As per:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/banking/current-accounts/santander-120-year-fee-account-free-forever/

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners


Santander backed down some years ago from another attempt to apply charges:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19506634


If a free service is offered in perpetuity can Santander legitimately
apply future charges?

BTW The amount they intend to now charge is above the norm for small
businesses and so reliant on an element of stiction from customers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

If Santander weren't smart enough to put a:

*T&Cs apply

clause in, then
(a) they deserve all they can get;
(b) no wonder there was a financial crash
(c) I want every penny of my taxes that bailed these incompetent cretins
out refunded. Although I would settle for a meal at an all-you-can-eat* restaurant.

*T&Cs apply.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 13:51:37 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
wrote:

As per:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/banking/current-accounts/santander-120-year-fee-account-free-forever/

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners

Santander backed down some years ago from another attempt to apply charges:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19506634

If a free service is offered in perpetuity can Santander legitimately
apply future charges?

BTW The amount they intend to now charge is above the norm for small >businesses and so reliant on an element of stiction from customers.

It's heavily rumoured that Santander are "conciously uncoupling" from
the UK market in the near future. Perhaps a question to ask is whether
a new owner for the business - who may or may not continue to use the
Santander brand - would be obligated in any way under that agreement?

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/07/2025 21:35, Nick Odell wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 13:51:37 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
wrote:

As per:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/banking/current-accounts/santander-120-year-fee-account-free-forever/

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners


Santander backed down some years ago from another attempt to apply charges: >> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19506634


If a free service is offered in perpetuity can Santander legitimately
apply future charges?

BTW The amount they intend to now charge is above the norm for small
businesses and so reliant on an element of stiction from customers.

It's heavily rumoured that Santander are "conciously uncoupling" from
the UK market in the near future. Perhaps a question to ask is whether

The Santander that are planning to buy TSB ?

a new owner for the business - who may or may not continue to use the Santander brand - would be obligated in any way under that agreement?

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:105ioop$3bqna$1@dont-email.me...

As per:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/banking/current-accounts/santander-120-year-fee-account-free-forever/
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners

Santander backed down some years ago from another attempt to apply charges:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19506634

quote:

One such customer was John Pettman, a commercial landlord from Whitstable in Kent and also a semi-retired lawyer, who is still annoyed.

"They were trying to con me, it was yet another example of the inappropriate actions of large banks," he said.

"In my opinion, on a point of law, the "free banking forever" was an entrenched term and condition that can't be altered by the other term and condition that says they can vary it.

: unquote

As always I stand to be corrected; but I would imagine any entrenched term
and condition can be immediately rendered null and void by any condition
which enables a bank to close any account without giving any reason; having given the requisite amount of notice, formerly two months now to be lengthened to 90 days,

And that this will remain the case until 28 April 2026; when new regulations come into force requiring them to give reasons.*

Which presumably they could simply give as commercial reasons. The accounts simply costing too much to administer


bb

*

https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/new-de-banking-rules-to-protect-customers-from-unfair-closures-aj41N3q2of43

If a free service is offered in perpetuity can Santander legitimately apply future
charges?

BTW The amount they intend to now charge is above the norm for small businesses and so
reliant on an element of stiction from customers.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 22:43:19 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk>
wrote:

On 20/07/2025 21:35, Nick Odell wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 13:51:37 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
wrote:

As per:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/banking/current-accounts/santander-120-year-fee-account-free-forever/

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners


Santander backed down some years ago from another attempt to apply charges: >>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19506634


If a free service is offered in perpetuity can Santander legitimately
apply future charges?

BTW The amount they intend to now charge is above the norm for small
businesses and so reliant on an element of stiction from customers.

It's heavily rumoured that Santander are "conciously uncoupling" from
the UK market in the near future. Perhaps a question to ask is whether

The Santander that are planning to buy TSB ?

a new owner for the business - who may or may not continue to use the
Santander brand - would be obligated in any way under that agreement?

