Santander free forever bank account changes

Beetle63

ElDickster said:

Hi all. Sorry to say I've given up on Santander. I put in my complaint in July (which they decided was only 'dissatisfaction' so ignored), complained again, wrote to my MP (who was very helpful, btw), passed it to the ombudsman in late August (who are still sitting on it) and quite honestly spent way too much time that I don't have on this. I've come to the conclusion that even if we/you are successful and get the promised free banking back, I can not trust Santander. I put up with their lack of service for twenty years, because, hey, it was free, but no more. I've closed the account and opened one with another bank. I don't expect too much from this, but at least they haven't made any rash promises. Although I do get a free coffee every month for a year, which is nice.

I really wish you all the best of luck with this, but I'd had enough. I'll keep an eye on this thread and really hope you win. Thanks also for all the info. It was good to know others were in the same boat. Of course, I won't be using Santander ever again.

I have withdrawn all my money from my Santander account and my savings account and left zero balance. I will see what the decision is by the ombudsman. In the meantime, I have opened a standard current account that’s free and will just use it for my business. I am a sole trader and will be retiring in 5 years or so,I’m gradually winding down so it will do me. I understand alot of people can’t be arsed to put in the time and effort with the fight but I will persevere. Good Luck 

born_again

amyfairweather said:

born_again said:

amyfairweather said:

I was very sceptical at first that this was another 'Santander fanboy', but there does appear to be a matching genuine business.

For my money, the first FOS response posted is not a hoax.  That is what a junior investigator has provided as a response.

The complaint does though need to be sent up to an actual ombudsman and not left with that half-hearted investigator.

If anything, it's that investigator who is the 'fanboy' as the response reads like an A-Z of Santander's whole strategy since July.  I mean, there are so many bingo lines you can tick off in that response from "the business banking landscape had changed significantly over the years" to "there was reason to suspect that one day the benefit of fee-free banking may end" and "It doesn’t strike me as unfair that the bank wishes to ensure a more equitable distribution of fees across its customer base".

A investigator would not endanger their job, by giving a "Fanboy" outcome.

Then why would they suggest that "there was reason to suspect that one day the benefit of fee-free banking may end"?

Why would there be reason to suspect that when the accounts were advertised as 'no ifs, no buts, free business banking forever'?

Why do they go on to suggest that "It doesn’t strike me as unfair that the bank wishes to ensure a more equitable distribution of fees across its customer base" whilst, at the same time, totally ignoring the 'free forever' advertising?

"Free forever" was, and remains, the entire raison d'etre of these accounts in many cases.

Only the person writing that will know. But to say that the are "Fan Boy" is just plain silly. Just because it is not meeting your expectation, or outcome.

As you know the last time this happened the T/C were changed to cover starting to charge.

In a marketing context

• A product or service that is advertised as "free forever" provides core features without a fee, often to attract users.
• In reality, these plans can change. A company might later introduce more advanced features that require payment, or a "free forever" tier could be discontinued. 

Section62

born_again said:

...
As you know the last time this happened the T/C were changed to cover starting to charge.
...

If you'd read the investigator's comments you'd see they are of the opinion that the T&C's allowed Santander to charge for the 'free' accounts from day 1 - even whilst the accounts were still being marketed as being marketed as 'free forever'.

The subsequent changes to the T&C's, which some here felt were essential to Santander being able to introduce charges, are apparently irrelevant to Santander being able to do so.

Beetle63

Section62 said:

born_again said:

...
As you know the last time this happened the T/C were changed to cover starting to charge.
...

If you'd read the investigator's comments you'd see they are of the opinion that the T&C's allowed Santander to charge for the 'free' accounts from day 1 - even whilst the accounts were still being marketed as being marketed as 'free forever'.

The subsequent changes to the T&C's, which some here felt were essential to Santander being able to introduce charges, are apparently irrelevant to Santander being able to do so.

The account wasn’t just marketed as ‘Free Forever’ but ‘Free Forever Guaranteed’. The definition of the word ‘Guaranteed’ being the issue 

GeoffTF

Beetle63 said:

Section62 said:

born_again said:

...
As you know the last time this happened the T/C were changed to cover starting to charge.
...

If you'd read the investigator's comments you'd see they are of the opinion that the T&C's allowed Santander to charge for the 'free' accounts from day 1 - even whilst the accounts were still being marketed as being marketed as 'free forever'.

The subsequent changes to the T&C's, which some here felt were essential to Santander being able to introduce charges, are apparently irrelevant to Santander being able to do so.

The account wasn’t just marketed as ‘Free Forever’ but ‘Free Forever Guaranteed’. The definition of the word ‘Guaranteed’ being the issue 

The Terms & Conditions did not mention "free forever" and said that the Terms & Conditions could be changed or the account closed. That overrode the marketing claim.

amyfairweather

GeoffTF said:

Beetle63 said:

Section62 said:

born_again said:

...
As you know the last time this happened the T/C were changed to cover starting to charge.
...

If you'd read the investigator's comments you'd see they are of the opinion that the T&C's allowed Santander to charge for the 'free' accounts from day 1 - even whilst the accounts were still being marketed as being marketed as 'free forever'.

