Santander free forever bank account changes

solidpro

Point taken, less is more, right. Ideally I'd just make 3 points, all of which are what the FSO specifically are there to monitor. I just brain dumped with an angle to what I think the FSO is likely to be interested in, but I am completely guessing.

I'm already thinking that anything I'm talking about which wasn't specifically mentioned in my original complaint might be irrelivent to this FSO investigation. So I'd have to go back and look at the complaint letter and somehow shape shift whatever points FSO would most be interested in around this.

MeteredOut

I'd say 6) contradicts 3). With at least 5 major banks offering free banking services, I can't see how you can claim the introduction of the fee means de-banking your business. I'd remove 6).

eskbanker

solidpro said:

I'm already thinking that anything I'm talking about which wasn't specifically mentioned in my original complaint might be irrelivent to this FSO investigation. So I'd have to go back and look at the complaint letter and somehow shape shift whatever points FSO would most be interested in around this.

Yes, the principle of escalating to FOS (still not 'FSO'!) is that it's giving them the opportunity to adjudicate on how the institution dealt with your original complaint, rather than having a clean slate to start a new one.

gt94sss2

@solidpro

I don't have one of these accounts but I suspect the FOS (not FSO) won't be interested in reasons 3, 5 or 6 that you list.

This is because a) they won't care about what other banks offer or not, b) there has never been anything stopping you from keeping cash or business savings elsewhere and c) 6 contradicts 3 and as above is hypothetical.

Instead, you may wish to question if Santander are meeting the requirements laid out under the FCA's Consumer Duty and/or their treating customers fairly principles.

solidpro

But in my complaint I state that Santander says the reason they feel they can impose fees is because the banking landscape has changed. I would argue the landscape has not changed in relation to this product because of the fact free business banking is still readily available, they /would/ care about what other banks offer or not ?

Point taken about treating customer's unfairly.

solidpro

My revised FOS points:

1) I, the consumer and them, Santander had a contract which had the leadline "free business banking forever - not 6 months, not 2 years, but forever". They stated forever meant for the rest of time unless huge shifts in banking laws or they stop providing business bank accounts. It's totally unfair to unilaterally change the key term of the contract now or in the past.

2) I agreed the contract with Santander for business banking due to this specific pledge of Free Forever business banking. If they are now reneging on this headline of the contract, they put themselves at an unfair advantage over other banks I was looking to use instead.

3) In response to my complaint, they say that the landscape of business banking has changed when it has not. Other major UK banks such as HSBC and the Coop currently offer similar, free business banking.

4) In response to my complaint, they say that their unilateral changes of the terms of our contract back in 2015 removes the free forever pledge. This high level part of the contract cannot be changed unulaterally and all correspondence with them at the time about not agreeing to this change was ignored.

5) It's unfair to expect me to suddenly accept all the downsides of this contract (no interest, no use of cashiers, limits on transactions) without the single upside of 'free forever'.

eskbanker

solidpro said:

1) I, the consumer and them, Santander had a contract which had the leadline "free business banking forever - not 6 months, not 2 years, but forever". They also strongly told me forever was forever unless huge shifts in banking laws or they stop providing business bank accounts. It's totally unfair to unilaterally change the key term of the contract now or in the past.

Perhaps worth clarifying what was stated in writing, and can therefore be readily evidenced, versus recollections of verbal assurances given?

solidpro said:

3) In response to my complaint, they say that the landscape of business banking has changed when it has not. There are at least 5 major UK banks offering similar, free business banking right now.

Although it might not be beneficial to specify examples and thereby open the door to detailed scrutiny, you might wish to consider naming one or two that are obvious high street peers to Santander, i.e. not fintech challengers, who arguably have changed the landscape over that time, at least in market terms if not regulatory ones?

solidpro said:

2) I agreed the contract with Santander for business banking due to this specific pledge of Free Forever business banking. If they are now reneging on this headline of the contract, they put themselves at an unfair advantage over other banks I was looking to use instead.

[...]

4) In response to my complaint, they say that their unilateral changes of the terms of our contract back in 2015 removes the free forever pledge. This high level part of the contract cannot be changed unulaterally and all correspondence with them at the time about not agreeing to this change was ignored.

I haven't gone back through the thread but recall some dialogue about the distinction between one ongoing contract that's been changed versus new contracts (for different products), so it may be worth cross-checking exactly how Santander refer to this, and if/how that should be challenged?


Of course, as above, the arguments need to be aligned with your original complaint (or the Santander response) when first escalating, although you may get the chance to refine or augment them later.

solidpro

I've amended my last list as per your suggestions. In my final response they state "These changes are implimented 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 account type...." It doesn't say when these changes occured.

 As far as I know these changes refer to the introduction of a monthly fee and their implementation was in 2015 which was when it was changed unilaterally. I guess their argument is that they're not charging for this account which remains free forever', but they're forcibly changing me to a new one which has a monthly charge, because the changes to the terms in 2015 allows them to and they 'no longer this account type'.

By type, I can only assume they mean an account which is 'free forever', not business banking current account.

Unfair means agreeing a contract for a free service with a customer, putting yourself at an unfair advantage, secretly changing the terms unilaterally and then forcing the customer to end the contract because they no longer offer the 'free' aspect of this account. It really stinks.

solidpro

Having lost lots of appeals in the past due to technicalities. It's crucial we all understand what FOS is there to uphold.

In this case perhaps the focus should be on being mis-sold and tricked into new terms in 2015.

In all their responses they're saying they no longer provide this 'type' of account. Well, they do provide business banking current accounts so what do they mean? Maybe they mean FREE business banking current accounts.

However, the whole forever sales pitch would have fallen flat if they had made it clear at the time forever just means until they decide to stop doing free business banking. Then forever means absolutely nothing. Nobody would have picked Santander on this pitch alone because forever means until we decide to stop.

So mis sold the product that they feel they can stop providing whenever they feel like it and unfairly treated by them secretly changing the terms in 2015 allowing them to end the contract whenever they feel like it.

eskbanker

solidpro said:

In my final response they state "These changes are implimented 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 account type...."

I'd interpret 'account type' to mean 'product' in the context of the previous sentence, i.e. we're discontinuing Business Current Account A and converting yours to a Business Current Account Classic [with different terms], but would agree that it's unhelpfully imprecise.