Nigel Farage and that bank account...

[MikeWM]

Very tricky. I can't see the government setting up a "Bank of Last Resort" - it sounds socialist. So they will do something half baked - see above.

Possibly so, but we need *some* solution to the concept that people may not be able to get a business account for a legal legitimate business, or a political party (eg. Laurence Fox's Reclaim Party, as mentioned previously).

The only two solutions I see are requiring banks to operate more like utilities, or have a last resort bank. If there are better ideas I've not thought of, I'd be happy with that too.

 

[MotCO]

Way to ignore the point. So, here we go: are businesses allowed to choose who they do business with or not?

Nigel argued that they are in the baker case, so why doesn't the same principle apply to a business that chooses not to do business with him?

Depends what the business is. Where there is a monopoly or near monopoly, it is providing an essential service, and there are practical, legal or physical restrictions to entering the market, no. (e.g. water authorities, energy utilities, banks, phone companies, broadband provider, medical services)

Where there is a large number of providers with little practical, legal or physical restriction to enter the market, then yes. (e.g. bakers, professional services, garages)

 

[najaB]

Depends what the business is. Where there is a monopoly or near monopoly, it is providing an essential service, and there are practical, legal or physical restrictions to entering the market, no. (e.g. water authorities, energy utilities, banks, phone companies, broadband provider, medical services)

There are over 160 banks operating in the UK (list), so I don't know if banking can be called a near-monopoly marketplace.

 

[MotCO]

There are over 160 banks operating in the UK (list), so I don't know if banking can be called a near-monopoly marketplace.

But does a cake shop ever ask you 'have you ever been refused a cake before?' Since banks often ask that question (with regard to opening a bank account, obviously ) , they are effectively acting in cahoots with each other and could be called a near-monopoly.

 

[najaB]

But does a cake shop ever ask you 'have you ever been refused a cake before?' Since banks often ask that question (with regard to opening a bank account, obviously ) , they are effectively acting in cahoots with each other and could be called a near-monopoly.

I think you are mixing up legally-mandated KYC checks with acting in cahoots.

 

[DerekC]

I agree that it is easy to say that banks should not refuse business accounts, but more difficult to find a legal way of saying and enforcing that.

However you can turn it on the head and say banks cannot refuse any business accounts for legal purposes, and the moment the business does something illegal (as found by a Court), then the right to a bank account is removed. (This may help businesses and organisations stay on the right side of the law as well!)

That sounds very simple but would need a quite complicated set of legislation round it, I think. First, do illegal acts by employees on company business count, or is it only acts by the corporation? What about acts by individual Directors? Then, how big an illegal act does it need to be, and does repetition of a minor offence qualify? What kinds of illegality would entitle a bank to refuse a company an account? Motoring offence? Breaches of health & safety law? Of company law? Of financial regulation? Of environmental law? Tax evasion? Common law? Animal cruelty? And does the sentence or penalty make a difference?

 

[Busaholic]

Well, my dears, what a jape, that ghastly little man Farage showing his true colours. I always knew he was a bounder, mixing with the hoi palloi and the Papist Rees-Mogg, but this really takes the Huntley and Palmer. I used to see him and his schoolfriends massed on the platforms at Orpington and Petts Wood as our train used to speed Max and I from our castle in deepest Kent on a Monday morning. They even try to pretend those places are in Kent, rather than South East London where they belong in their bourgeois mediocrity. Orpington even had a phase in the 1960s for voting in a Liberal, for God's sake, though they seem to have regained their sanity.

I see that Coutts were persuaded to open an account in his name, but now that Nat West owns it he's not so sure. I've never met Nat West, but I do remember Nat King Cole was a crooner able to cause tingles in a girl, to the disgust of my father. Coutts still describe themselves as a private bank I see, but they are ingenues undeserving of mention in the same breath as Hoare's, C.Hoare, founded by Sir Richard Hoare 351 years ago, the oldest private bank in Britain and the second oldest bank. I believe they have two branches in London, but I leave such matters to my footman. I would be distressed beyond peradventure if they had dealings with such an oick.