The subsequent changes to the T&C's, which some here felt were essential to Santander being able to introduce charges, are apparently irrelevant to Santander being able to do so.

The account wasn’t just marketed as ‘Free Forever’ but ‘Free Forever Guaranteed’. The definition of the word ‘Guaranteed’ being the issue 

The Terms & Conditions did not mention "free forever" and said that the Terms & Conditions could be changed or the account closed. That overrode the marketing claim.

They don't need to mention it.

Yes, the accounts can be closed, but for as long as they're open they retain the original promise of free forever.

I believe that will be upheld in a court of law.

Santander backing down in 2012 gives that belief more credence.

amyfairweather

Beetle63 said:

Section62 said:

born_again said:

...
As you know the last time this happened the T/C were changed to cover starting to charge.
...

If you'd read the investigator's comments you'd see they are of the opinion that the T&C's allowed Santander to charge for the 'free' accounts from day 1 - even whilst the accounts were still being marketed as being marketed as 'free forever'.

The subsequent changes to the T&C's, which some here felt were essential to Santander being able to introduce charges, are apparently irrelevant to Santander being able to do so.

The account wasn’t just marketed as ‘Free Forever’ but ‘Free Forever Guaranteed’. The definition of the word ‘Guaranteed’ being the issue 

Indeed, and an upfront promise of "free forever" would generally override contradictory terms and conditions, as consumer law protects against misleading commercial practices.  Companies cannot attract customers with a clear promise and then use fine print to retract that offer.

The law gives consumers significant power in these disputes by focusing on what a typical person would reasonably expect from the advertised claim. 

Misleading advertising is illegal under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, businesses are prohibited from engaging in misleading actions or omissions.  A prominent "free forever" claim, followed by a charge hidden in the small print, would likely be deemed a misleading practice in a court.

GingerTim

amyfairweather said:

Beetle63 said:

Section62 said:

born_again said:

...
As you know the last time this happened the T/C were changed to cover starting to charge.
...

If you'd read the investigator's comments you'd see they are of the opinion that the T&C's allowed Santander to charge for the 'free' accounts from day 1 - even whilst the accounts were still being marketed as being marketed as 'free forever'.

The subsequent changes to the T&C's, which some here felt were essential to Santander being able to introduce charges, are apparently irrelevant to Santander being able to do so.

The account wasn’t just marketed as ‘Free Forever’ but ‘Free Forever Guaranteed’. The definition of the word ‘Guaranteed’ being the issue 

Indeed, and an upfront promise of "free forever" would generally override contradictory terms and conditions, as consumer law protects against misleading commercial practices.  Companies cannot attract customers with a clear promise and then use fine print to retract that offer.

The law gives consumers significant power in these disputes by focusing on what a typical person would reasonably expect from the advertised claim. 

Misleading advertising is illegal under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, businesses are prohibited from engaging in misleading actions or omissions.  A prominent "free forever" claim, followed by a charge hidden in the small print, would likely be deemed a misleading practice in a court.

But you aren't a consumer - you are a small business, with a business to business relationship with Santander, and your relationship is governed by those regulations.

I'm not making a comment about whether a claim is misleading or not, but I don't see how the Consumer Protection Act helps you here.

GeoffTF

GingerTim said:

amyfairweather said:

Beetle63 said:

Section62 said:

born_again said:

...
As you know the last time this happened the T/C were changed to cover starting to charge.
...

If you'd read the investigator's comments you'd see they are of the opinion that the T&C's allowed Santander to charge for the 'free' accounts from day 1 - even whilst the accounts were still being marketed as being marketed as 'free forever'.

The subsequent changes to the T&C's, which some here felt were essential to Santander being able to introduce charges, are apparently irrelevant to Santander being able to do so.

The account wasn’t just marketed as ‘Free Forever’ but ‘Free Forever Guaranteed’. The definition of the word ‘Guaranteed’ being the issue 

Indeed, and an upfront promise of "free forever" would generally override contradictory terms and conditions, as consumer law protects against misleading commercial practices.  Companies cannot attract customers with a clear promise and then use fine print to retract that offer.

The law gives consumers significant power in these disputes by focusing on what a typical person would reasonably expect from the advertised claim. 

Misleading advertising is illegal under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, businesses are prohibited from engaging in misleading actions or omissions.  A prominent "free forever" claim, followed by a charge hidden in the small print, would likely be deemed a misleading practice in a court.

But you aren't a consumer - you are a small business, with a business to business relationship with Santander, and your relationship is governed by those regulations.

I'm not making a comment about whether a claim is misleading or not, but I don't see how the Consumer Protection Act helps you here.

It is worth noting that the Office of Fair Trading Rules do not apply either. We know that from the AJ Bell case that I linked above. The FCA is the regulator for financial services and it is the FCA rules that apply. AJB was allowed to massively increase its fees whilst charging hefty fees to transfer out, because the T&Cs allowed them to do that.

amyfairweather

Some people are just salty they didn't pay enough attention to the advertising material it seems.