Nigel Farage and that bank account...

[DustyBin]

Rather than worrying about famed man of the people Nigel Farage (who had an account closed with the same bank that the Royal Family use, not exactly you common high street bank) and the "WOKE BANKING LOBBY", I'd be rather more worried about the issues facing politicians of all stripes and ordinary people who get caught up in byzantine arrangements of anti-fraud and money laundering provisions.

But yes, lets all go on and on about poor Mr Farage instead...

"I don't pretend to be a man of the people, senator, but I do try to be a man for the people." (Gladiator, 2000).

I think that's how Farage would describe himself.

All I can say is, if the press spent as much effort in fighting the real problems of the contemporary UK, such as the state of the NHS, the cost of living, the state of public services in general, and potential threats to job security from automation and recent developments in AI, as they did feeling sorry for poor oppressed Nigel Farage, the country would be a much better place.

I'm playing devils advocate to an extent here, but these are exactly the kind of issues he sought to address. Whether you agree with his assessment of the underlying problem(s) is of course a different matter....

 

[Parjon]

From what I've seen of people asking for advice online when their accounts are randomly frozen the usual problem is the complete lack of any information about what's going on and how long it might take for things to get unfrozen. If you ring the bank they'll just remain tight lipped. If you've only got the one bank account this can rapidly cause serious issues.

This will mostly be driven by law around "tipping off". If someone is under investigation of money laundering it is illegal to let them know this.

It's a pretty absurd position to put both parties in. I doubt that any career criminal wouldn't instantly know what is going on the moment their card stops working, while it prevents any bank staff from giving updates if they could.

Leaving people without money to survive is a clear sign that it is a poorly made and implemented law.

And given the scale of money laundering now operated in broad daylight, as open secrets, it's also ineffective for anything other than allowing the government to claim they're dealing with it.

 

[A0]

Now I will make clear that I find Farage a thoroughly unpleasant and unappetising person, but he has the right to have a bank account like everybody else, except if he has been involved in various forms of financial or related misbehaviour, which I am not aware that he has. However, lots of people have lost their bank accounts over the years for various reasons, some very trivial, and nobody with influence has cared a jot or done a thing, but the moment the right’s darling is threatened with losing his account (*) they go completely bananas and demand action. I find that to be rank hypocrisy, but no more than one expects nowadays: special treatment for our chums and ***** to you plebs.

Coutts sees itself as the top peoples’ bank with a select clientele (something I have very mixed feelings about). If they feel that his words and actions are below the standards that they expect of their clients to an extent that their association with him could damage their reputation, why can they not ask him to take his money elsewhere?

* - Did they actually deny him a bank account in any part of the group or did they merely request that he move his account to a run-of-the-mill NatWest branch? If that is true, then he still would have had a bank account, just one he can’t boast about so much.

I think there's a balance needed here. Banks are within their rights to close accounts for *commercial* reasons, so somebody laundering money, engaging in criminal activity or being a repeatedly poor credit risk. Those are all easily defined criteria and can be applied equally to anyone.

The issue here is the reasons Nat West gave for closing his Coutts account wasn't that - they considered and commented on his political and social views. The banks cannot discriminate in that way against an individual (yes, I'm aware they have against some charities, but the equality legislation is only about individuals, not companies or organisations).

Where you're being disingenuous is arguing it's about one of "the right's darling(s)" - Would NW have cancelled the Coutts account of a prominent remainer ? Of course not - because the align with the banks views on these matters - that's the problem at present is some large businesses are too focused on promoting what they perceive as the "right" social views and policies. When that then leads them to discriminate against people who don't share those views, that's a problem.

The cleverer people on the left have realised the risks of Nat West's behaviour on this matter and it's the reason why some of them have kept quiet. They don't want to align with or promote Farage's case, but they do recognise that this could so easily have been about one of their "darlings" and that it's not really acceptable for a bank to close somebody's account on the basis of their views, in the same way it wouldn't be acceptable on the basis of their gender, race, sexual orientation or any number of other things.