I have discussed all this with Nancy and Rowena and we are in total agreement that we'd rather see Keir Starmer as Prime Minister than Farage, and that really is saying something.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Nigel was all for allowing a business to refuse baking a cake for gay people,

Assuming you're referring to the case involving Ashers bakery in 2014, I think that's very misleading. The issue wasn't baking a cake per se, or that Gareth Lee (the customer) was gay, but that he had asked for the cake to be decorated with the words 'Support Gay Marriage', and the bakery owners did not wish to create a cake emblazoned with a political slogan that they disagreed with.

so I assume that in all of this chatter about the rights for anyone to bank anywhere, so too must any business be forced to sell to anyone?

I don't believe so. There is clearly a clash of two principles here:

1. Ideally, a business should be free to choose who it chooses to do business with and what businesses it chooses to engage in.
2. No-one should be denied the ability to function, earn a living, or be part of our society on account of their political views/who they are/etc.

So you need a balance between the two. You would probably err towards (1) when it's a small business (such as a bakery) and the product being requested is directly related to stuff you don't support. And you'd err towards (2) for larger businesses that provide essential services.

As an example, if I was running a small business, and someone whose views I profoundly disagreed with came to me asking me to print political leaflets promoting their views, then it would seem reasonable of me to refuse on ethical grounds. But if that same person wanted to buy some food for their breakfast, it would be much less reasonable of me to refuse to sell it to them (both because food is essential, and because eating is unrelated to one's political activities).

 

[jon0844]

I haven't been keeping up as I'm away, but how is Nigel doing with his campaigning on behalf of all those who were debanked?

I don't see the daily news stories anymore. Has it all been resolved and everyone got their accounts back? If so, well done Nigel!

 

[duncanp]

I haven't been keeping up as I'm away, but how is Nigel doing with his campaigning on behalf of all those who were debanked?

I don't see the daily news stories anymore. Has it all been resolved and everyone got their accounts back? If so, well done Nigel!

Nigel Farage has launched a website to gather information on people who have had their accounts closed.

AccountClosed.org | Debanked

AccountClosed.org is a campaign group committed to advocating for the consumer rights of individuals and small medium businesses who have faced unjust treatment from banks and financial services companies, particularly when their accounts have been abruptly closed and essential services withdrawn.

www.accountclosed.org

When parliament reconvenes in the autumn, the campaign to change the law to prevent people from being debanked without a good reason will step up a gear.

 

[ainsworth74]

When parliament reconvenes in the autumn, the campaign to change the law to prevent people from being debanked without a good reason will step up a gear.

It'll be interesting to see how they intend to work any changes in legislation with the requirements of anti-money laundering legislation/regulation. That is one of the key issues that causes these problems, particularly for frozen accounts with no information.

 

[duncanp]

It'll be interesting to see how they intend to work any changes in legislation with the requirements of anti-money laundering legislation/regulation. That is one of the key issues that causes these problems, particularly for frozen accounts with no information.

The thing is, money laundering is a crime, and people should only suffer adverse consequences once they have been given a fair trial, or at least the chance to explain themselves.

I could quite understand that a bank wouldn't want to alert a customer that it suspects them of money laundering. However if it does suspect someone of money laundering, it should gather the evidence and pass it to the police (perhaps a unit that specialises in financial crime) who can then decide how to proceed.

I also think that one of the issues that Nigel Farage has uncovered is that banks are (mis) using money laundering regulations as an excuse to close accounts, when the real reason is something else (a business dealing in cash, politically exposed person, the political views of the account holder... etc)

 

[MikeWM]

The thing is, money laundering is a crime, and people should only suffer adverse consequences once they have been given a fair trial, or at least the chance to explain themselves.

I could quite understand that a bank wouldn't want to alert a customer that it suspects them of money laundering. However if it does suspect someone of money laundering, it should gather the evidence and pass it to the police (perhaps a unit that specialises in financial crime) who can then decide how to proceed.

Well, exactly so. You don't expect the electricity company to cut off your electricity supply if they suspect you of growing cannabis in your home, assuming you're paying for the electricity you use. However, it would be reasonable to expect them to tell the police, who can investigate if a crime is being committed.

 

[ainsworth74]

The thing is, money laundering is a crime, and people should only suffer adverse consequences once they have been given a fair trial, or at least the chance to explain themselves.

I could quite understand that a bank wouldn't want to alert a customer that it suspects them of money laundering. However if it does suspect someone of money laundering, it should gather the evidence and pass it to the police (perhaps a unit that specialises in financial crime) who can then decide how to proceed.

