Santander free forever bank account changes

eskbanker

solidpro said:

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.

Personally I don't think it's anything to do with 'mis-selling' - the selling was originally done in good faith and was presumably based on accurate information at the time, so no intention to deceive, etc.

To me the argument is that it was unfair (and maybe even unlawful) of them to change their minds much later on, whether that was at the point of migrating between accounts or introducing the charges.

solidpro

It's clear they should have never used the headline selling point of a product as being 'forever' as a key term of the contract when the clearly felt the need to slide in some secret term changes a decade later so they can stop offering the service forever because they don't offer these services forever anymore.

It's like me telling my wife that I'll love her forever or until I stop loving her and something better comes along. If Santander had been truthful and told us that forever means until they wriggle out of it, none of us would have signed up.

eskbanker

solidpro said:

It's clear they should have never used the headline selling point of a product as being 'forever' as a key term of the contract when the clearly felt the need to slide in some secret term changes a decade later so they can stop offering the service forever because they don't offer these services forever anymore.

It's like me telling my wife that I'll love her forever or until I stop loving her and something better comes along. If Santander had been truthful and told us that forever means until they wriggle out of it, none of us would have signed up.

Not clear to me at all - to make any claim of mis-selling stick, you'd need to prove that there was always the intention to wriggle out at the time of sale, rather than it being a genuine offer in good faith?

Edit: and don't forget that it wasn't necessarily Santander that made the promise in the first place, so that would make it even less likely to sustain a claim that Abbey management knew what would happen many years later after the company had been sold!

noitsnotme

solidpro said:

It's like me telling my wife that I'll love her forever or until I stop loving her and something better comes along.

Millions of people do exactly that.  It’s called marriage followed by divorce 🤷‍♂️

solidpro

eskbanker said:

Edit: and don't forget that it wasn't necessarily Santander that made the promise in the first place, so that would make it even less likely to sustain a claim that Abbey management knew what would happen many years later after the company had been sold!

I went into a branch of Abbey in 2008 where everything was already being branded Santander. The staff identified as Santander. It was their promise.

noitsnotme said

It's like me telling my wife that I'll love her forever or until I stop loving her and something better comes along.Millions of people do exactly that.  It’s called marriage followed by divorce 🤷‍♂️

The point was if I had proposed to her and said I would love her forever and what I meant by that was until I had better plans, the answer would always be no.

eskbanker

solidpro said:

eskbanker said:

Edit: and don't forget that it wasn't necessarily Santander that made the promise in the first place, so that would make it even less likely to sustain a claim that Abbey management knew what would happen many years later after the company had been sold!

I went into a branch of Abbey in 2008 where everything was already being branded Santander. The staff identified as Santander. It was their promise.

I don't know when the promise was first made, or even if it predated Abbey's acquisition, but am sure that it would have continued under Santander's name too.  Still doesn't alter the point anyway - there's no evidence that I'm aware of that there was any attempt to deceive at the time of sale, whereas it's not difficult to see that the changes in 2015 had at least one eye on future charging....

GeoffTF

solidpro said:

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.

So what is your loss? Free banking for many years? The inconvenience of having to transfer your account to a bank that still offers free business accounts? Are you entitled to compensation because the bank has been sneaky and underhand? Perhaps they will argue that this is business account, not a personal account, and that if you are in business, you are expected to read the terms and conditions. Whatever their case, I expect that they have consulted some expensive lawyers.

noitsnotme

solidpro said:

eskbanker said:

Edit: and don't forget that it wasn't necessarily Santander that made the promise in the first place, so that would make it even less likely to sustain a claim that Abbey management knew what would happen many years later after the company had been sold!

I went into a branch of Abbey in 2008 where everything was already being branded Santander. The staff identified as Santander. It was their promise.

noitsnotme said

It's like me telling my wife that I'll love her forever or until I stop loving her and something better comes along.Millions of people do exactly that.  It’s called marriage followed by divorce 🤷‍♂️

The point was if I had proposed to her and said I would love her forever and what I meant by that was until I had better plans, the answer would always be no.

Marriage IS basically saying you’ll love the other person forever… until you don’t!!

solidpro

The point being many people only said yes to this contract because forever meant forever. If a marriage proposal or this contract had been prefaced with 'until I I think of a way to secretly get myself out of it' then nobody would say yes to the contract.

noitsnotme

solidpro said:

The point being many people only said yes to this contract because forever meant forever. If a marriage proposal or this contract had been prefaced with 'until I I think of a way to secretly get myself out of it' then nobody would say yes to the contract.

But a marriage DOES have a legal way out when forever is no longer forever… it’s called divorce!  I think you need a better analogy 😄