Nick

The same Santander who are mentioned in this MSE discussion, quoting
an FT article <https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6581523/santander-may-leave-uk>

<https://www.ft.com/content/52f65106-6def-4855-b7a0-ae2b7f3200f6> (see
thread on breaching paywalls)

I'm not sure how high up the veracity index one would want to place GB
News, but they have suggested that Santander have caught a serious
cold over the car finance scandal and are intent on buggering off
ASAP. And they are far from the only ones saying this.[1] <https://www.gbnews.com/money/santander-plan-uk-exit-in-major-strategic-shake-up>

Nick
[1]So why didn't you quote one of the other sources? - Ed
Because I wanted to see the reaction to a quote from GB News - Nick
Er... okay then. - Ed

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 21:35:44 +0100, Nick Odell wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 13:51:37 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

As per:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/banking/current-accounts/ santander-120-year-fee-account-free-forever/

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business- accounts-free-owners


Santander backed down some years ago from another attempt to apply
charges:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19506634


If a free service is offered in perpetuity can Santander legitimately
apply future charges?

BTW The amount they intend to now charge is above the norm for small >>businesses and so reliant on an element of stiction from customers.

It's heavily rumoured that Santander are "conciously uncoupling" from
the UK market in the near future. Perhaps a question to ask is whether a
new owner for the business - who may or may not continue to use the
Santander brand - would be obligated in any way under that agreement?

As a matter of principle (and in the faint hope that my 45 year old
savings account may prove a goldmine) we bank with Nationwide. having
received £400 in two years as a bonus that didn't go to shareholders, I
feel vindicated.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/07/2025 17:52, Jethro_uk wrote:

If Santander weren't smart enough to put a:

*T&Cs apply

clause in, then
(a) they deserve all they can get;

It wasn't Santander that made the promise. They inherited it when they
bought out Abbey National to enter the UK banking arena. They may not
have done adequate due diligence but that is a different matter.

A contract is a contract (and the contract terms are *very* clear) - so
it will be interesting to see how it plays out if they try it on again.

I expect the same defence as worked last time they tried to pull this
stunt will work again (although by now many of those who took them up on
this generous banking offer will be ready to or have already retired).

The defence last time they tried to renege on this original "Free
Banking Forever" contract was that every one of us wrote a letter to the
effect that if they tried to breach the contract we would take them to
the banking ombudsman. Processing the resulting 10k of such letters of complaint put them off the idea pretty quickly (until now).

I think the opposition was organised on Usenet uk.consultants
(that's how long ago it was - more than a decade ago maybe almost two)

But it was the Building Society Abbey National that made the original
promise of "Free Business Banking Forever" and it was their USP when
they were trying to break into that market back in 2002. Santander took
over Abbey some years later. The only caveat was it was online, bank
machine and/or cheques paid in by post - no counter service at all.

(b) no wonder there was a financial crash
(c) I want every penny of my taxes that bailed these incompetent cretins
out refunded. Although I would settle for a meal at an all-you-can-eat* restaurant.

*T&Cs apply.

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 10:22:09 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

On 20/07/2025 17:52, Jethro_uk wrote:

If Santander weren't smart enough to put a:

*T&Cs apply

clause in, then (a) they deserve all they can get;

It wasn't Santander that made the promise. They inherited it when they
bought out Abbey National to enter the UK banking arena. They may not
have done adequate due diligence but that is a different matter.

A contract is a contract (and the contract terms are *very* clear) - so
it will be interesting to see how it plays out if they try it on again.

I expect the same defence as worked last time they tried to pull this
stunt will work again (although by now many of those who took them up on
this generous banking offer will be ready to or have already retired).

The defence last time they tried to renege on this original "Free
Banking Forever" contract was that every one of us wrote a letter to the effect that if they tried to breach the contract we would take them to
the banking ombudsman. Processing the resulting 10k of such letters of complaint put them off the idea pretty quickly (until now).

