Santander free forever bank account changes

GeoffTF

gt94sss2 said:

GeoffTF said:

tacpot12 said:

I've made the point in my complaint to the FOS that Santander had full knowledge of the promises that Abbey had made to its customers and it had agreed to be bound by those obligations when they bought the Abbey Business Banking business.

Do you have documentary evidence for that?

Santander purchased Abbey National and therefore legally  took responsibility for all their liabilities/contracts.

imho it is irrelevant how good their due diligence was or not in 2003/4.

Yes, Abbey National was a going concern when it was taken over. If it was bankrupt, the situation would be different. My point was that tacpot12 needs to justify his statements with evidence.

There is the issue of what the original marketing material said. In particular, was there "terms apply" at the bottom of the page in tiny print. In the absence of a "terms apply", did the terms and conditions still take precedence over the marketing? It is also important, of course, what the original terms and conditions said.

There is also the issue of what happened when the customers were moved to a new account. Did they accept a change in the terms and conditions by continuing to use the account, for example?

Even if Santander is in breach of contract, there is still the question of what the level of compensation should be for having to switch the account to another bank.

TheBanker

GeoffTF said:

gt94sss2 said:

GeoffTF said:

tacpot12 said:

I've made the point in my complaint to the FOS that Santander had full knowledge of the promises that Abbey had made to its customers and it had agreed to be bound by those obligations when they bought the Abbey Business Banking business.

Do you have documentary evidence for that?

Santander purchased Abbey National and therefore legally  took responsibility for all their liabilities/contracts.

imho it is irrelevant how good their due diligence was or not in 2003/4.

Yes, Abbey National was a going concern when it was taken over. If it was bankrupt, the situation would be different. My point was that tacpot12 needs to justify his statements with evidence.

There is the issue of what the original marketing material said. In particular, was there "terms apply" at the bottom of the page in tiny print. In the absence of a "terms apply", did the terms and conditions still take precedence over the marketing? It is also important, of course, what the original terms and conditions said.

There is also the issue of what happened when the customers were moved to a new account. Did they accept a change in the terms and conditions by continuing to use the account, for example?

Even if Santander is in breach of contract, there is still the question of what the level of compensation should be for having to switch the account to another bank.

This is a key question - assuming the FOS route is sucessful, what outcome are people looking for. I know the immediate answer will be to reinstate free banking forever, but if FOS decide they can't direct Santander to do that, their only option is to aware compensation. So how much compensation are people going to be seeking, and for what? Bearing in mind that the customers can avoid any costs by switching to another bank, and that there is a switching service to make this as easy as possible?

amyfairweather

eskbanker said:

amyfairweather said:

Someone on the Facebook group has suggested making a subject access request for all information that Santander hold under GDPR.  I will be doing so this week and they are obliged to respond within 28 days.

(Although the link they provided was for consumer finance rather than business banking).

Note: you would need to ask in a personal capacity, companies and partnerships do not have GDPR rights.

Is this solely to create extra work for Santander or does anyone believe that there'll be anything useful discovered via that process?

And to be pedantic, SAR responses need to be issued within a month, rather than 28 days:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/section/54

Santander have created this extra work for themselves by reneging on a promise.

If you want to see it as creating extra work for them, yes.  So be it.

We are paying £9.99, so might as well get our money's worth.

If you had been promised something by your bank and they had gone back on it, I'm sure you'd be the first to complain.

TheBanker

gt94sss2 said:

solidpro said:

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.

Playing devil's advocate (sorry!), if I wanted to I could argue that landscape has changed in the past 20 years with things like:

- increased regulations
- introduction of ring fencing for UK retail banks

Yes, some costs will have gone down as well but the economics and business strategies of other banks will be different.

It won't be for the FOS to confirm whether the product is still viable or not for Santander to offer in determinating the outcome

I'm surprised Santander haven't used this argument, and I imagine they will when the complaints are assessed by FOS or by a court. I believe the original advertising said something like: We guarantee that unless there are any changes to the law or banking regulations, or any new taxes relating to bank charges, you will benefit from free day-to-day business banking forever...

