Natwest letter received "ceasing banking relationship" - what on earth is going on?

[SWnewstart]

I've banked with Natwest for approx 45 years, same current account and more recently a little saver account with less than £30 in it. Came back from holiday 2 days ago to a pile of post amongst which was my salary slip from part-time job, a new bank debit card to replace the current one expiring at the end of June and a letter from Natwest starting off "were you aware that we couldn't make some of your payments because there were not enough available funds in your account" - NOT TRUE.

I immediately went online and checked - there was approx £800 and I don't have any regular payments more than £40 a month (retired and mortgage free). The strange bit is that under the heading of What Items Have Not Been Paid were details of my employer and salary which obviously goes into the account, not out of it! The online statement didn't show my salary at all for May. I contacted the virtual assistant at Natwest who could only advise me to speak to my employer. I did this the next day, only to be told the payment had been returned and had I changed account details or anything? No, nothing changed at all. This morning my employer advised they had again made a BACS payment for my May salary and to let them know if it worked. I checked and the payment was in my account.

However, in the post today was another letter from Natwest stating that "we regret to inform you that following a recent review we have decided to cease our banking relationship with you as from 1 August 2022". I immediately tried calling the Shared Services in Manchester on letterhead but number just rang out. The letter also says this decision is final and they are not able to discuss the decision with me or provide any further information in relation to the decision making.

Are there any Natwest people out there who could shed any light on this (or any other bank staff). What on earth is going on? I'm worried sick.

@WaterBottle123 no we don’t have laws at all to protect people. Google the NHunter database.

I was put onto it because of lack of transparency around the sale of a house which was not in my name hence the lack of transparency because I couldn’t provide ex’s details as part of a mortgage application as to where the deposit funds were coming from. He refused to sign a simple gifting document.

I have now manage to secure a mortgage ironically with Natwest but at a higher rate than I should be paying. but mortgage providers were saying no left right and centre and of course once you get one no you just get declined because everybody else has said no.

and literally you have no recourse on this whatsoever. NHunter are the data handlers so GDPR rules they legally have to check the accuracy of the data that they are sharing. They refused to. On the basis that the data that they are receiving is from the banks and therefore is absolutely inflammable. The banks standby their decision which I kind of understand however they very loosely interpreted it.

and all in all the consumer has zero rights to have these matters rectified you just literally have to wait for it to drop off in time providing you’re a good girl.

You've been issued a notice to close and under the terms and conditions you signed all those years ago, they can cease the banking relationship providing they give 'adequate' notice plus they don't have to explain why

But do the bank still hold those signed T&Cs forms.

I know of one Bank who proudly told me that they had destroyed all their forms that people had signed accepting the T&Cs of their new credit card (can’t remember the name it usually goes by)

Try taking someone to court without that.

At the most they are not allowed to have charged interest so any repayments went to repaying what had been spent on the card
I advised someone to get as much out of the card as they could then refuse to pay it back (only if they weren’t going to get a loan or mortgage over the next 6 years) and there wasn’t a damn thing the Bank could do as the courts won’t entertain a court case without that signed form setting everything out.

I would argue that if they can’t supply that document then the T&Cs don’t apply

I would also hand myself into the police and tell them you are supposedly a fraudster so you are there to be charged so you can defend yourself.

But there again I am a stickler for reading the T&Cs and my banking stuff never ends up in the trash because I keep everything for decades.

You can no more force them to have you as a customer than they can force you to bank with them.

I haven't read the full thread so apologies if this has been mentioned but it's just as likely that the OP's account was closed as it simply wasn't making the bank enough money. If you don't have loans, credit cards or a regular over draft then your account is not making the bank money and they can and will close it down. If it is for this reason then there won't be any fraud markers and the OP is free to go elsewhere.

Open an account quickly with someone like Monzo or Starling then remove all your money from NatWest. If this doesn’t get sorted or it takes a while you will at least have an account to use.
I had a similar situation with HSBC and my Business account (so did lots of people, it was even on You and Yours). The branch agreed it was ridiculous and tried to help me but couldn’t but they were able to buy me a bit more time so I could open a new account before that one closed and I was potentially blacklisted somewhere (which never actually happened but the thought was pretty stressful). They can’t/won’t tell you the reasons and there is no right of appeal, Banks are a business and can refuse your custom so the best option now is just to make alternative plans so you can still access your money

Christ, this is scary stuff. Guilty until proved innocent but can't prove your innocence as you don't know what you've been accused of

tax office did this to my husband quite a few years ago. He moved departments (promotion) in a big company and somehow this got recorded as he had left them but continued to be paid quite a hefty salary. The tax office flagged this up as some kind of fraud and started an investigation. We didn't know about this until DH contacted the tax office about an unrelated matter and they told him that they had discovered asbestos in an office and they couldn't access his file (paper files then, this was mid 70's) This went on for months until some bright spark at the tax office thought to contact his company and ask if they has a Mr godmum56 working for them and of course they said yes. Looking back it does sound unbelievable.

I haven't RTFT but if they are unable to discuss it then it could be money laundering concerns.

Do you have a lot of small value transactions or have a very high frequency of transactions?

There is a flag that banks put on your account in the event that suspicious behaviour as above is identified. It is a legal obligation all the way down to teller level and any mention of this to you would be considered 'tipping off' and can result in jail time for that employee.