I also think that one of the issues that Nigel Farage has uncovered is that banks are (mis) using money laundering regulations as an excuse to close accounts, when the real reason is something else (a business dealing in cash, politically exposed person, the political views of the account holder... etc)

That would require a change in the law. Banks behave the way they do with regards to money laundering because they are required to do so by law. At the moment if they don't do things like freezing accounts when they suspect fraud or money laundering or if they tell you the reason why they've had to take this action the banks themselves may be committing a crime! Now they may well be using it as an excuse to close accounts of people they no longer wish to do business with but it will require a change in the law and the way that we handle money laundering and fraud in general. I'm not saying that the present situation is okay or acceptable but it is potentially quite a complex issue which probably requires a lot more thought than just saying banks have no duty to do anything other than forward on reports of suspicious activity to the appropriate authorities. Meanwhile the potential criminal activity continues unabated. That doesn't feel ideal either really to me!

 

[najaB]

Well, exactly so. You don't expect the electricity company to cut off your electricity supply if they suspect you of growing cannabis in your home, assuming you're paying for the electricity you use. However, it would be reasonable to expect them to tell the police, who can investigate if a crime is being committed.

Not really a legitimate comparison since moving a cannabis farm isn't something that can be done remotely in a few seconds if the growers get suspicious. A suspect bank account can be emptied in seconds and the money moved to the other side of the world. Even if the crime is detected, the money is still gone.

 

[MikeWM]

Not really a legitimate comparison since moving a cannabis farm isn't something that can be done remotely in a few seconds if the growers get suspicious. A suspect bank account can be emptied in seconds and the money moved to the other side of the world. Even if the crime is detected, the money is still gone.

If it stays in (a bank in) the UK though, does it really matter? And I don't think it is beyond the ability of the banking sector, which is filled with very intelligent people, to come up with some mechanism to prevent moving 100% of the money abroad instantaneously if it is considered suspicious for some reason.

 

[ainsworth74]

And I don't think it is beyond the ability of the banking sector, which is filled with very intelligent people, to come up with some mechanism to prevent moving 100% of the money abroad instantaneously if it is considered suspicious for some reason.

Such as freezing the account you mean?

 

[MikeWM]

Such as freezing the account you mean?

Yes, but as we've established, that doesn't appear satisfactory. There is a lot of middle ground here between 'do nothing at all' and 'stop people existing because we're a bit suspicious of them'.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes, but as we've established, that doesn't appear satisfactory. There is a lot of middle ground here between 'do nothing at all' and 'stop people existing because we're a bit suspicious of them'.

Sure, not as easy to fix as just waving a magic wand though. It will require legislation to solve and still has to balance various competing issues.

I can't help but suspect that this will rapidly end up in the "too difficult" pile with probably some platitudes to try and appease. That is, after all, all that the present government now appears capable of.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Such as freezing the account you mean?

But that stops a person from functioning at all.

It ought to be possible in principle to implement some kind of half-way house, whereby payments from the account are allowed to established UK companies that meet certain criteria, such as utility companies, high street supermarkets, local councils for council tax, etc., but payments abroad are generally stopped. That would allow people to at least somewhat get on with their lives while the authorities investigate their financial affairs.

 

[jon0844]

That would require a change in the law. Banks behave the way they do with regards to money laundering because they are required to do so by law. At the moment if they don't do things like freezing accounts when they suspect fraud or money laundering or if they tell you the reason why they've had to take this action the banks themselves may be committing a crime! Now they may well be using it as an excuse to close accounts of people they no longer wish to do business with but it will require a change in the law and the way that we handle money laundering and fraud in general. I'm not saying that the present situation is okay or acceptable but it is potentially quite a complex issue which probably requires a lot more thought than just saying banks have no duty to do anything other than forward on reports of suspicious activity to the appropriate authorities. Meanwhile the potential criminal activity continues unabated. That doesn't feel ideal either really to me!

At this point, one might begin to think this is a clever plan to overturn the laws on money laundering, with the justification being that it was being abused. And then, bingo, people can more easily launder money.

I think I may have discovered the grift.

