Santander free forever bank account changes

GeoffTF

Section62 said:

GeoffTF said:

Section62 said:

Though they should probably do so with some understanding how FOS operates, and that an investigator opinion is not a final decision.

The FOS says that there are special casework processes for dealing with a large number of complaints about the same issue (but does not go into further detail). Individual caseworkers are unlikely to be giving their individual opinions. There will be a team dealing with this, and it will not be all Indians with no chiefs.

Agreed, although that doesn't change the fact an investigator opinion is not a final decision.

Yes, that is true. It is possible that new evidence will emerge, but that seems unlikely. The longer the process goes on the more it will become a cut and paste job.

amyfairweather

born_again said:

amyfairweather said:

Why the attitude/aggression?

Do you fear an Ombudsman may take a different viewpoint than the junior investigator?  If so, why?

Section62 is correct, the complainant has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Yet you say amyfairweather said:

So, it's yet another 'investigator' (aka Santander fanboy ) response.

You seem to be unable to accept, that any response from FOS that does not suit your view point has to be a "Fanboy" 
Sadly that says a lot about you 🤷‍♀️

Only thing that I pick out of the FOS reply is in the background section where they mention taken out in 2006 with Santander. Which is wrong. As it was with Abbey National.
Still it is only a small point & does not alter the outcome.

I didn’t come up with that description originally, but it does appear to be a good choice based on everything we’ve seen so far in this thread.  Clearly, you don’t have a sense of humour.

Santander may have been able to convince the junior investigator to only look at the T&C and totally ignore the “Free forever” advertising that was fundamental to the understanding of the product, so let’s see whether an actual Ombudsman agrees.  Why do you not want to see that happen?

Even if that fails, then we will have our day in court and see whether Santander can convince a judge of their argument.

amyfairweather

Renfrewman said:

amyfairweather said:

Renfrewman said:

amyfairweather said:

Renfrewman said:

Section62 said:

Lightning360 said:

I still don't understand how people are fighting it. The terms and conditions you agreed to are really clear about it 

It isn't just the letter of the T&C's, whether they are being applied fairly is also relevant.  The FOS investigator(s) make this point.  Fairness is subjective - the investigator(s) have expressed their view on what is fair, other people will have different ideas about fairness.  It may be that an Ombudsman (or court) will have the view that promising one thing, then doing another (even if allowed by the T&C's) is not fair.

Since it costs the complainant nothing but a few minutes to ask for a final decision from the Ombudsman, there's no good reason not to.

No good reason? That's not for you to decide for someone else. If someone decides not to take it further that's for them to decide not you. You have no clue about any other individuals personal circumstances.

Why the attitude/aggression?

Do you fear an Ombudsman may take a different viewpoint than the junior investigator?  If so, why?

Section62 is correct, the complainant has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Look in a mirror. Pot/kettle. When people start call others fanboys they have lost.

The fact you’re complaining about being called a fanboy means you know you’re a fanboy.

Next.

You know there is a saying about there's a time to stop digging?

Yes and you should take that advice.

For some reason, you don't want an actual Ombudsman to rule on this issue.  I ask again, why is that?

The two complainants may have had enough, and that is their prerogative.  They have been advised (not ordered) to keep going, but it's up to them whether they decide to or not.

In any case, an Ombudsman will be ruling on this matter, I can guarantee you that - whether you like it or not.

It will also be going to the small claims court if said Ombudsman refuses to take into account the “Free forever” advertising that was fundamental to the understanding of the product.

The junior investigator has overlooked the advertising element in both of these (known of) rulings.

born_again

amyfairweather said:

born_again said:

amyfairweather said:

Why the attitude/aggression?

Do you fear an Ombudsman may take a different viewpoint than the junior investigator?  If so, why?

Section62 is correct, the complainant has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Yet you say amyfairweather said:

So, it's yet another 'investigator' (aka Santander fanboy ) response.