If you believe this decision has been made unfairly I'd keep calling. Once they eventually tell you they can't discuss it and confirm it is not an error then you will need to write to the financial ombudsman to have it investigated.

Definitely check your credit report/score (you can do this for free on MSE credit club).

You can also try opening a new account elsewhere (lots of online places now). That will also allow you to be paid. If there is a blocker here then you'll know you have quite a serious issue.

Yes and all because the computer algorithm says "No".

No human intervention whatsoever. It is a scandal and mark my words it is going to get worse. Much worse.

It really isn’t a scandal. I bet half of those complaining on here were up in arms when HSBC and NatWest were fined billions for money laundering. Those fines were for not being diligent enough in checking suspicious transactions, and not suspending accounts.

This is the response.

How?

Without the the signed agreement it could be argued there is no term or condition they can point to where they can shut your account.

At worse if they did close your account it does mean that any monies that have been charged over the years (late payment fees, overdraft fees, interest in overdrafts etc would be not in any T&Cs so those amounts and any interest they have racked up over the years would have to be refunded. (If you are better at keeping paperwork than your bank)
£17,000+ from one ppi claim as I had all my paperwork going back to the 90s)
I was naive when I took out my first mortgage with Citibank in the early 80s-90s. I didn’t realise the significance of keeping paperwork or that banks weren’t any better at keeping paperwork than any other company.

Banks might think of themselves as above the law but they can’t ignore the law

@CanaryWharf2 but if large amounts of money have not passed through accounts, is the response too extreme? @SWnewstart said she had a part time job. Does it sounds like a suspiciously high amount of money passed through her account?

You can be anti money laundering and still object to this.

Of course they can just shut your account. What law do you think they are breaking if they do it?

And no, they would not have to refund fees.

Where on Earth are you getting this from? I’m basing my information on the money laundering training the regulator insists that I receive four times a year. I think that you are just making it up.

It has happened a lot.

It seems very unlikely that an account which has been held for 45 years and has a regular salary going into it is being used for money laundering. Sounds like Natwest needs to review its algorithms.

It really isn’t a scandal. I bet half of those complaining on here were up in arms when HSBC and NatWest were fined billions for money laundering. Those fines were for not being diligent enough in checking suspicious transactions, and not suspending accounts

it is a scandal because they have gone from one extreme to the other. They need to sort out their processes so they are proportionate - and so that meet both data protection and financial services rules.

They are meeting both.

It is a scandal because innocent people are getting deprived of their funds and business dealings because the banks are using algorithms created unfair judgments. And that is exactly what it is - judgment based on AI and not hard evidence.

Why is that not a scandal?

Don't get mixed up with AML protocols which are justified and the fact that banks are using flawed ones. I say this as a former MLRO.

When it comes to funds being transferred from overseas, and there is a high profile (ie wealthy) customer, a human will get involved and vet the transfer through. But if you are John or Jane Doe, its the algorithm and good luck! It is a scandal.

What utter nonsense.

The bank (ALL banks) have systems and controls in place which mean they can track exactly what T&Cs were in place at the time you took a credit card, opened an account etc. They would have no difficulty whatsoever proving that you’ve agreed to those terms. They don’t need to retain a signed agreement to prove that.

Did you think that banks create bespoke T&Cs for every customer? Because that’s definitely not the case.

It’s obvious you don’t have legal qualifications. Please stop advising anyone to max their credit card, it’s really stupid advice.

If they haven’t got your signed agreement to these fees then they can’t enforce them.

Consumer credit act I think would apply in this case.

Yes he was, not from NatWest though from Marbles whose fault it was in the first place. He had his credit card debt wiped and was given £500 as a good will gesture. I would have demanded more but my DP couldn’t be bothered as it had gone on for so long. It was horrendous. NatWest will not do anything no matter how far you go up the chain.

@famagusta sorry, my last reply was for you x

@TargusEasting

There absolutely is human interaction on these decisions.

Have a look on any job site such as indeed or linked in right now for ODD/CDD/KYC/KYB/AML/Fraud Jobs. That's exactly what these people do. They review something that is flagged by the system, you are correct it is usually auto flagged up. But these are then reviewed by an actual human with extensive training, knowledge and experience before these decisions are made.

Accounts can also be reviewed for inactivity/little activity/ as well as unusual activity and then the bank can just decide it isn't making any money for them and they do not wish to continue a relationship. As I said earlier it's not always that you are suspected of any wrong doing.

It could also be that you have a type of account they don't offer any more, so an old product and they want to get rid of any historic ones so they close your account.

(Although typically in that instance you will be offered to switch to a new product but it can just happen that these are closed. And definitely if they have offered you a switch to a new product and you don't respond to them, they will close you account after a certain amount of time)

In all of the above scenarios the bank is not obligated to tell you why they have closed your account.

But a human will be involved in everyone of these scenarios.

Even for all your fintech banks such as Monzo.Starling etc. Humans make the call.

Rubbish. Why are you making this up? You can’t go back to previous periods and claim retrospectively that the bank did not have an agreement in place at the time.

I wish my bank and others would just withdraw services to customers like you, you are more trouble than you are worth.

Lots of good advice on this thread apart from saying go into branch. Branch can't help. This is probably because of a fraud investigation, whether it's you or your employer or a mistake. They can't tell you because of tipping off laws.

You need to log a complaint and wait for their response. Ultimately though, they don't have to continue a banking relationship with you and might have just done some housekeeping and decided you don't bring in enough money for them.