Santander freezing accounts - Unfair Terms -any ideas?

muddymeadow

This posting has a suggestion which may be useful and a request for information.

Our accounts containing some £119,000 have been frozen since February 2026 and are still frozen over 4 months later.

Santander refuse to say why or whether some investigations they claim to be doing will end, and our savings be released, before the next Ice Age. The Abingdon police won’t act as for theft the deprivation has to be permanent. CIFAS say no marker indicating suspicious activity has been put on our accounts. High Court action to get the money back will be legally expensive; especially as Santander have kept a lot of our savings

My suggestion is that current account balances should be kept to a minimum and that everyone should make sure that their big savings, for things like elderly care, are with a separate banking group altogether. Having a second current account with a different bank, to which standing orders and similar can be transferred, would also reduce the stress caused by such raids.

Santander appear to be relying on page 18 of the 50 pages of their General Terms and Conditions which allows them to cause problems where:-
“Allowing you to access your account might cause us to break or not follow any law, regulation, court order, code or other duty that applies to us. Or allowing you to do this might mean we or another member of our group could face action or censure by a regulator, government, or law enforcement body in any jurisdiction.”

This, to me, appears to be a patently unfair term and condition (S62(4) Consumer Rights Act 2015) as, to agree to it, every customer must know all the regulations of all the governments and other agencies in the world and which government or other agency Santander will seek to comply with that day.
As such I have reported it to the Financial Services Authority.

I find it difficult to believe that such a glaring unfair term has been allowed to go unchallenged for so long or that the FSA has been unaware of it.
My question is therefore “Do you know of anyone who has reported this and, if so, what was the outcome?”

flaneurs_lobster

You say "our accounts", are the frozen accounts personal or business?

Agree that having more than one bank account with more than one banking group is a good idea for the reasons you explain.

Not sure that making a complaint about the fairness of a bank's terms will make the slightest difference to your individual case, especially when that clause just says that the bank will act lawfully wherever they do business.

elsien

If they have a suspicion as to money laundering (as an example) they are not going to tell you that.
Alternatively, have you been using the account in a way that breaches the terms and conditions such as using a personal account for business? Although that normally leads to account closure rather than a drawn out investigation.

tacpot12

They are acting lawfully, so you won't win on fairness. However, I do think that banks should be under an oblication to complete their investigations promptly. I would be making a complaint to them about the time it has taken - if it has taken 4 months then there is clearly no evidence of money laundering, and then to the Financial Ombudsman. I would be writing to my MP to ask why the time that can be spent on investigations isn't limited.

dunstonh

Santander refuse to say why or whether some investigations they claim to be doing will end, and our savings be released, before the next Ice Age.

By law, they're not allowed to tell you.

The Abingdon police won’t act as for theft the deprivation has to be permanent.

The police won't act in AML investigations unless they're asked to do so by the bank.

My suggestion is that current account balances should be kept to a minimum and that everyone should make sure that their big savings, for things like elderly care, are with a separate banking group altogether. Having a second current account with a different bank, to which standing orders and similar can be transferred, would also reduce the stress caused by such raids.

An alternative is to think about what transactions you've done that have triggered a fraud or AML investigation into your banking habits. And then avoid those types of transactions.

Santander appear to be relying on page 18 of the 50 pages of their General Terms and Conditions which allows them to cause problems where:-

No, they're relying on the anti-money laundering regulations.

This, to me, appears to be a patently unfair term and condition (S62(4) Consumer Rights Act 2015) as, to agree to it, every customer must know all the regulations of all the governments and other agencies in the world and which government or other agency Santander will seek to comply with that day.
As such I have reported it to the Financial Services Authority.

The Financial Services Authority hasn't existed for a number of years. Its replacement requires banks to follow the AML requirements and rules which the FCA enforces. So you've effectively complained to a predecessor regulator that Santander are following the current regulators' regulations and guidelines.

Unfair terms and conditions do not apply to AML.

The Financial Conduct Authority, which is the current regulator, does not handle consumer complaints. You have to use the regulated complaints process first. That will then allow you to follow up with the Financial Ombudsman Service. The FOS will not be able to intervene with a fraud/AML investigation. However, it will be able to ascertain that the time taken is reasonable for the work required. They will not disclose to you anything about the investigation, as that would be unlawful.

muddymeadow

Many thanks to those who have commented on this one.

It’s good to see that customers separating their current account banks and big money banks appears to meet with approval.

To sort out some misunderstandings.
1 Wrongdoing?

My wife and I have done nothing different this year than we did last year, so it is difficult to guess what Santander are using as an excuse to keep our money, as opposed to de-banking us.
She has been in Surfers Against Sewage - maybe classed as terrorists now?
I have been on pro Gaza demonstrations at RAF/USAF Fairford. Not arrested or anything and the US ranks appear not to be too happy with the legality or otherwise of their current war.
Last year, as in some previous years, we met our Iranian friends (art administrator and choir organiser) in Turkey. We took euros to pay for their trip as their exchange rate is bad. They kept the surplus to help with a summerhouse they are building and which we hope to stay in one day. (Rolling countryside – like the Cotswolds – I have seen it) Santander asked us about this in November 2026, are aware of the persons and project involved and closed the case on 26 November without any indication that they thought we had done anything wrong.

2 Terms and conditions
I suggest that customers expect a business trading as Santander UK to be subject to UK law and regulations. As it is the page 18 terms enable Santander to choose whatever jurisdiction it wishes and to vary this as often as it pleases. This is the unfair contract terms part. This is supposed to be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, who I notified via their online form for that purpose. The Competition and Markets Authority can also get involved in this type of case.
The purpose of the post was to see whether anyone else has reported it.

masonic

"I suggest that customers expect a business trading as Santander UK to be subject to UK law and regulations."

That is certainly the case, and it is UK law and regulations that has compelled them to act in the way they have done.

The new information you've shared about Iranian connections, a trip to Turkey and delivery of cash seems very relevant to this situation, whereas membership of Surfers Against Sewage, not so much!

If I hand-delivered a suitcase of cash to a couple of Iranians in a meet-up in Turkey, I'd not be at all surprised to find myself on a list.

flaneurs_lobster

1. Someone who is better versed in the law might like to comment on whether passing funds from the UK to Iranian citizens is against The Iran (Sanctions) Regulations 2023 made under section 55(3) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

muddymeadow

Santander are aware of the names and addresses of the individuals and have seen a photo of the summerhouse. Our friends are not on the UK sanctions list and are, as far as I know (and have known then for about 18 years) involved in activities sanctioned under UK regulations. Our solicitor has checked these things.

masonic

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82060541#Comment_82060541

Under The Iran (Sanctions) Regulations 2023 mentioned by @flaneurs_lobster, banks face severe criminal penalties if they allow funds to flow, directly or indirectly, to sanctioned entities. While your friends might not be on a sanctions list, a bank has no way to audit physical cash handed over in a meet-up on neutral ground for transport into Iran. If any of that cash is spent on building materials from a supplier or contractor with ties to a designated group, it breaches UK law. But you and Santander have no way of knowing what happened to that cash. It could have been used for anything.

When you explained this to Santander, they would have been legally obliged to file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) with the National Crime Agency, which it appears they have done.

The 4-month timeline also provides some more insight. A bank cannot legally hold your money this long on its own authority. Under the Proceeds of Crime Act, a freeze of this duration requires a Crown Court Judge to grant a formal extension based on an active law enforcement investigation.

Isthisforreal99

So how many Euro are we talking that you took with you to Turkey?

'As far as you know', so you have no idea in reality?