Where NW really got it wrong was their CEO briefing a BBC journalist directly and being less than honest about it. Had a counter assistant made a similar disclosure about somebody's account they would have been fired without question - the rules have to apply from the junior staff to the CEO - they didn't. The bigger issue is the board didn't see that and backed the CEO, when in reality they should have fired her for such disclosures, not allowed her the option to resign.

 

[Broucek]

I feel like the indentity of the victim has clounded everyone's judgement on this. Surely, the key points are the following?

• No one should be "de-banked" because of their views. Even convicted criminals are allowed to have bank accounts
• Bank officials of any seniority should not be briefing journalists about customers even if those customers have themselves gone to the media

All the other stuff is just noise and yet that's often what's heard....

 

[duncanp]

I don't understand your last sentence, the Post Office is state owned.

I meant the Royal Mail.

I think the legislation that privatised the Royal Mail removed the obligation on the post office to provide everyone with a bank account.

Or at least that is my understanding based on what I have heard on TV over the past few days.

 

[A0]

"NF helps Muslims with bank accounts"

(Given the government is looking at being in rules to say that everyone will have to be given a reason why they are refused a bank account, and they are most likely to be refused banking services).

Oborne's wide of the mark - the reason many muslims struggled was their religious position on usury and the requirements of sharia law, which the banks struggled to meet. Lloyds did for a time offer an account which met this, but don't any longer. Muslims who I've worked with have had no issue banking with one of the big 4 banks - so it's an issue for a certain set of muslim's and their demands.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2023 ==

I meant the Royal Mail.

I think the legislation that privatised the Royal Mail removed the obligation on the post office to provide everyone with a bank account.

Or at least that is my understanding based on what I have heard on TV over the past few days.

I think you're wrong.

Post Office was separated from Royal Mail on 1st April 2012.

The banking side of the Post Office changed long before that - National Girobank had been privatised and sold to Alliance & Leicester Building Society in 1989.

Post Office savings now NS&I have never offered a current account - they have only ever offered savings and investments.

In 2013 the Post Office relaunched a series of bank accounts, but they never had an obligation to provide an account to anyone. It was done on a commercial basis and it was using the Bank of Ireland for the banking licence etc with the Post Office simply offering their brand on BoI products and services.

 

[crablab]

Equally I do actually think there's a good point about the way banks can close (or freeze) accounts with no information as to the reasons.

It's not that they *can*, they have to. Banks have to maintain a strict AML regime and there are processes around that.
It would be 'tipping off' to tell someone they were suspected of various behaviours, which carries criminal penalties for not just the MLRO (Money Laundering Reporting Officer) but others.

To be clear: it is illegal to tell the customer pretty much anything except their account currently isn't working. The same can apply to PEP/sanctions screening failures.

There was a question about what happens to the money in the account in that situation, and that depends on various things.
If the funds are to be returned to the customer upon account closure it is likely a DAML (Defence Against Money Laundering) will need to be obtained from the NCA before anything can happen (the bank would be committing ML offences if it moved or allowed suspect funds to move, so they require legal indemnity) - that's often the cause of the delay to defunding and exiting an account.
Otherwise the funds might be returned to source, the NCA might get a court order to seize them etc.

It's also important to note that KYC (Know Your Customer) is an ongoing process. Whilst you may be acceptable as a customer upon account opening, the bank will regularly rescreen you and may decide that either their risk appetite has changed or your position has materially changed. They would be under no obligation to continue to offer an account in these circumstances, but they must continue to treat customers fairly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2023 ==

No one should be "de-banked" because of their views. Even convicted criminals are allowed to have bank accounts

Depends if they had a CIFAS marker or not.

 

[duncanp]

Oborne's wide of the mark - the reason many muslims struggled was their religious position on usury and the requirements of sharia law, which the banks struggled to meet. Lloyds did for a time offer an account which met this, but don't any longer. Muslims who I've worked with have had no issue banking with one of the big 4 banks - so it's an issue for a certain set of muslim's and their demands.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2023 ==



I think you're wrong.

Post Office was separated from Royal Mail on 1st April 2012.

The banking side of the Post Office changed long before that - National Girobank had been privatised and sold to Alliance & Leicester Building Society in 1989.

Post Office savings now NS&I have never offered a current account - they have only ever offered savings and investments.

