Santander free forever bank account changes

sdd56

I made my complaint by telephone on the 24th of July, and got a reference number. But I've heard nothing from them since then. Should I expect some sort of response from them, or in the absence of that can I open a case at FOS 8 weeks after the complaint date?

eskbanker

sdd56 said:

I made my complaint by telephone on the 24th of July, and got a reference number. But I've heard nothing from them since then. Should I expect some sort of response from them, or in the absence of that can I open a case at FOS 8 weeks after the complaint date?

Undoubtedly, yes - a financial institution's obligations are spelt out in the FCA handbook:

Keeping the complainant informed

On receipt of a complaint, a respondent must:

1. send the complainant a prompt written acknowledgement providing early reassurance that it has received the complaint and is dealing with it; and

2. ensure the complainant is kept informed thereafter of the progress of the measures being taken for the complaint's resolution.
   

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP/1/6.html

They do have to issue a final response within eight weeks, and failure to do so does entitle you to escalate to FOS at that point.

Section62

GeoffTF said:

amyfairweather said:

Also, on online accounts (via laptop/desktop browsers, at least), it shows the account opening date.  I suggest everyone screenshot there’s.  Mine still says the date it was opened, not 2015.

I converted my 123 Lite account to an Edge account less than two months ago, but it shows online as having been opened in 1988.

"Converted" not "opened", being the important word here.

GeoffTF said:

Santander could say that my 123 Lite was closed, but an Edge account was opened in its place....

They could say 'black is white', but that doesn't make it true.

If Santander closed customer's accounts in 2015 then they would have had to go through the formal account closure process as per the terms and conditions.  Nobody has reported Santander following the formal closure process in 2015, nor were the affected customers asked to 'open' a new account or told a new account had been opened for them.

The arguments Santander are in the right here are getting more and more contrived.

All the evidence - including what is shown in online banking - is that the "free forever" accounts weren't closed in 2015.  If they were, and customers weren't told about it, then that would appear to be a serious breach of FCA rules.... so I'm guessing contrived arguments like that one won't be relied upon by Santander.

Section62

sdd56 said:

I made my complaint by telephone on the 24th of July, and got a reference number. But I've heard nothing from them since then. Should I expect some sort of response from them, or in the absence of that can I open a case at FOS 8 weeks after the complaint date?

Are you sure it was logged as a 'complaint' rather than a 'dissatisfaction'?  Did you explicitly state you wanted to make a complaint?

eskbanker

Section62 said:

sdd56 said:

I made my complaint by telephone on the 24th of July, and got a reference number. But I've heard nothing from them since then. Should I expect some sort of response from them, or in the absence of that can I open a case at FOS 8 weeks after the complaint date?

Are you sure it was logged as a 'complaint' rather than a 'dissatisfaction'?  Did you explicitly state you wanted to make a complaint?

Do they issue reference numbers for expressions of dissatisfaction?

Easiest way to validate if it's being treated as a complaint will be to phone again, quoting the number....

Section62

eskbanker said:

Section62 said:

sdd56 said:

I made my complaint by telephone on the 24th of July, and got a reference number. But I've heard nothing from them since then. Should I expect some sort of response from them, or in the absence of that can I open a case at FOS 8 weeks after the complaint date?

Are you sure it was logged as a 'complaint' rather than a 'dissatisfaction'?  Did you explicitly state you wanted to make a complaint?

Do they issue reference numbers for expressions of dissatisfaction?

I'm not sure.  But I'm not aware of anything which stops them giving a 'reference number' when logging a 'dissatisfaction', or in relation to any other contact, so I wouldn't rely on having a 'reference number' as proof they are handling the contact as a complaint.

eskbanker said:

Easiest way to validate if it's being treated as a complaint will be to phone again, quoting the number....

I agree.

But on the other hand if the OP was explicit that they wanted to log a complaint and Santander have logged it as something else (which means no reply will be sent to the OP) then the OP is already almost half way through the 8 weeks they need to wait before going direct to FOS.  So they could weigh up waiting for another 4 weeks and being able to go direct to FOS vs contacting Santander to be told no complaint was logged, resulting in the complaint clock starting now.

