We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Santander free forever bank account changes
Comments
-
“We strongly believe that our new business banking account offer reflects the value provided by banking with Santander and allows us to invest in innovating to better serve our customers in the future.”Out of curiosity, what's hyperbolic about their responses?
"reflects the value provided..." is subjective, vague, and inflates the merit of the product without substantiation.
“invest in innovating to better serve...” there's no direct tie to my case, and it's clearly intended to make the change sound progressive or customer-centric when it is, in fact, a removal of a previously guaranteed benefit.
“We have also led the way with innovations such as our Work Cafés...”
Wholly unrelated to my complaint. I'm not objecting to the café decor!
"Led the way...." implies Santander is at the forefront of innovation in business banking based on the existence of cafés with bookable meeting rooms. Sounds subjectively impressive on a marketing brochure, but in the context of breaching a contractual promise, it’s irrelevant and inflated and they are using it to deflect from the core issue.
None of the above (it could be argued) are meant to be taken literally, and clearly exaggerated - much like their "Free Forever" promise.
1 -
My point above was in reference to Santander and their handling of the complaint. If they're issuing one-size-fits-all responses but failing to address my points, then their one-size-doesn't-fit-all and my complaint hasn't been dealt with correctly.GeoffTF said:RichardStevensons said:
In my case, I would say their response has covered one part of around seven in my complaint. When does the rest get dealt with?born_again said:
Given the number of complaints on this subject, they will have a standard rejection letter. They will not need to investigate each complaint on the same matter.I know nothing about FOS processes. Out of curiosity, I asked Google:"The Financial Ombudsman has established casework processes to deal with large numbers of
complaints about similar issues. It can scale up its operations to deal with a significant
and sustained spike in complaints about a particular type of product. However, the
Financial Ombudsman must still consider each complaint individually. This is consistent
with its duty under FSMA to resolve complaints based on what it thinks is fair and
reasonable in all the circumstances of the case."The FOS has to consider your complaint individually, and take your circumstances into account. If you have provided evidence that the extra charges will push you into bankruptcy, for example, that might be taken into account.1 -
Fair enough, there are any number of adjectives that could be applied to their justifications - insincere and self-aggrandising spring to mind - but yes, the most pertinent is 'irrelevant'!RichardStevensons said:
“We strongly believe that our new business banking account offer reflects the value provided by banking with Santander and allows us to invest in innovating to better serve our customers in the future.”Out of curiosity, what's hyperbolic about their responses?
"reflects the value provided..." is subjective, vague, and inflates the merit of the product without substantiation.
“invest in innovating to better serve...” there's no direct tie to my case, and it's clearly intended to make the change sound progressive or customer-centric when it is, in fact, a removal of a previously guaranteed benefit.
“We have also led the way with innovations such as our Work Cafés...”
Wholly unrelated to my complaint. I'm not objecting to the café decor!
"Led the way...." implies Santander is at the forefront of innovation in business banking based on the existence of cafés with bookable meeting rooms. Sounds subjectively impressive on a marketing brochure, but in the context of breaching a contractual promise, it’s irrelevant and inflated and they are using it to deflect from the core issue.
None of the above (it could be argued) are meant to be taken literally, and clearly exaggerated - much like their "Free Forever" promise.2 -
That may be, but it makes practical sense. It did not cost them much to write that and send it out. It pushes the message that Santander's customers are getting great deal and will continue to do so. Quoting obscure rules and tiny print would not be good PR. It reveals nothing about Santander's case for introducing the charges.eskbanker said:
Fair enough, there are any number of adjectives that could be applied to their justifications - insincere and self-aggrandising spring to mind - but yes, the most pertinent is 'irrelevant'!RichardStevensons said:
“We strongly believe that our new business banking account offer reflects the value provided by banking with Santander and allows us to invest in innovating to better serve our customers in the future.”Out of curiosity, what's hyperbolic about their responses?
"reflects the value provided..." is subjective, vague, and inflates the merit of the product without substantiation.
“invest in innovating to better serve...” there's no direct tie to my case, and it's clearly intended to make the change sound progressive or customer-centric when it is, in fact, a removal of a previously guaranteed benefit.
“We have also led the way with innovations such as our Work Cafés...”
Wholly unrelated to my complaint. I'm not objecting to the café decor!