In 2013 the Post Office relaunched a series of bank accounts, but they never had an obligation to provide an account to anyone. It was done on a commercial basis and it was using the Bank of Ireland for the banking licence etc with the Post Office simply offering their brand on BoI products and services.

I was only going by what I heard on TV over the past few days, so I may well have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

If there is an obligation to provide a bank account under current legislation then the banks need to be reminded of that, because there are examples of people being left without a bank account.

If there is no obligation to provide a bank account under current legislation, then the law needs to be changed as soon as possible.

 

[Bayum]

Can anyone confirm whether or not Farage indeed had less money in his account that the bank would accept? The politics aspect is shocking but if the foremost reason was the level of funds then it at least gives me something to smile about.

Just goes to show that even the clowns wishing to run this country have money above and beyond the mere mortals.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Of course they "freeze" an account on death, however money (ie. interest, outstanding pensions) still gets paid in, in my experience nothing went out (outstanding payments) until probate when the money is then released to the executioner.

Think you meant to say the 'executor'.

Autocorrupt in play once again?

Don't think money has been released to executioners for quite some time now.

 

[A0]

I was only going by what I heard on TV over the past few days, so I may well have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

If there is an obligation to provide a bank account under current legislation then the banks need to be reminded of that, because there are examples of people being left without a bank account.

If there is no obligation to provide a bank account under current legislation, then the law needs to be changed as soon as possible.

There isn't an obligation to do so - and I'm not sure it should be legislated that it should either as the costs will simply be passed onto everybody else.

Very few people are unable to open a baisc bank account at any of the major banks.

As Citizen's Advice puts it https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/d... you're bankrupt or,open a basic bank account.

If you're bankrupt or have a record of fraud, you will not usually be allowed to open a bank account. Also, you may be refused permission to open a current account if you have a poor credit rating. However, if you're bankrupt or have a poor credit rating, you may be able to open a basic bank account.

A bank or building society isn't allowed to open an account for someone who needs leave under the Immigration Rules to enter or stay in the UK but who doesn't have it, for example, someone who has entered the UK illegally or who has 'overstayed' after their visa has run out. If you are in this category you also can't be added to someone else's account as a joint account holder or be a signatory or beneficiary in relation to any account.

 

[duncanp]

There isn't an obligation to do so - and I'm not sure it should be legislated that it should either as the costs will simply be passed onto everybody else.

Very few people are unable to open a baisc bank account at any of the major banks.

As Citizen's Advice puts it https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/banking/getting-a-bank-account/#:~:text=If you're bankrupt or,open a basic bank account.

Your quote from Citizens Advice says that someone who has gone bankrupt or been convicted of fraud may be allowed to open a basic bank account.

I think that should be changed to say that the banks are obligated to open a basic bank account for anyone, even if they have a conviction for fraud or have been declared bankrupt.

Restrictions can be placed on that account (ie. no overdraft, or a limit on deposits and withdrawals) to make sure that fraud or bankruptcy in the future is very difficult or impossible.

The law also needs to be overhauled to make sure that no-one can be de-banked because of their views on politics, or any other subject.

 

[Silenos]

No one should be "de-banked" because of their views.

That’s perhaps more tricky than it sounds. Banks are, after all, commercial entities, and subject to some extent to market forces, including reputational risk. If someone with genuinely repulsive views or history became known to be a customer, one can see that it might lead to other customers moving their money out of the bank and significantly impacting its bottom line. Perhaps the state needs to be the bank provider of last resort, so that if you are, I don’t know, an advocate for executing gay people or eating babies then you can always get a bank account with the Bank of England.

 

[A0]

Your quote from Citizens Advice says that someone who has gone bankrupt or been convicted of fraud may be allowed to open a basic bank account.

I think that should be changed to say that the banks are obligated to open a basic bank account for anyone, even if they have a conviction for fraud or have been declared bankrupt.

Restrictions can be placed on that account (ie. no overdraft, or a limit on deposits and withdrawals) to make sure that fraud or bankruptcy in the future is very difficult or impossible.

The law also needs to be overhauled to make sure that no-one can be de-banked because of their views on politics, or any other subject.