You seem to be unable to accept, that any response from FOS that does not suit your view point has to be a "Fanboy" 
Sadly that says a lot about you 🤷‍♀️

Only thing that I pick out of the FOS reply is in the background section where they mention taken out in 2006 with Santander. Which is wrong. As it was with Abbey National.
Still it is only a small point & does not alter the outcome.

I didn’t come up with that description originally, but it does appear to be a good choice based on everything we’ve seen so far in this thread.  Clearly, you don’t have a sense of humour.

Santander may have been able to convince the junior investigator to only look at the T&C and totally ignore the “Free forever” advertising that was fundamental to the understanding of the product, so let’s see whether an actual Ombudsman agrees.  Why do you not want to see that happen?

Even if that fails, then we will have our day in court and see whether Santander can convince a judge of their argument.

I have a good sense of humour. Sorry but calling someone you do not know by that is not even remotely funny.

The person making the decision is a "Investigator", not a junior one, as there is no such thing.

As far as court goes. T/C were changed years ago. So can't see a court case getting anywhere other than costing who brings it money.

I get your upset & challenging this on a point of principal, but sadly that principal went at the last challenge on that point & the change of T/C.

Section62

born_again said:

...
I get your upset & challenging this on a point of principal, but sadly that principal went at the last challenge on that point & the change of T/C.

Again, a brief glance at the investigator's response would show they are of the opinion that Abbey/Santander could introduce charging from when the accounts were opened, the later change to the T&C's is not relevant to this.

The logical extension of this is they could have started to charge whilst simultaneously advertising that the accounts would be 'free forever'.  Because the adverts weren't part of the T&C's.  Apparently this is 'fair'.

GeoffTF

Section62 said:

The logical extension of this is they could have started to charge whilst simultaneously advertising that the accounts would be 'free forever'.  Because the adverts weren't part of the T&C's.  Apparently this is 'fair'.

If someone had complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, they could have forced Abbey or Santander to remove the misleading advertising, but it is too late for that now.

Section62

GeoffTF said:

Section62 said:

The logical extension of this is they could have started to charge whilst simultaneously advertising that the accounts would be 'free forever'.  Because the adverts weren't part of the T&C's.  Apparently this is 'fair'.

If someone had complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, they could have forced Abbey or Santander to remove the misleading advertising, but it is too late for that now.

Didn't someone say that this was outside the remit of the ASA and it would be for the FCA to take action (if any)?

GeoffTF

Section62 said:

GeoffTF said:

Section62 said:

The logical extension of this is they could have started to charge whilst simultaneously advertising that the accounts would be 'free forever'.  Because the adverts weren't part of the T&C's.  Apparently this is 'fair'.

If someone had complained to the Advertising Standards Authority, they could have forced Abbey or Santander to remove the misleading advertising, but it is too late for that now.

Didn't someone say that this was outside the remit of the ASA and it would be for the FCA to take action (if any)?

It is possible. It is outside the remit of the Office of Fair Trading. It is a business account, and if you are in business you are assumed to be able to read and understand Terms and Conditions. It is also not clear that the misleading advertising caused any loss. There was no alternative free for ever account that you could have opened instead, let alone one that is still free forever and no longer accepts new customers. You did not get an account that was free for all eternity, but you did get one that was free for a very long time. You did not do badly. The FOS cited to changes to banking regulations as a reason why introducing the charge was fair.

neilsedaka

GeoffTF said:

You did not get an account that was free for all eternity, but you did get one that was free for a very long time.

What is the difference between "forever" and "all eternity" and "very long time" please? My interpretation of "forever" is no time limit.

GeoffTF

neilsedaka said:

GeoffTF said:

You did not get an account that was free for all eternity, but you did get one that was free for a very long time.

What is the difference between "forever" and "all eternity" and "very long time" please? My interpretation of "forever" is no time limit.

Forever and all eternity are the same. A very long time was 10 to 20 years, in this case. The advertising said that it was not really forever. The original and subsequent Terms and Conditions said that the bank could impose a charge or close the account whenever it pleased.