"Led the way...." implies Santander is at the forefront of innovation in business banking based on the existence of cafés with bookable meeting rooms. Sounds subjectively impressive on a marketing brochure, but in the context of breaching a contractual promise, it’s irrelevant and inflated and they are using it to deflect from the core issue.
None of the above (it could be argued) are meant to be taken literally, and clearly exaggerated - much like their "Free Forever" promise.0 -
It's not a surprise that they'd issue a boilerplate response like that, but the above point about failing to deal with complaints individually still has merit.GeoffTF said:
That may be, but it makes practical sense. It did not cost them much to write that and send it out. It pushes the message that Santander's customers are getting great deal and will continue to do so. Quoting obscure rules and tiny print would not be good PR. It reveals nothing about Santander's case for introducing the charges.eskbanker said:
Fair enough, there are any number of adjectives that could be applied to their justifications - insincere and self-aggrandising spring to mind - but yes, the most pertinent is 'irrelevant'!RichardStevensons said:
“We strongly believe that our new business banking account offer reflects the value provided by banking with Santander and allows us to invest in innovating to better serve our customers in the future.”Out of curiosity, what's hyperbolic about their responses?
"reflects the value provided..." is subjective, vague, and inflates the merit of the product without substantiation.
“invest in innovating to better serve...” there's no direct tie to my case, and it's clearly intended to make the change sound progressive or customer-centric when it is, in fact, a removal of a previously guaranteed benefit.
“We have also led the way with innovations such as our Work Cafés...”
Wholly unrelated to my complaint. I'm not objecting to the café decor!
"Led the way...." implies Santander is at the forefront of innovation in business banking based on the existence of cafés with bookable meeting rooms. Sounds subjectively impressive on a marketing brochure, but in the context of breaching a contractual promise, it’s irrelevant and inflated and they are using it to deflect from the core issue.
None of the above (it could be argued) are meant to be taken literally, and clearly exaggerated - much like their "Free Forever" promise.0 -
Have you asked them?RichardStevensons said:
But sending out a one-size-fits all response means that they aren't treating each complaint individually. My complaint had more information than covered in their response, as did my MP's, as did press articles. Santander are failing to address the complaints and firing out hyperbole hoping it will do.born_again said:
Given the number of complaints on this subject, they will have a standard rejection letter. They will not need to investigate each complaint on the same matter.
In my case, I would say their response has covered one part of around seven in my complaint. When does the rest get dealt with?
Have they said that the complaint is now resolved & your options going forward.
If you raised a complaint on the ending of "Free" then that is their company line response. They already know that FOS are sitting on the complaint, as FOS can not do anything till charging starts.
Even then it could be months before they issue a response to them.
Not making any judgement on the rights or wrongs of the change.Life in the slow lane0 -
I believe that is an unrealistic expectation, particularly within the specified time scale. We have been told that other banks do the same. I cannot imagine any rejection letter from Santander that would please people here.eskbanker said:
It's not a surprise that they'd issue a boilerplate response like that, but the above point about failing to deal with complaints individually still has merit.GeoffTF said:
That may be, but it makes practical sense. It did not cost them much to write that and send it out. It pushes the message that Santander's customers are getting great deal and will continue to do so. Quoting obscure rules and tiny print would not be good PR. It reveals nothing about Santander's case for introducing the charges.eskbanker said:
Fair enough, there are any number of adjectives that could be applied to their justifications - insincere and self-aggrandising spring to mind - but yes, the most pertinent is 'irrelevant'!RichardStevensons said:
“We strongly believe that our new business banking account offer reflects the value provided by banking with Santander and allows us to invest in innovating to better serve our customers in the future.”Out of curiosity, what's hyperbolic about their responses?
"reflects the value provided..." is subjective, vague, and inflates the merit of the product without substantiation.
“invest in innovating to better serve...” there's no direct tie to my case, and it's clearly intended to make the change sound progressive or customer-centric when it is, in fact, a removal of a previously guaranteed benefit.
“We have also led the way with innovations such as our Work Cafés...”
Wholly unrelated to my complaint. I'm not objecting to the café decor!
"Led the way...." implies Santander is at the forefront of innovation in business banking based on the existence of cafés with bookable meeting rooms. Sounds subjectively impressive on a marketing brochure, but in the context of breaching a contractual promise, it’s irrelevant and inflated and they are using it to deflect from the core issue.