No change needed - the Equality Legislation already covers that - and before anyone comments it doesn't state political views as a protected characteristic, case law has already been passed in this area.

Political beliefs at work protected by the Equality Act - Stephens Scown

Political beliefs at work protected by the Equality Act A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case, GMB v Henderson, has confirmed that the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) affords protection from discrimination - Visit Stephens Scown to read more.

www.stephens-scown.co.uk

A recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case, GMB v Henderson, has confirmed that the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) affords protection from discrimination relating to philosophical/political beliefs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2023 ==

That’s perhaps more tricky than it sounds. Banks are, after all, commercial entities, and subject to some extent to market forces, including reputational risk. If someone with genuinely repulsive views or history became known to be a customer, one can see that it might lead to other customers moving their money out of the bank and significantly impacting its bottom line. Perhaps the state needs to be the bank provider of last resort, so that if you are, I don’t know, an advocate for executing gay people or eating babies then you can always get a bank account with the Bank of England.

I disagree - banks should be able to remove accounts for commercial reasons only (which includes where fraud or criminality has been taking place).

And individual's personal views are just that - their personal views - and it is not permissable to deny service on the basis you "don't like their views".

 

[Silenos]

I'm playing devils advocate to an extent here, but these are exactly the kind of issues he sought to address.

I think the issue he is seeking to address is ensuring his appearance in the media as extensively as possible - after all, it must be very disappointing not to be constantly on the BBC any more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2023 ==

I disagree - banks should be able to remove accounts for commercial reasons only (which includes where fraud or criminality has been taking place).

Even when it results in the collapse of the bank, sure.

 

[jon0844]

Can anyone confirm whether or not Farage indeed had less money in his account that the bank would accept? The politics aspect is shocking but if the foremost reason was the level of funds then it at least gives me something to smile about.

Just goes to show that even the clowns wishing to run this country have money above and beyond the mere mortals.

I am not sure it really matters. My grandfather banked with Coutts and wouldn't have qualified by their current criteria. It has been said that many other account holders don't qualify either, but the bank doesn't just terminate accounts if they have no issue with the client.

Clearly they don't like Nigel Farage, which is fair enough and the whole debate comes down to whether a private bank can choose who it allows to bank with them. I suspect I'd fail to get an account it I applied.

Ultimately, Nigel hasn't named the ten supposed banks that also refused him, but NatWest would take him, so he was not debanked. He just had his accounts closed, and after being given notice.

 

[MikeWM]

I think a lawyer needs to look at these regulations and give an opinion as to whether they confer a legal right to at least a basic banking account to anyone who is legally resident in the UK.

If the regulations do confer such a right, the government needs to spell this out to the banks, and reiterate that they must not close a customer's account if such a closure would lead to the customer being unable to access basic banking services.

I had a quick look, but I read enough regulations during covid to last me a lifetime and so I'm not sure I want to dive *too* deeply into these.

I guess the questions are whether they have any teeth, and if those teeth have ever actually been used. It is increasingly clear that quite a number of people have been 'debanked', have there been any consequences for the banks that did so, until now?

--

If I can take Farage out of the topic, I worry about "debanking" myself.

What exactly happens to your money if a bank decided to "debank" you out of nowhere for no good reason? You are supposed to be informed (what if you miss that information), do they send you a cheque with your balance, or do they just hold the money as long as they like (and pocket the interest)?

Farage had a Tory MP on his GBNews show last night who had his accounts closed over a year ago and hasn't got his money back yet (!). And that's a Tory MP, who presumably has connections and some degree of influence, so I've no idea what chance a regular person has of ever seeing their money again.

Worried so much that I might go to one of my building societies and ask for a current account, debit and credit card as back-up. At least if bank "A" closes, I can fall back on bank "B" as long as all accounts aren't closed in common.

I opened a second current account a few months ago. Not for this reason, but actually it isn't a bad reason to do so.

--

I feel like the indentity of the victim has clounded everyone's judgement on this. Surely, the key points are the following?