I'm not saying one or the other approach is better (both have benefits and drawbacks).  But just highlighting there is more than one option here, depending what they said when originally contacting Santander. (also bearing in mind Santander might be on thin ice with their 'dissatisfaction=no response' approach).

eskbanker

Section62 said:

eskbanker said:

Section62 said:

sdd56 said:

I made my complaint by telephone on the 24th of July, and got a reference number. But I've heard nothing from them since then. Should I expect some sort of response from them, or in the absence of that can I open a case at FOS 8 weeks after the complaint date?

Are you sure it was logged as a 'complaint' rather than a 'dissatisfaction'?  Did you explicitly state you wanted to make a complaint?

Do they issue reference numbers for expressions of dissatisfaction?

I'm not sure.  But I'm not aware of anything which stops them giving a 'reference number' when logging a 'dissatisfaction', or in relation to any other contact, so I wouldn't rely on having a 'reference number' as proof they are handling the contact as a complaint.

eskbanker said:

Easiest way to validate if it's being treated as a complaint will be to phone again, quoting the number....

I agree.

But on the other hand if the OP was explicit that they wanted to log a complaint and Santander have logged it as something else (which means no reply will be sent to the OP) then the OP is already almost half way through the 8 weeks they need to wait before going direct to FOS.  So they could weigh up waiting for another 4 weeks and being able to go direct to FOS vs contacting Santander to be told no complaint was logged, resulting in the complaint clock starting now.

I'm not saying one or the other approach is better (both have benefits and drawbacks).  But just highlighting there is more than one option here, depending what they said when originally contacting Santander. (also bearing in mind Santander might be on thin ice with their 'dissatisfaction=no response' approach).

I think it may have been mentioned earlier on in the thread but the FCA view is that a complaint is "any oral or written expression of dissatisfaction" so any attempt by Santander to differentiate some would appear to be contrary to this anyway:

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/glossary/G197.html

GeoffTF

Section62 said:

All the evidence - including what is shown in online banking - is that the "free forever" accounts weren't closed in 2015.

It does not matter. Santander could equally say that the original terms and conditions allowed them to change the terms and conditions, and they did just that. In practical terms, I do not expect that any of this matters. I expect that the FOS will rule in favour of Santander on the basis of the current terms and conditions. The FOS does not appear to have the power to consider complaints about what happened in 2015, or to revisit rulings that it made then. People could go the court, but that does not look worthwhile.

Section62

GeoffTF said:

Section62 said:

All the evidence - including what is shown in online banking - is that the "free forever" accounts weren't closed in 2015.

It does not matter....

Agreed.  Which is why it was puzzling when you introduced the claimed closure of accounts in 2015 as if it were some kind of winning argument for Santander to use.

GeoffTF said:

...Santander could equally say that the original terms and conditions allowed them to change the terms and conditions, and they did just that. In practical terms, I do not expect that any of this matters. I expect that the FOS will rule in favour of Santander on the basis of the current terms and conditions. The FOS does not appear to have the power to consider complaints about what happened in 2015, or to revisit rulings that it made then. People could go the court, but that does not look worthwhile.

Nobody is claiming Santander cannot change the terms and conditions.  What they are saying is any change in the terms and conditions has to be compatible with the promise Santander gave customers when they opened their accounts.  I think this is right, and suspect FOS will agree.

People complaining to FOS will be doing so on the basis of what Santander are doing now (introducing charges).  So the complaint shouldn't be timebarred.  If Santander rely on the 2015 changes, but people are only finding out about this now*, then the complaint is still not timebarred (yet).  The timebar relates to the bringing of a complaint, not on what FOS can consider as part of that complaint.  FOS can go back as far in time as necessary in order to investigate the circumstances which led to the complaint.  The timebar, including specifics of the 'finding out'(*), was discussed at length much earlier in the thread - again the forum search facility can be really useful.

Smurrfmo

Lot of misinformation in this thread.  To repeat the fundamental point that the 2015 terms would need the explicit agreement of the customer to override the "free business banking forever" core term.  No customer has given their agreement.  This is what a court would likely decide, I say likely as anybody guaranteeing the outcome of litigation is a fool.  The FOS can also rule on the fairness of the process and an underhand change of terms which sought to remove a core term is obviously unfair.