There have been many, many changes to banking regulation since this offer was made, and I think there's a strung argument that in aggregate these changes justify Santander's commercial decision to make changes to their proposition. 

amyfairweather

For academic interest only, and not all of these will necesarily be "free business banking forever" complaints.

However, someone affected by this has submitted three separate complaints between 25/7/25 and 16/8/25 has a difference of 45,817 between the first and third complaint reference numbers.

I myself will be opening a second complaint this week if my final decision letter does not in the next couple of days or so, so will report back on that as well, just to be pedantic.

Section62

GeoffTF said:

gt94sss2 said:

GeoffTF said:

tacpot12 said:

I've made the point in my complaint to the FOS that Santander had full knowledge of the promises that Abbey had made to its customers and it had agreed to be bound by those obligations when they bought the Abbey Business Banking business.

Do you have documentary evidence for that?

Santander purchased Abbey National and therefore legally  took responsibility for all their liabilities/contracts.

imho it is irrelevant how good their due diligence was or not in 2003/4.

Yes, Abbey National was a going concern when it was taken over. If it was bankrupt, the situation would be different. My point was that tacpot12 needs to justify his statements with evidence.

...

tacpot12 has a consumer complaint being referred to FOS, not an application for an injunction in the High Court.

The need for "evidence" is very much less.  If FOS doubts the truth in tacpot12's assertion, but believe it to be relevant, they will ask Santander to comment.

It really isn't as difficult as some forum members seem to want to make it appear.

Section62

eskbanker said:

TheBanker said:

• Additionally, only Santander know the cost to service these accounts, but it won't be zero. Every post office transaction, Faster Payment and ATM/Card payment comes at a cost. Then there are costs such as sending emails/text messages, regulatory compliance costs e.g. checking/updating KYC information, the costs of refunding any customers who are victims of fraud and making good any errors, the cost of creating and issuing new cards and PINs and so on. The cost of some of these items may be negligible in the context of an individual account but not in aggregate.
• Also, Santander incur fixed costs providing Business Banking accounts. They need to invest in and maintain IT systems, they have compliance costs, they need to staff a contact centre, and so on. Whilst these costs are not necessarily going to increase every time a new account is opened, the Business Banking accounts in aggregate need to generate enough revenue to cover all of these costs. There is a convincing argument that allowing some customers to bank for free is unfair as it means those paying the £9.99 fee are effectively subsidising those who aren't.
  

...
Personally I don't find the last sentence as convincing as you suggest - there are many examples of differential product terms applying across customers of the same bank, e.g. savings interest rates introduced at different times, overdraft limits and rates, credit card limits, 0% credit offer durations, etc, which inherently have that cross-subsidising effect, so in itself that's not necessarily unfair.
....

I don't think it is convincing at all.

It is like arguing it is "unfair" that some Santander personal customers have free 'Everyday' banking, whereas others have to pay for 'Edge'.  Or if they are going to point out 'Edge' comes with benefits that 'Everyday' doesn't, then it is like complaining it is unfair '123' (full fat) account holders get better benefits than 'Edge' customers do.

Making an argument that one group of customer's benefits are unfair to other customer group isn't something I'd imagine Santander will waste their time on.

Section62

TheBanker said:

GeoffTF said:

gt94sss2 said:

GeoffTF said:

tacpot12 said:

I've made the point in my complaint to the FOS that Santander had full knowledge of the promises that Abbey had made to its customers and it had agreed to be bound by those obligations when they bought the Abbey Business Banking business.

Do you have documentary evidence for that?

Santander purchased Abbey National and therefore legally  took responsibility for all their liabilities/contracts.

imho it is irrelevant how good their due diligence was or not in 2003/4.

Yes, Abbey National was a going concern when it was taken over. If it was bankrupt, the situation would be different. My point was that tacpot12 needs to justify his statements with evidence.