I think the opposition was organised on Usenet uk.consultants (that's
how long ago it was - more than a decade ago maybe almost two)

But it was the Building Society Abbey National that made the original
promise of "Free Business Banking Forever" and it was their USP when
they were trying to break into that market back in 2002. Santander took
over Abbey some years later. The only caveat was it was online, bank
machine and/or cheques paid in by post - no counter service at all.

(b) no wonder there was a financial crash (c) I want every penny of my
taxes that bailed these incompetent cretins out refunded. Although I
would settle for a meal at an all-you-can-eat* restaurant.

*T&Cs apply.

Not having a dog in this fight, I remain an interested bystander.

However I am not sure I'd want to leave my money with an outfit so
incompetent it was unable to protect itself when it took over another
bank. Especially since the hyper-obscene remuneration of the management
is justified by "having to get the best".

I wonder what shareholders who may lose out if Santander get this wrong
might think ? It's clearly so utterly incompetent as to be actionable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 21:35:44 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 13:51:37 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
wrote:

As per:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/banking/current-accounts/santander-120-year-fee-account-free-forever/
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners

Santander backed down some years ago from another attempt to apply charges: >> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19506634


If a free service is offered in perpetuity can Santander legitimately
apply future charges?

BTW The amount they intend to now charge is above the norm for small >>businesses and so reliant on an element of stiction from customers.

It's heavily rumoured that Santander are "conciously uncoupling" from
the UK market in the near future. Perhaps a question to ask is whether
a new owner for the business - who may or may not continue to use the >Santander brand - would be obligated in any way under that agreement?

More on this subject in the press today:

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/banking/current-accounts/how-santander-turned-back-on-50000-small-businesses/>

Archived version: https://archive.ph/30n93

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 01/08/2025 18:01, Nick Odell wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 21:35:44 +0100, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 13:51:37 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
wrote:

As per:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/banking/current-accounts/santander-120-year-fee-account-free-forever/

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jul/17/santander-business-accounts-free-owners


Santander backed down some years ago from another attempt to apply charges: >>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19506634

If a free service is offered in perpetuity can Santander legitimately
apply future charges?

They changed the T&C very slightly in the small print of the previous
backing down - it will all have to be tested in court at some stage.

Meanwhile there are boilerplate letters of complaint available and lets
see what happens when they start rolling in at Santander head office. I
think they are trying it on again and I will object like last time but
if they really push on and want to lose my business then so be it.

BTW The amount they intend to now charge is above the norm for small
businesses and so reliant on an element of stiction from customers.

It's heavily rumoured that Santander are "conciously uncoupling" from
the UK market in the near future. Perhaps a question to ask is whether
a new owner for the business - who may or may not continue to use the
Santander brand - would be obligated in any way under that agreement?

More on this subject in the press today:

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/banking/current-accounts/how-santander-turned-back-on-50000-small-businesses/>

Archived version: https://archive.ph/30n93

Thanks for that Nick. It looks like the playbook will be the same and
all we can really do is make 50k individual complaints about their
wilful breach of contract - first to the bank itself and then to the
ombudsman. Corporate memory seems to have forgotten the last time.

At £650 a pop that will hurt them but not by as much as it did when
there were 250k such accounts. Best guess now is about 50k remaining.

Immediate £30M exposure for Ombudsman referrals to obtain an extra £5M
annual fee income suggests that someone hasn't done their sums.

That is ignoring the loss of goodwill that trying to renege on a long
standing "free business banking forever" contract will cause. Slight
snag is that they are the last bank standing where I live.

I guess it will ultimately boil down in court to the meaning of "forever".

Barclays is now a campervan at the railway station every other Tuesday. Richmond famously has no banks at all and the ATMs have vanished too.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/24968499.closed-richmond-barclays-branch-atm-removed/

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)