Santander free forever bank account changes

GW19

So I have my Santander complaint number and they also confirmed that to me verbally after getting it on 7th August over the telephone. But I have yet to receive the letter in the post that they promised and called them once again today. They have apologised and said that up to "3 working weeks" is the likely timeline to get this letter in my hands.

Am I right in thinking that I need that letter before raising an FOS complaint? Santander have confirmed the reference I have is a complaint, not a disatisfaction one.

So once I have the letter I need to act....is that correct? Thanks.

solidpro

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. 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.

So when you raise an issue with the FOS and they say they don't deal in hypotheticals and 8 years later that very same hypothetical issue actually comes true and they say it's too long ago to scrutinse the scenario in the hypothetical was introduced, it would make you wonder who the FOS are working for....

boingy

solidpro said: it would make you wonder who the FOS are working for....

I've wondered that a few times. One of my complaints was rejected by the FOS because they said that the bank I was complaining about had told them that the complaint was outside of the FOS remit. Surely the FOS should decide that rather than the accused bank..

GeoffTF

solidpro said:

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. 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.

So when you raise an issue with the FOS and they say they don't deal in hypotheticals and 8 years later that very same hypothetical issue actually comes true and they say it's too long ago to scrutinse the scenario in the hypothetical was introduced, it would make you wonder who the FOS are working for....

I said that the FOS cannot revisit the rulings that it made then. By that, I meant that it cannot overrule them. (In principle the Ombudsman could say that he disagreed with the previous Ombudsman and that the previous Ombudsman should have awarded compensation, but that he cannot reverse the decision not to award compensation.) Santander seems to be confident that only the current terms and conditions apply, but we do not know why. It is possible that they are just saying that to fob people off, but why would they be going through all this if they do not believe that they will win?

subjecttocontract

Anyone who experienced the issue with West Bromwich Mortgages and their overcharging of interest, a few years back, will understand how it's entirely possible for a large organisation to take a wrong decision based on flawed legal advice. 

Section62

GeoffTF said:

solidpro said:

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. 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.

So when you raise an issue with the FOS and they say they don't deal in hypotheticals and 8 years later that very same hypothetical issue actually comes true and they say it's too long ago to scrutinse the scenario in the hypothetical was introduced, it would make you wonder who the FOS are working for....

I said that the FOS cannot revisit the rulings that it made then. By that, I meant that it cannot overrule them. (In principle the Ombudsman could say that he disagreed with the previous Ombudsman and that the previous Ombudsman should have awarded compensation, but that he cannot reverse the decision not to award compensation.) Santander seems to be confident that only the current terms and conditions apply, but we do not know why. It is possible that they are just saying that to fob people off, but why would they be going through all this if they do not believe that they will win?

Has anyone said an ombudsman made a decision in 2015 in their case? (genuine question)  I understood the complaints were stopped as 'hypothetical' at the triage stage, or by an adjudicator.

In any event, I don't think it matters.  An ombudsman decision in 2015 that nothing needed to be done because Santander weren't introducing charges doesn't preclude an ombudsman now - with the benefit of hindsight - making a different decision because charges are being introduced on the back of something Santander did in 2015.

Furthermore, ombudsman decisions don't set precedent.  So if there is an ombudsman decision from 2015 then it applies only to that individual case, it doesn't preclude other affected customers making their own complaint.  And since the same complainant now has a new complaint, a past decision doesn't preclude an ombudsman making a different decision on the basis of the new circumstances.

Also - for the benefit of people who don't already know - FOS has its own complaints process for dealing with customer dissatisfaction over the way it has itself dealt with complaints (which also, to a limited extent, includes actions of an ombudsman).  I've had cause to use that complaints process a few times, and can say in my experience FOS is more generous in compensating for their own errors and failings than they are in assessing what banks and other financial service providers should pay.  So if someone's complaint from 2015 was mishandled then a complaint to FOS about their own service might be worthwhile, albeit they may say 10 years is too long ago.

GeoffTF

Section62 said:

Has anyone said an ombudsman made a decision in 2015 in their case? (genuine question)  I understood the complaints were stopped as 'hypothetical' at the triage stage, or by an adjudicator.

I thought that you had said that there had been a decision. Complainants could have appealed a decision at the triage stage.

Section62 said:

In any event, I don't think it matters.  An ombudsman decision in 2015 that nothing needed to be done because Santander weren't introducing charges doesn't preclude an ombudsman now - with the benefit of hindsight - making a different decision because charges are being introduced on the back of something Santander did in 2015.

My understanding is that the Ombudsman cannot rule on a terms and conditions change that happened over 6 years ago.

Section62 said:

Furthermore, ombudsman decisions don't set precedent.  So if there is an ombudsman decision from 2015 then it applies only to that individual case, it doesn't preclude other affected customers making their own complaint.  And since the same complainant now has a new complaint, a past decision doesn't preclude an ombudsman making a different decision on the basis of the new circumstances.

You have previously suggested that the Ombudsman can only use arguments that are consistent with those used by a previous Ombudsman. As far as I know, there is no such rule. Again, time out applies.

My guess is that:

(1). Santander will argue that the Ombudsman had the power to rule against their change in the terms and conditions when complaints were made in 2015, and order that they be reversed, but did not do so.

(2). Santander will argue that the Ombudsman no longer has the power the reverse the changes made in 2015, or award other compensation for those changes.

That would be consistent with their position that only the current terms and conditions apply.

stephenayre

Hi all
I think I've read most of the comments on here (apologies if I've missed then one I'm going to ask about) I run a 1 man band heating & plumbing business (not much spare time).
Question has anyone posted a link to or template letter to complain to Santander (Martin Lewis style) ?
Thanks in advance
(Removed by Forum Team)

amyfairweather

stephenayre said:

Hi all
I think I've read most of the comments on here (apologies if I've missed then one I'm going to ask about) I run a 1 man band heating & plumbing business (not much spare time).
Question has anyone posted a link to or template letter to complain to Santander (Martin Lewis style) ?
Thanks in advance
(Removed by Forum Team)

There are a couple near the beginning but everything is very easily accessible on the Facebook page (no login required)

Separately, if Santander are relying on the current terms and conditions then it’s a sad state of affairs for them to be advertising “free forever” as late as 2009-2010, then 2 years later reneging on that and a further 3 years later ‘secretly’ moving customers on to an account with a trap door set of terms and conditions specifically placed there to one day renege again on the free forever advertising.

Renfrewman

Looking at the Santander share price for the last 12 months there doesn't seem to be a negative reaction, If anything it has been very positive