• No one should be "de-banked" because of their views. Even convicted criminals are allowed to have bank accounts
• Bank officials of any seniority should not be briefing journalists about customers even if those customers have themselves gone to the media

All the other stuff is just noise and yet that's often what's heard....

Yes. There's a bit of a paradox here, in that the media are so useless nowadays that it takes someone with the marmite reputation of Farage to bring the issue to public attention - at which point we end up discussing Farage rather than the underlying issue. But without Farage speaking up in the first place, this would have bubbled along for a lot longer without it being noticed.

My opinion is that, nowadays at least, bank accounts are rather closer to an essential utility than to a high-street store or a pub, and should be subject to the extra protections that utilities have. It would be bizarre for someone's electricity to be cut off because of their political views (or at least it would appear bizarre *now*, who knows what extra nonsense will be normalised in the near future?) and banking seems similar to that.

That needs to apply to business accounts too, as I've mentioned a number of times here. People shouldn't have their ability to do business pulled from under them like this either.

 

[Broucek]

I disagree - banks should be able to remove accounts for commercial reasons only (which includes where fraud or criminality has been taking place).

This. Banking is an essential service and the idea that "views" should disqualify someone (and it's not just Farage that has had bother) is a terrifying slippery slope...

We should also perhaps be humble enough to recognise that the views of society change over time. What if banks 50+ years ago had closed the accounts of gay rights activitists because of their (at the time) non-mainstream views?

 

[duncanp]

Farage had a Tory MP on his GBNews show last night who had his accounts closed over a year ago and hasn't got his money back yet (!). And that's a Tory MP, who presumably has connections and some degree of influence, so I've no idea what chance a regular person has of ever seeing their money again.

Nigel Farage also had a Labour MP (Lloyd Russell Mole - Brighton Kemptown) on his show last night. (oops that means I have to admit to watching the program - better not tell my bank )

The MP was complaining that he was asked by his bank for quite unecessary and intrusive details about all his friends and associates, with the threat of his bank account being closed if the information was not provided. He saw this as an over zealous application of the Politically Exposed Person rules. Mr Russell-Mole also said that he had heard from constituents who had been unfairly de-banked for what often were very spurious reasons.

Whatever your political and social views, I think the rules need to be tightened up so that no-one can be completely de-banked in the UK, and the Politically Exposed Person rules need to be amended so that democratically elected representatives are not subjected to over zealous and unwarranted intrusion into their personal lives.

 

[simonw]

It's interesting (to me at least) that PEP rules were enacted in 2017, and yet we have Tory MPs complaining about them. Do they not read bills before voting, or did they think a bill clearly not aimed at "the little people" would apply to them ?

 

[MikeWM]

Nigel Farage also had a Labour MP (Lloyd Russell Mole - Brighton Kemptown) on his show last night.

Yes, indeed. I thought one of the most interesting things that came out of that interview was that he was asked to be on the board of a charity, but then it turned out that this caused the charity all sorts of banking problems and so they needed to ask him to step down. You'd think having an MP on the board of a charity would be a good thing, but not in 2023 it seems!

Was good to see some bipartisanship on this though. Rather better than Rachel Reeves, whose main take from this seems to be to go for the identity politics and say that the attacks on Alison Rose were because she was a woman It is quite impressive that Labour have found someone as shadow chancellor that actually makes Jeremy Hunt look reasonable, and goodness knows that is a tough thing to do.

 

[Silenos]

We should also perhaps be humble enough to recognise that the views of society change over time. What if banks 50+ years ago had closed the accounts of gay rights activitists because of their (at the time) non-mainstream views?

They did. And people lost employment and other things for similar reasons. But since we cannot know what society will consider disgusting in 50 years time (quite possibly driving a private car, or eating meat) it’s not meaningful. The banks have to operate in the society we have now.

That said, I would agree that a bank account, and increasingly a smartphone, are essential services that no-one should be deprived of. But just as no-one seems to be suggesting that Apple or Samsung should be obliged to supply everyone with a mobile, it isn’t clear to me that a commercial bank (and particularly a niche operation like Coutts) should be obliged to supply everyone with an account if that damages their business. For banking services, at least, it should be the state that guarantees their provision for those who cannot otherwise obtain one.