 

[Busaholic]

At this point, one might begin to think this is a clever plan to overturn the laws on money laundering, with the justification being that it was being abused. And then, bingo, people can more easily launder money.

I think I may have discovered the grift.

That'd be a very cynical interpretation, one with which I'd tend to agree.

 

[najaB]

It ought to be possible in principle to implement some kind of half-way house, whereby payments from the account are allowed to established UK companies that meet certain criteria, such as utility companies, high street supermarkets, local councils for council tax, etc., but payments abroad are generally stopped.

The downside of this would be that it clues the subject in to the fact that they're under investigation.

 

[gingerheid]

The downside of this would be that it clues the subject in to the fact that they're under investigation.

I think everyone has now worked out how to tell if they're under investigation. Especially if it's Barclays and they do it by transferring £500,000 out each of your accounts...

 

[najaB]

I think everyone has now worked out how to tell if they're under investigation. Especially if it's Barclays and they do it by transferring £500,000 out each of your accounts...

If the account is frozen then no transactions can be done. If someone suddenly finds that they can't perform international transactions they'll probably find that they need to pay one of their suppliers a large amount, withdraw a large account of cash or transfer funds to a friend/business associate.

All that does is replace "My account is frozen and I don't know why" stories with "I lost my dream house and I don't know why" or "My business collapsed because I couldn't pay my supplier", etc.

The real change that's needed is a legal limit on how long investigations are allowed to take without court action or similar.

 

[duncanp]

Looks like Nat West is trying to avoid any further scrutiny on this issue.

It is refusing to meet with Mr Farage, and its so called "internal review" into the matter has no deadline for being finished.

If they think Nigel Farage is going to shut up and be quiet about this issue I fear they are mistaken.

Access Restricted

Nigel Farage: NatWest is kicking my de-banking case into the long grass​

Former Ukip leader says he is victim of an ‘establishment stitch-up’

Nigel Farage has accused NatWest of kicking his de-banking complaint against them “into the long grass” by carrying out an internal review that has no deadline.

The former Ukip leader said watchdog bodies are also using NatWest’s review to put off their own investigations, as he said he was the victim of an “establishment stitch-up”.

Mr Farage is demanding answers from NatWest over what he sees as a rule breach after its former chief executive discussed his finances with the BBC.

NatWest’s subsidiary Coutts had given Mr Farage notice that it was closing his accounts, which he later discovered was because of his political views. Dame Alison Rose later resigned as chief executive after admitting being the source of a BBC story that wrongly claimed the account closures were done for “commercial” reasons.

Bank refuses meeting​

Mr Farage has requested a face-to-face meeting with Mohammed Kamal Syed, the interim chief executive of Coutts, in the hope that the bank will accept it acted unlawfully by de-banking him, promise to delete all defamatory material about him and pay compensation.

The bank has refused, saying Mr Syed cannot meet Mr Farage while its internal investigation is ongoing but, because there is no deadline for the investigation to end, he could be waiting months or even longer.

Mr Farage has also questioned the integrity of the internal review, which is being carried out by law firm Travers Smith. Chris Hale, the firm’s chair emeritus, is an avowed Remainer who has in the past described Brexit as “a tragedy” and said the referendum debate was “a disturbing mix of xenophobia, racism and nostalgia”.

Mr Farage has simultaneously asked the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to investigate Dame Alison’s alleged breach of data protection laws, only to be told by the ICO that it wants to wait until NatWest has finished its own investigations before it gets involved.

Mr Farage has been told by Coutts that it will disclose more internal documents to him that contain more “deeply inappropriate” language about him.

Mr Syed has written to Mr Farage to tell him that the bank will comply with an additional subject access request submitted by him, after Mr Farage said he did not believe Coutts had sent him all of the documents it held on him.

Mr Farage has not yet received the second set of documents but Mr Syed promised they would be released, but said in a letter to Mr Farage: “It is clear to me that these documents contain further language that is deeply inappropriate.”

‘Fobbed me off’​

Mr Farage said: “The establishment are now clubbing together in an attempt to kick this as far into the long grass as they can.

“All of this now hinges on a report that could be many, many months away because no deadline has been set for it.

“I have asked for a meeting with [Mr] Syed to find out what went wrong, to get an admission that they broke the law and to ask how many other people have had their accounts closed as a result of their political opinions. But they have just fobbed me off and said they are not going to do anything while the review is going on.”

