Santander freezing accounts - Unfair Terms -any ideas?

muddymeadow

This is probably where we came in…

The original post was about whether others had noticed the Santander General condition on page 18/50 being so widely drawn that its customers could not be expected to have the knowledge required to knowingly accept it. This could put it in contravention of Consumer Rights Legislation and invalidate any actions based on it.

Here it is apparent that Santander UK is seeking to obey US rules on Iran rather than UK ones. The difference is that the US appears to have a ban on all Iranians whilst the UK sanctions are limited to named individuals and organisations. Next week Santander could force its UK customers to obey Mexican rules when sending money to Spain. There is no way the customer, who thought they were banking with a UK bank, will be told.

This is a sovereignty thing for the UK authorities, who claim not to have withdrawn from the JCPOA arrangements for Iran but have failed to arrange a payments system to replace the US dominated ones.

As to the events on this one.

Santander refused to do a transfer as they knew it would help our (non-UK sanctioned) Iranian friends. There is a difference between the bank doing a transfer and a customer getting cash out of the bank. Many people may get cash out to pay barbers where the proceeds may well end up where the USA is unhappy.

If Santander were unhappy with our activities following their Know Your Customer Teams enquiries last year, they have had plenty of time to de-bank us and give us our money back. As it was, we answered their questions, including about euro currency exchange, they considered things, ended their investigation and we assumed they were happy.

The next we discovered was the freezing of our accounts, about 2 weeks before the USA attacked Iran. Santander refuse to say why or how long they will keep our money for, which could make the difference between it being an unauthorised overdraft and theft.

I take the point that Santander UK could be being controlled by others, but "Only obeying orders" does not absolve them of responsibility for harassing people who have broken no UK laws. It could be that overbearing behaviour by the authorities is causing banks who are reluctant to comply, to close.

In the meantime, all we can do is warn others.

artyboy

This is veering extremely close to a political debate. There are many areas where it could be argued that the UK/US 'relationship' is imbalanced - sanctions application being one (another obvious one being extradition…).

This is not just a Santander thing. If you can find a UK bank that will happily ignore US sanctions for you just because you are not a US citizen, then I would be rather surprised…

poseidon1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82066591#Comment_82066591

On the general issue of ceding sovereignty to America on financial policing matters, the UK (as well 109 other countries) quietly and passively signed agreements with America to implement FATCA.

This accrued zero benefit to the countries concerned, but gives rise to significant ongoing compliance costs on financial institutions across the world, for the sole benefit of the IRS.

https://www.regnology.net/en/resources/regulatory-topics/fatca/

artyboy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82066791#Comment_82066791

Well exactly, there are plenty of examples… but the key point is that the OPs ire is misdirected at the bank here. Yes it might be something in their account T&Cs, but what option do they really have, in this political/legislative environment?

Incidentally, I stand by my original comments to this thread that the overall process for AML investigations fails the average customer when they find themselves trapped in an interminable and unaccountable Kafka-esque web of silence. But as more facts in this specific case have emerged, I really do think that the OP rather has themselves to blame here…

poseidon1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82066836#Comment_82066836

Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe the OP put their own heads in a regulatory noose here.

My comment no way downplays the natural consequences of their naivety.

Merely pointing out that with regard to FATCA , UK citizens are being inconvenienced in going about their daily ( innocent ) financial activities hampered by processes and procedures imposed on their financial institutions.

Worth pointing out that FATCA professionally touched a nerve with me in that it specifically hampered my work, and increased the annual cost of compliance in the administration of UK family trusts.

artyboy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82066912#Comment_82066912

…and as someone that was involved in having to implement FATCA compliance within a bank, I can assure you it was a pain in the @rse on both sides!

poseidon1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82066953#Comment_82066953

You and me both then!