 

[crablab]

Whatever your political and social views, I think the rules need to be tightened up so that no-one can be completely de-banked in the UK, and the Politically Exposed Person rules need to be amended so that democratically elected representatives are not subjected to over zealous and unwarranted intrusion into their personal lives.

There are lots of people that are unbanked because they don't have sufficient ID to open a basic account, no permanent address or a presence on the electoral role. That's been the case for many years.
Are we including them, or does it only include people that used to have an account with Coutts?

The government has prescribed the PEP & Sanctions regime. If you are someone in political life, you should expect to be answered potentially very searching questions to ensure the bank is complying with the requirement to know their customer, and not exceeding their risk appetite.

 

[jfollows]

Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt made it clear that Alison Rose had to go, but Nigel Farage is also right that serious questions need to be answered by NatWest's board - including its non-executive directors - who misguidedly supported Rose last night.

Coutts CEO stands down in Farage bank account row, as Sunak fails to back NatWest chairman Davies – as it happened

Peter Flavel says Coutts fell below its ‘high standards’ in the handling of Nigel Farage’s case, while Rishi Sunak declined to say whether he had confidence in NatWest’s chairman

www.theguardian.com

NatWest, which owns Coutts, has just announced that Peter Flavel will step down immediately.

Paul Thwaite, who was appointed as NatWest Group CEO yesterday after Alison Rose stepped down, says:

“I have agreed with Peter Flavel that he will step down as Coutts CEO and CEO of our Wealth Businesses by mutual consent with immediate effect.
Whilst I will be personally sorry to lose Peter as a colleague, I believe this is the right decision for Coutts and the wider Group.

Mohammad Kamal Syed, the head of Coutts’ asset management team, will step into the role of interim CEO of Coutts, Thwaite says.

Thwaite adds:

Mo has extensive Wealth Management experience and is the ideal person to lead Coutts through this difficult time as we begin the search for Peter’s replacement.”

Earlier this week, Farage called for Flavel to step down, after it emerged that a Coutts dossier showed the former Ukip leader’s bank account was closed after commercial considerations – wealth falling below a threshold – and concerns over his “xenophobic, chauvinistic and racist views”.

EDIT Farage:

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage?re...-earnings-ecb-rates-hsbc-farage-business-live
@Nigel_Farage
·
It was only a matter of time before Peter Flavel, Coutts CEO, stood down. The ultimate responsibility for the dossier de-banking me for my political views lies with him. I even wrote to Mr Flavel twice before going public and didn’t receive an acknowledgment.

 

[Broucek]

There are lots of people that are unbanked because they don't have sufficient ID to open a basic account, no permanent address or a presence on the electoral role. That's been the case for many years.
Are we including them, or does it only include people that used to have an account with Coutts?

Whilst those are undoubtedly serious issues that's ultimately just whataboutery.

The question is whether it's OK to debank someone for their opinions.

To be clear, it's not just Farage and it's not just Coutts

 

[GS250]

Yes we know Farage is a multi millionaire, private school educated marmite character. Part of the elite? Maybe not the ruling status quo but he's been very influential regardless.

However take the Farage factor out of the equation....

So what if banking rapidly gravitates towards the Middle East or Asia where they are generally very socially conservative? What happens then? Does anyone with these 'woke' views get shut down too? Did all those who are presently out dancing in the street re Farage take that into consideration? There was a very sensible discussion on BBC Radio 2 with many right on types actually questioning the bank's decision. They may not publicly approve of Farage...but the 'slippery slope' as mentioned above was the general concern.

Be careful what you wish for...

The bigger concern is how a genuine member of the status quo (the now sacked/resigned CEO) divulged information on a customer. Hope she found playing trendy politics of value to her career.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's funny that a lot of the populist right will say precisely what I'm saying about Farage, about their own personal hate figures from the liberal wealthy, such as Gary Lineker. Yet when their hero Farage is "mistreated", they're up in arms...

Did the ''populist right' seek to have Gary Lineker debanked?

 

[MotCO]

There are a couple of issues which have not been raised on this thread so far.

1. Once Nigel Farage was 'debanked', he was unable to find another bank to open an account for him. Probably this is because when you open an account, you are asked if you have ever been refused a bank account, and so Nigel Farage would have to answer this question truthfully and would be turned down by 10 banks.

2. It is true that Nigel Farage was offered a Natwest bank account, but this was only sometime after he was told he was being 'debanked' and just after he raised this issue publically.

At no point was I offered anything within the group until last Thursday after I had blown the gaff and put the story out in public, and they were obviously panicking.

Nigel Farage hits back at Coutts over claims his bank account had insufficient funds

Leading Brexiteer disputes suggestion he was immediately offered replacement account

www.telegraph.co.uk

He, however, also wanted a business account, and this has not been offered.

3. Just months after she was appointed, Dame Alison announced that “tackling climate change would be a central pillar” of her leadership https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/18/alison-rose-steered-coutts-diversity-drive-nigel-farage/
I thought that the purposes of banks was to protect customers acounts, and to keep the business profitable.Since when was climate change 'a central pillar'?

4. If there are restrictions on who can open or maintain a bank account, then any one wanting to start a new political party or protest group could be refused, thereby meaning that opposition groups could be strangled at birth - you can't receive donations, pay out expenses etc without a bank account. Whether or not you agree with their principles, this cannot be good for democracy.

 

[Howardh]

Think you meant to say the 'executor'.

Autocorrupt in play once again?

Don't think money has been released to executioners for quite some time now.

Although my bank manager would happily be one when he sees my account after buying a rail ticket!!!!

 

[Typhoon]

If I can take Farage out of the topic, I worry about "debanking" myself.

What exactly happens to your money if a bank decided to "debank" you out of nowhere for no good reason? You are supposed to be informed (what if you miss that information), do they send you a cheque with your balance, or do they just hold the money as long as they like (and pocket the interest)?

Worried so much that I might go to one of my building societies and ask for a current account, debit and credit card as back-up. At least if bank "A" closes, I can fall back on bank "B" as long as all accounts aren't closed in common.

I can understand. I did much the same some years ago. I found the new bank (a building society) much more helpful (and 'cheaper' - ie they gave me money, not much put it is the thought) so I started doing more banking with them; the old bank (Big Four) started getting uncooperative (either deliberately or unintentionally- I would have to ask for stuff that had been automatic) so I closed their account and didn't open one elsewhere - a bad move.

There is a story today in the Mail (to give them credit):

My elderly parents in-law had their joint bank account closed by HSBC in December. We don't really understand why but HSBC said it was because of 'safeguarding issues'.

It sent them a cheque with the balance – around £35,000 – but they have no other account to pay it into. Before they told my husband and I in January, they had been living on food they had in the freezer and a small amount of cash borrowed from another relative.

I would describe them as being sheltered and vulnerable. They live in a remote part of the country and have no access to the internet. Between them they have various physical and mental health issues.

Without a bank account they can't access their pensions. They also have no vehicle as they are unable to tax, insure or MOT their car. We are helping them pay for food and bills, but won't be able to afford to much longer.

Full story at https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/my-vulnerable-parents-in-law-were-debanked-by-hsbc/ar-AA1epNFb

I have heard other cases of charities or not for profit organisations unable to get bank accounts (programmes like 'Moneybox', 'You and Yours'). This is not new. Very little publicity though.

The difficulty is that banks are businesses, they need to make money. That is probably why the Big Four bank started being uncooperative - I had some money in the account but not much, one direct debit going out and very occasional payments in and out just to use it. Never paid charges, resisted pressure to take out other services.

I do wonder whether Farage was adventurous in the banks he approached - did they include Santander or TSB, lesser known banks such as AIB, DB UK or Handelsbanken, even Revolut. I am sure one of those would welcome him with open arms.

​

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2023 ==

3. Just months after she was appointed, Dame Alison announced that “tackling climate change would be a central pillar” of her leadership https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/18/alison-rose-steered-coutts-diversity-drive-nigel-farage/
I thought that the purposes of banks was to protect customers acounts, and to keep the business profitable.Since when was climate change 'a central pillar'?

True but it might make the shares more attractive to some investors. (Particularly helpful if HMG wants to sell shares ahead of an election.)