Mr Farage uncovered the true reason for his account closures by submitting a subject access request to Coutts, which sent him details of a meeting in which his account was discussed by a committee that was told his views were not “compatible with Coutts”.

He has now submitted a subject access request to NatWest, in the belief that his case was discussed within the parent company, but has been told that his case is “complex” and therefore the bank can legally delay responding for two months beyond the normal 30-day deadline. It means he is not likely to get a response on that specific issue until late October.

‘Should lose honours’​

Mr Farage also said Dame Alison and NatWest chairman Sir Howard Davies should lose their honours in the same way that Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of NatWest subsidiary Royal Bank of Scotland, was stripped of his knighthood in 2012.

He said: “In some ways Fred Goodwin lost his knighthood for less than what Dame Alison has done. The Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, has said it was unlawful for NatWest and Coutts to close bank accounts on the basis of people’s opinions, but Fred Goodwin didn’t break the law.”

Mr Goodwin, nicknamed “Fred the Shred”, lost his knighthood – awarded for services to banking – after helping to trigger the 2008 financial crisis through his disastrous management of RBS, which had to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

Mr Farage said Dame Alison, who has apologised to him as well as resigning, and Sir Howard, who remains in post, “are still not facing the full consequences of what they have done”.

He has been contacted by thousands of people via a website he set up to collect data on how many people have been de-banked because of political views that do not align with those of their bank.

A NatWest spokesman said: “As per normal process, where a subject access request is classified as ‘complex’ under the GDPR, an extension for responding to the request is applied. Our teams are working hard to provide responses, and customers and the ICO are being kept updated.”

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Looks like Nat West is trying to avoid any further scrutiny on this issue.

It is refusing to meet with Mr Farage, and its so called "internal review" into the matter has no deadline for being finished.

If they think Nigel Farage is going to shut up and be quiet about this issue I fear they are mistaken.

Access Restricted

Hmmm. I have to say, that, although my sympathies are generally with Nigel Farage on the de-banking issue, this particular article appears to contain nothing except allegations and speculation by Nigel Farage, so I'm not sure how seriously I'd take it. It doesn't seem to me unreasonable that a review would have no deadline if it's a complex issue and you genuinely don't know upfront how long it'll take to do the job properly. I'd also note that the stuff about how Farage feels people should lose honours is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, and for me just adds to the impression that the article is just ranting rather than being a piece of serious journalism.

 

[duncanp]

Hmmm. I have to say, that, although my sympathies are generally with Nigel Farage on the de-banking issue, this particular article appears to contain nothing except allegations and speculation by Nigel Farage, so I'm not sure how seriously I'd take it. It doesn't seem to me unreasonable that a review would have no deadline if it's a complex issue and you genuinely don't know upfront how long it'll take to do the job properly. I'd also note that the stuff about how Farage feels people should lose honours is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, and for me just adds to the impression that the article is just ranting rather than being a piece of serious journalism.

I accept that a review and subject access request can take a long time if it is complex, but I don't think that there should be no deadline.

Without a deadline there is the suspicion that the issue is being kicked into the long grass, so to speak, with the hope that the complainant will forget about it, or that the review will be published when the issue has dropped out of the new headlines.

 

[MotCO]

If I was Nigel, I'd sue for libel and breach of contract (disclosing personal info). That may concentrate the bank's mind.

 

[duncanp]

If I was Nigel, I'd sue for libel and breach of contract (disclosing personal info). That may concentrate the bank's mind.

I think this is one of the reasons behind Nat West dragging their feet.

They have promised a so called "review" into the process that led to him being de-banked which is led by a law firm (Travers Smith) whose chairman has described Brexit as "..a tragedy" and the referendum debate as ".. disturbing mix of xenophobia, racism and nostalgia...".

I think it is questionable whether an investigation into the de-banking of a leading advocate of Brexit, which is carried out a law firm whose chairman is vehemently anti Brexit can be considered unbiased.

If I was Nigel Farage I would give the bank a deadline and say that if the review is not completed by the end of this year, I would initiate legal proceedings for libel and breach of contract.

Dragging the review out for as long as possible is simply a ruse to try and prevent Nigel Farage from taking legal action, as the bank are cacking themselves about what might come out during court proceedings.