There is the issue of what the original marketing material said. In particular, was there "terms apply" at the bottom of the page in tiny print. In the absence of a "terms apply", did the terms and conditions still take precedence over the marketing? It is also important, of course, what the original terms and conditions said.

There is also the issue of what happened when the customers were moved to a new account. Did they accept a change in the terms and conditions by continuing to use the account, for example?

Even if Santander is in breach of contract, there is still the question of what the level of compensation should be for having to switch the account to another bank.

This is a key question - assuming the FOS route is sucessful, what outcome are people looking for. I know the immediate answer will be to reinstate free banking forever, but if FOS decide they can't direct Santander to do that, their only option is to aware compensation. So how much compensation are people going to be seeking, and for what?

There was a lengthy discussion about this near the start of the thread where folk were previously trying to argue these customers don't have grounds for complaint.  Perhaps it might be more constructive if you go back and read the earlier discussion?

TheBanker said:

Bearing in mind that the customers can avoid any costs by switching to another bank, and that there is a switching service to make this as easy as possible?

Perhaps for a personal customer, but the CASS service doesn't do everything that some businesses might need to do.  For example, updating websites/accounting systems, reprinting stationery etc.  Nor the time (=money, when you are in business) taken to research alternative banking providers, applying for new account(s), providing ID etc etc.

The idea that business customers can switch accounts with zero cost might suggest a possible lack of understanding of what running a business entails?

Section62

TheBanker said:

gt94sss2 said:

solidpro said:

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.

Playing devil's advocate (sorry!), if I wanted to I could argue that landscape has changed in the past 20 years with things like:

- increased regulations
- introduction of ring fencing for UK retail banks

Yes, some costs will have gone down as well but the economics and business strategies of other banks will be different.

It won't be for the FOS to confirm whether the product is still viable or not for Santander to offer in determinating the outcome

I'm surprised Santander haven't used this argument, and I imagine they will when the complaints are assessed by FOS or by a court. I believe the original advertising said something like: We guarantee that unless there are any changes to the law or banking regulations, or any new taxes relating to bank charges, you will benefit from free day-to-day business banking forever...

There have been many, many changes to banking regulation since this offer was made, and I think there's a strung argument that in aggregate these changes justify Santander's commercial decision to make changes to their proposition. 

Again, this was discussed at length earlier in the thread.

I doubt a court would come to any conclusion other than "changes to the law or banking regulations"  would be ones directly related to charges made for providing accounts/services, rather than any changes in law or banking regulations.

I'd give Santander more credit than asking their lawyers to make this argument in court.... the claimants only need to point to other providers offering free business banking, and HSBC now making theirs free (having previously charged), to make the "strung argument" look nonsensical.  Why, if Santander needs to charge business customers because of regulatiory change, are they still able to offer free personal banking?

IanManc

TheBanker said:

gt94sss2 said:

solidpro said:

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.

Playing devil's advocate (sorry!), if I wanted to I could argue that landscape has changed in the past 20 years with things like:

- increased regulations
- introduction of ring fencing for UK retail banks

Yes, some costs will have gone down as well but the economics and business strategies of other banks will be different.

It won't be for the FOS to confirm whether the product is still viable or not for Santander to offer in determinating the outcome

I'm surprised Santander haven't used this argument, and I imagine they will when the complaints are assessed by FOS or by a court. I believe the original advertising said something like: We guarantee that unless there are any changes to the law or banking regulations, or any new taxes relating to bank charges, you will benefit from free day-to-day business banking forever...

There have been many, many changes to banking regulation since this offer was made, and I think there's a strung argument that in aggregate these changes justify Santander's commercial decision to make changes to their proposition. 

Clearly Santander don't think it's a strong argument or they'd have used it.

And they must have thought of it,  bearing in mind the "extensive work to understand the legal and regulatory position" and "many safeguards" before the decision was made that you have claimed, with your vastly superior knowledge.