None of the above (it could be argued) are meant to be taken literally, and clearly exaggerated - much like their "Free Forever" promise.0 -
I don't think that what's in the rejection letter actually matters as long as it is a clear rejection.GeoffTF said:
I believe that is an unrealistic expectation, particularly within the specified time scale. We have been told that other banks do the same. I cannot imagine any rejection letter from Santander that would please people here.eskbanker said:
It's not a surprise that they'd issue a boilerplate response like that, but the above point about failing to deal with complaints individually still has merit.GeoffTF said:
That may be, but it makes practical sense. It did not cost them much to write that and send it out. It pushes the message that Santander's customers are getting great deal and will continue to do so. Quoting obscure rules and tiny print would not be good PR. It reveals nothing about Santander's case for introducing the charges.eskbanker said:
Fair enough, there are any number of adjectives that could be applied to their justifications - insincere and self-aggrandising spring to mind - but yes, the most pertinent is 'irrelevant'!RichardStevensons said:
“We strongly believe that our new business banking account offer reflects the value provided by banking with Santander and allows us to invest in innovating to better serve our customers in the future.”Out of curiosity, what's hyperbolic about their responses?
"reflects the value provided..." is subjective, vague, and inflates the merit of the product without substantiation.
“invest in innovating to better serve...” there's no direct tie to my case, and it's clearly intended to make the change sound progressive or customer-centric when it is, in fact, a removal of a previously guaranteed benefit.
“We have also led the way with innovations such as our Work Cafés...”
Wholly unrelated to my complaint. I'm not objecting to the café decor!
"Led the way...." implies Santander is at the forefront of innovation in business banking based on the existence of cafés with bookable meeting rooms. Sounds subjectively impressive on a marketing brochure, but in the context of breaching a contractual promise, it’s irrelevant and inflated and they are using it to deflect from the core issue.
None of the above (it could be argued) are meant to be taken literally, and clearly exaggerated - much like their "Free Forever" promise.
The sooner you get a rejection - whatever reasons it gives - then the sooner you can go to the FOS.0 -
To be clear, I agree that it's likely to be deemed reasonable to issue a standard response to someone saying 'you plan to charge me for something you previously promised to be free forever' (they're obviously not going to turn round and say 'OK, we won't do it then'!), but if the complaint is more substantive than that and there are specific additional points requiring further response then they ought to be addressed, within reason. Perhaps it would be helpful to see the detail of the complaint in question....GeoffTF said:
I believe that is an unrealistic expectation, particularly within the specified time scale. We have been told that other banks do the same. I cannot imagine any rejection letter from Santander that would please people here.eskbanker said:
It's not a surprise that they'd issue a boilerplate response like that, but the above point about failing to deal with complaints individually still has merit.GeoffTF said:
That may be, but it makes practical sense. It did not cost them much to write that and send it out. It pushes the message that Santander's customers are getting great deal and will continue to do so. Quoting obscure rules and tiny print would not be good PR. It reveals nothing about Santander's case for introducing the charges.eskbanker said:
Fair enough, there are any number of adjectives that could be applied to their justifications - insincere and self-aggrandising spring to mind - but yes, the most pertinent is 'irrelevant'!RichardStevensons said:
“We strongly believe that our new business banking account offer reflects the value provided by banking with Santander and allows us to invest in innovating to better serve our customers in the future.”Out of curiosity, what's hyperbolic about their responses?
"reflects the value provided..." is subjective, vague, and inflates the merit of the product without substantiation.
“invest in innovating to better serve...” there's no direct tie to my case, and it's clearly intended to make the change sound progressive or customer-centric when it is, in fact, a removal of a previously guaranteed benefit.
“We have also led the way with innovations such as our Work Cafés...”
Wholly unrelated to my complaint. I'm not objecting to the café decor!
"Led the way...." implies Santander is at the forefront of innovation in business banking based on the existence of cafés with bookable meeting rooms. Sounds subjectively impressive on a marketing brochure, but in the context of breaching a contractual promise, it’s irrelevant and inflated and they are using it to deflect from the core issue.
None of the above (it could be argued) are meant to be taken literally, and clearly exaggerated - much like their "Free Forever" promise.0 -
Who is And? Given some of the posts and there daft reasonings a two day response time is three weeks more than it should have been given.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards