Nigel Farage and that bank account...

[najaB]

If the non-popular group was only undertaking legal activities, and generated profits for the bank, should the bank be worried?

Because the business doesn't want their custom.

Many businesses have policies that determine what activities they will and will not be involved with.

I don't see what the problem is with that?

 

[87 027]

Some banks (notably the Co-operative Bank) have always been up front about their ethical stance but what I find slightly troubling in the SumUp example upthread is it seems to be a case of 'moving the goalposts' and citing regulatory requirements as the justification when it seems more of an excuse. I am also aware of small charities and community groups finding it increasingly onerous to deal with the banking system. I am the treasurer of a small charity and had to jump through hoops to get a card reader so we could accept card as well as cash at fundraising events.

 

[edwin_m]

Because the business doesn't want their custom.

Many businesses have policies that determine what activities they will and will not be involved with.

I don't see what the problem is with that?

The problem seems to be that more and more banks and other businesses are establishing their own policies on who they will do business with. If they all do that, certain individuals/businesses will be denied the facilities they need to exist in modern society. Although I sympathise with the ethical stance, it is troubling if it prevents people undertaking legal activities.

Maybe if there was a law that banks couldn't turn down provision of basic services on moral grounds, and this was well known, then the general public would understand that banks weren't able to do this and in turn the public would be less likely to blame the banks for enabling activities they disapprove of. It could apply to other businesses too.

 

[najaB]

Maybe if there was a law that banks couldn't turn down provision of basic services on moral grounds

There is.

As stated several times, the nine largest banks have to provide a basic bank account for anyone who applies for one, and can only decline if the customer fails identity checks, or is believed to be applying fraudulently.

If they deny service then they must give a clear answer as to why.

 

[edwin_m]

There is.

As stated several times, the nine largest banks have to provide a basic bank account for anyone who applies for one, and can only decline if the customer fails identity checks, or is believed to be applying fraudulently.

If they deny service then they must give a clear answer as to why.

As far as I can tell from this thread, the above only applies to personal accounts (at least several people have said so and I don't recall anyone providing evidence to the contrary). I was thinking more of businesses.

 

[Killingworth]

There is.

As stated several times, the nine largest banks have to provide a basic bank account for anyone who applies for one, and can only decline if the customer fails identity checks, or is believed to be applying fraudulently.

If they deny service then they must give a clear answer as to why.

They have to freeze your account if you are a foreign national and the government imposes sanction on your country In years gone by that happened to totally innocent students from.both Iran and Iraq at different times.

Managing without any banking facilities in the modern world makes life unbearable, especially when you have funds in the bank to cover the year ahead and can't touch it.

There are many cross currents that can emerge from all of this.

 

[najaB]

I was thinking more of businesses.

Again, businesses aren't people and don't have rights (in the same way that people do).

And to the argument that banks shouldn't be able to turn down business accounts on moral grounds, consider the flip side: companies shouldn't be forced to conduct business with individuals/organisations that go against their ethical position.

 

[MotCO]

So if no bank wants to open an account with a legal hunting group, what does that group do?

No one seems to be able to provide an answer to this question.

 

[PeterC]

Bit in bold - and that's no different to the Co-operative Bank's long standing position on not offering banking services to companies involved in gambling for example.

Where it's a commercially based decision and applied equally i.e. the Co-operative don't offer to gambling companies, Monzo don't offer to political parties - that's fine, because equality legislation doesn't apply to commercial relationships, it does however apply to an individual's ability to access goods and services and makes it clear that a service provider cannot discriminate against an individual.

I don't know how political parties are structured legally but there has been a problem for several years with debanking or at least not opening accounts for organisations that don't fit a standard corporate structure.

I know of unincorporated community groups in a variety of fields that have had problems.

 

[najaB]

No one seems to be able to provide an answer to this question.

Does the hunting group have a right to a bank account?

 

[edwin_m]

Again, businesses aren't people and don't have rights (in the same way that people do).

And to the argument that banks shouldn't be able to turn down business accounts on moral grounds, consider the flip side: companies shouldn't be forced to conduct business with individuals/organisations that go against their ethical position.

But what about cases such as wedding caterers who don't do business with gay couples? Some (not me) would consider that an ethical position too.

I do agree there is no easy answer here. Farage has drawn attention to this issue, but as such a controversial person he's muddied the waters considerably due to the strong possibility that he's trying to stoke a culture war rather than honestly wanting to highlight a genuine problem. This makes it more difficult for people with a liberal attitude to make a clear moral judgment.

 

[MotCO]

Does the hunting group have a right to a bank account?

if they have a right to exist, surely they must have a bank account to exist. It doesn't matter if they are a hunting group, eco-protest group, religious sect or anything, if they are legal, why can't they have a bank account? To be denied a bank account, it seems as though someone is saying that their opinion / the opinion of the bank is more correct than the law.

 

[najaB]

But what about cases such as wedding caterers who don't do business with gay couples? Some (not me) would consider that an ethical position too.

Well, individuals have protections that businesses don't.

But I actually think that businesses should be free to refuse business in situations like that, provided that they're willing to wear their bigotry out loud (eg. via a prominently publicised policy).

if they have a right to exist, surely they must have a bank account to exist.

Where is that right enshrined in law?

 

[duncanp]

Well, individuals have protections that businesses don't.

But I actually think that businesses should be free to refuse business in situations like that, provided that they're willing to wear their bigotry out loud (eg. via a prominently publicised policy).

Where is that right enshrined in law?

If there is no right enshrined in law for a legally operated business to have a bank account, then there ought to be.

It is not the job of a bank or financial institution to pass a moral judgement on the activities of a particular business or organisation, as long as that business operates within the law.

If businesses and organisations don't have the same protection as individuals, then the implications are quite worrying.

 

[MotCO]

Where is that right enshrined in law?

I was referring to the fact that if an organisation, such as a hunting group, an anti-abortion group, religious sect etc, is not illegal, it must have a right to exist. It is not so much enshrined in law as not banned in law. Therefore, to function properly, it needs a bank account. Why should a bank refuse them a bank account, unless the bank has previously publically said it is anti-hunting or whatever? The chances are that all banks adopt a similar stance is probably remote.

 

[Killingworth]

I was referring to the fact that if an organisation, such as a hunting group, an anti-abortion group, religious sect etc, is not illegal, it must have a right to exist. It is not so much enshrined in law as not banned in law. Therefore, to function properly, it needs a bank account. Why should a bank refuse them a bank account, unless the bank has previously publically said it is anti-hunting or whatever? The chances are that all banks adopt a similar stance is probably remote.

One reason is that if the bank does it may get pilloried with all sorts of protests, sit-ins, picketing, graffiti, and cyber attacks

 

[edwin_m]

One reason is that if the bank does it may get pilloried with all sorts of protests, sit-ins, picketing, graffiti, and cyber attacks

Maybe that would be less likely if there was a law that banks had to offer legal businesses basic banking services, and the banks could turn round and say they were legally obliged to provide services to that business.

 

[duncanp]

One reason is that if the bank does it may get pilloried with all sorts of protests, sit-ins, picketing, graffiti, and cyber attacks

I don't think a bank or financial institution should let itself be bullied into refusing services to any organisation by those who are opposed to that organisation.

In any case, who a particular business banks with is confidential, unless that business choses to make the information public.

 

[Busaholic]

While I basically agree with this, I'd say what about utility companies? Should the water company be able to shut off my water if they don't like my politics?

Your water company can't cut off your water permanently under any circumstances if there is evidence of occupation: this includes business accounts. I should know - my water company sends me a 'notice of disconnection' every three months as regular as clockwork. Equally regularly I tear the letter up and recycle it. Do I not pay my bills? Yes, I pay the amount consumed every quarter to the penny, based on my water meter reading done by them. What I will not pay are the so-called historical arrears they are claiming from some years ago which they know I dispute but they refuse to negotiate about. These amount to a four figure sum, but we both know they'll never attempt to escalate it.

 

[najaB]

Why should a bank refuse them a bank account, unless the bank has previously publically said it is anti-hunting or whatever? The chances are that all banks adopt a similar stance is probably remote.

And there's your answer. If a bank determines that it is financially viable to provide them an account it will. If no bank so determines, then perhaps the organisation should consider if it is perhaps not well-suited to the society it's operating within.

 

[jon0844]

If I want to set up a bank account for a new business that brings Nazi sympathisers together to talk about sex with minors, must a bank open an account for me?

I strongly suspect everyone would have a limit, and soon backtrack on saying that banks must open accounts for everyone whatever their values.

 

[Killingworth]

I don't think a bank or financial institution should let itself be bullied into refusing services to any organisation by those who are opposed to that organisation.

In any case, who a particular business banks with is confidential, unless that business choses to make the information public.

In days gone by word soon went round as every cheque written had the bank details for all to see. Those with determination can still find ways.

 

[Busaholic]

In days gone by word soon went round as every cheque written had the bank details for all to see. Those with determination can still find ways.

In days gone by, certainly in small towns, you could see shop proprietors and staff going into their local Lloyd's or wherever just before 3.30 pm. also using bank safe deposits. As you say, the clues are often there, even now.

 

[DustyBin]

If I want to set up a bank account for a new business that brings Nazi sympathisers together to talk about sex with minors, must a bank open an account for me?

I strongly suspect everyone would have a limit, and soon backtrack on saying that banks must open accounts for everyone whatever their values.

You appear to be conflating questionable values with outright illegality……

 

[najaB]

You appear to be conflating questionable values with outright illegality……

Why is it illegal to have Nazi sympathies or to talk about having sex with minors?

 

[DustyBin]

Why is it illegal to have Nazi sympathies or to talk about having sex with minors?

A business set up to facilitate the latter would very quickly face legal action and cease to operate. If it’s not illegal, that’s only because no one has been stupid enough to actually try it (that I’m aware of).

 

[najaB]

A business set up to facilitate the latter would very quickly face legal action and cease to operate.

I agree that any attempt to facilitate the act would be highly illegal, but a club where people talk about the concept would not.

(As distasteful as thinking about such a club is.)

 

[Busaholic]

A business set up to facilitate the latter would very quickly face legal action and cease to operate. If it’s not illegal, that’s only because no one has been stupid enough to actually try it (that I’m aware of).

Not exactly a business, but for years in the 1970s a group called the Paedophile Information Exchange operated without harassment, apparently, although I believe its origins were from individuais in the Gay Liberation Front, so heterosexual paedophiles may not have been catered for.

 

[DustyBin]

I agree that any attempt to facilitate the act would be highly illegal, but a club where people talk about the concept would not.

(As distasteful as thinking about such a club is.)

I get the point you’re making (and the point @jon0844 is making), however I think it would be easy for a bank to refuse to provide an account on the basis that the business would inevitably be deemed illegal. If it was a rehabilitation group for offenders that would be different (although a sensitive subject in itself).

If you take the fox hunting group mentioned upthread, my instinctive reaction to their banking woes is “good, couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people”. However, they’re explicitly allowed to indulge their barbaric tendencies by law, and their de-banking is therefore a slippery slope in my opinion (it’s the very top of said slope admittedly!).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2023 ==

Not exactly a business, but for years in the 1970s a group called the Paedophile Information Exchange operated without harassment, apparently, although I believe its origins were from individuais in the Gay Liberation Front, so heterosexual paedophiles may not have been catered for.

What happened to it out of interest? (I’m not sure I want to Google it!).

 

[duncanp]

If you take the fox hunting group mentioned upthread, my instinctive reaction to their banking woes is “good, couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people”. However, they’re explicitly allowed to indulge their barbaric tendencies by law, and their de-banking is therefore a slippery slope in my opinion (it’s the very top of said slope admittedly!).

Hunting of foxes with dogs was outlawed by the Hunting Act 2004, which came into force on 18th February 2005.

The hunting group mentioned earlier was probably practising trail hunting, which involves laying a scent (of a deer or fox) accross the countryside, which the dogs then follow with their noses. Since no animals are harmed in this activity, it can not be described as "barbaric", and it is legal under current legislation.

And right on cue, here is another story from below the tip of the de-banking iceberg that was uncovered by Nigel Farage.

Shooting is a lawful activity, and yet one person in the article below had all his accounts closed after 20 years after the bank discovered he was involved in shooting.

It cannot be right that banks and financial institutions make this kind of moral judgement on what people can and cannot do, The place for such conversations is in parliament.

Access Restricted

Gun clubs' accounts shut as banks 'cancel the countryside'​

Firms accused of treating shooting groups 'like criminals' as latest example of de-banking increases pressure for ministers to take action

Banks are trying to “cancel the countryside”, a senior MP has said, as The Telegraph can reveal gun clubs are the latest victim of de-banking.

A third of shooting businesses have had their accounts suddenly closed down, research has shown, with major high street banks including HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and NatWest among those named as having refused accounts or credit to businesses linked to the rural pursuit.

It comes after The Telegraph revealed that hunts have been banned from taking card payments through major financial services firm SumUp.

The revelations have led to concern from former ministers and campaign groups that rural businesses are being unfairly targeted and “treated like criminals”.

Sir Robert Goodwill, the Tory chairman of the environment committee and a former Defra minister, said: “Shooting is not only a perfectly legal act, it contributes tremendously to management of the rural environment and habitats for wildlife.

“They’re de-banking people for conducting an entirely lawful and in my view environmentally positive undertaking and trying to cancel the countryside and rural way of life. This is an outrageous infringement of landowners’ rights to do whatever they wish with their land. It’s all becoming a little bit Big Brother.”

The scandal of de-banking first hit the headlines when it emerged that Coutts had closed the account of Nigel Farage because of his political views and there has now been a deluge of claims about accounts being shut down.

A threat to free speech​

Jeremy Hunt, the Chancellor, told broadcasters on Thursday that de-banking was a threat to free speech and could be more widespread than had been thought.

“I’m worried that it may exist more than we had thought,” he said. “And the reason I’m worried is because free speech is a fundamental human right… In today’s society you need a bank account to function and so a threat to be de-banked, as the word is now widely used, is a threat to your right to express your opinions.”

He announced that he had written to the Financial Conduct Authority and the regulator was “going to urgently investigate how widespread this practice is, and put a stop to it”.

“Having your bank account removed because of your political views is very clearly against the law – it shouldn’t be happening,” he said.

The FCA said it would be asking major banks and building societies to provide data on the number of account closures and the reasons behind them over the coming month.

Mr Hunt said that the Government would decide if any further action was needed after that investigation.

The British Association of Shooting and Conservation (BASC) has written to the Treasury warning that shooting businesses have been experiencing issues for a number of years and it called for the industry to be included in any review of de-banking.

‘A rottenness at the heart of banking’​

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, a former business secretary, said: “It seems to me that Nigel has exposed a rottenness at the heart of banking, that they have decided to impose their political views on their customers who are carrying out lawful activities.

“As they were bailed out by all taxpayers after the banking crisis in 2008, they ought to provide services to all lawful businesses and not apply their warped view of morality.

“The whole thing seems to be out of control. Woke metropolitan types seem to be imposing their minority view of the world on the rest of society, and this is troubling in a democracy.”

Research sent by BASC to Andrew Griffith MP, the economic secretary to the Treasury, showed that 37 per cent of shooting clubs, syndicates and trade organisations had experienced the sudden closure of an account, with trade most likely to be impacted.

Of those, 33 per cent said that the account was closed by HSBC, 22 per cent by Barclays and 6 per cent by NatWest.

Asked about the findings, Mr Griffith, told The Telegraph: “Parliament has decided that country sports remain a lawful activity. Representing a rural constituency, I know that they can make a significant contribution to local economies and maintaining the countryside.

“The Government has made clear that customers must be given clear and transparent reasons for closing an account or service as well as increasing the notice period. Banks must not ‘hide’ behind financial regulations.”

Two thirds had difficulty opening account​

The BASC survey, first published last year, also showed that 65 per cent of respondents reported difficulties opening an account, most commonly with Lloyds (38 per cent), followed by HSBC (35 per cent) and NatWest and Barclays (32 per cent).

Almost a third indicated that they had had difficulty obtaining credit. Across the survey, which had 320 responses from the industry, Barclays and HSBC were mentioned most frequently alongside all reported difficulties.

The most common reason given by the banks to explain the difficulties was that it was “policy not to associate/work with anyone connected to firearms”.

Others were told “that my business fits into the categories: High risk and limited appetite businesses” and one said that they were forced to sign documents saying that they would not “engage in the international arms trade”.

One respondent said “within weeks of discovering my company was involved in shooting, [bank staff] summarily closed all my personal and business accounts (six accounts) and provided no reason. All accounts had been in credit and had been in good order for more than 20 years.”

Dr Conor O’Gorman, BASC’s head of policy and campaigns, said: “Banks should not be arbitrarily shutting down business accounts or refusing to open accounts on a bank manager’s whim and with no explanation given. Shooting sports are a lawful activity and we should not be treated as potential criminals by the banking sector.”

‘Appalling conduct’​

Dame Priti Patel, the former home secretary, said: “This is another example of where Britain’s banks are politically compromised. Banks need to get back to providing access to financial services and stay away from passing political judgement as to who can bank with them.

“Treasury ministers have an opportunity to reform the appalling and degrading conduct led by the banking echelons and stand up for Britain’s small businesses and the self-employed who the banks have attempted to shut down.”

A Barclays spokesman said that it complied “with our legal and regulatory obligations” and it would “only withdraw banking services from an individual or business in exceptional circumstances”.

He added: “We support the Government’s initiatives to standardise the approach across banks, including non-exclusion on the basis of political views or beliefs.”

A NatWest spokesman said it provided “banking services to businesses, clubs and societies involved in shooting, subject to appropriate legal, licensing and due diligence requirements being met by the customer”.

A spokesman for HSBC UK Commercial Bank said that it worked with legitimate shooting businesses, adding: “We comply with all legal and regulatory requirements. Decisions on customer accounts are always the subject of careful consideration and are never taken due to the legal, political, or personal views of a customer.”

Lloyds did not respond to a request for comment