds of individual claims against Santander would be viewed. The practicalities of legal action need to be considered.

The cost effective point works both ways though - if the size of the claim is small then it is often better for the party being claimed against to simply pay something as goodwill to settle the matter before it gets anywhere near court.  We see this principle in action regularly on this forum where banks and building societies simply offer some goodwill to make a complainant 'go away', rather than incur expense investigating the complaint properly and/or risk the complaint going to FOS.  If you also factor in the risk of reputational harm, doing a u-turn or making some kind of financial gesture is often the easy way out.

Depending how many people feel sufficiently aggrieved about this to contribute some money, it may be that a group action is the way it could end up in court in a less costly way.  If it gets to that stage I'd guess HMCTS might have a preference for one case to cover all claimants, rather than each one occupying its own court time.

Like most legal action, I think it unlikely significant court claims would proceed unless people have got (counsel) opinion there is a reasonable chance of success, and if it is reasonably clear there is a significant chance of success, Santander's legal team would possibly advise that a settlement would be the best way out.

subjecttocontract

Whichever way the FOS ruling turns out,  Santander may still decide their legal advice supports their decision to charge for business accounts so may still steam ahead with the changes.

The cheapest way to proceed would be through the SCC. High court action would be very costly as it requires claimants to have insurance in place to cover the cost of loosing.