Debanking

[JackyJoll]

[Ant]

Breaking:

Anti-Brexit Gina Miller has been told her party bank account will close with no explanation.

How'd you like them apples then, lefty EU cultists?

[DefTrap]

Breaking:

Anti-Brexit Gina Miller has been told her party bank account will close with no explanation.

How'd you like them apples then, lefty EU cultists?

I thought it was a point-of-principle right-to-bank thing?
Oh ....

I dunno who-TF Gina Miller is but obviously this is a sad day because Brexit was about to be reversed literally tomorrow.

[Ant]

Breaking:

Anti-Brexit Gina Miller has been told her party bank account will close with no explanation.

How'd you like them apples then, lefty EU cultists?

I thought it was a point-of-principle right-to-bank thing?
Oh ....

I dunno who-TF Gina Miller is but obviously this is a sad day because Brexit was about to be reversed literally tomorrow.

So long as it's not farage, then it's a right innit

[Taipan]

Peter Flavel, Coutts boss just given his marching orders......

I see Davies is refusing to go, but he is in Farages sights...

[mangocrazy]

Breaking:

Anti-Brexit Gina Miller has been told her party bank account will close with no explanation.

How'd you like them apples then, lefty EU cultists?

S'OK, Coutts have offered them a bank account.

Probably...

[Count Steer]

Just to show what a proverbial pickle this all is - the government are to move quickly to call for new regulations requiring clear explanation of bank account closures.

However, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 banks are actually banned from giving closure information to customers suspected of financial wrongdoing ie 'tipping off' rules. Oops.

So, if the rules change and a bank closes an account and refuses to tell the account holder why they will have clearly tipped off the account holder that the authorities are on to them. The National Crime Agency will probably try to stop the change.

Expect the proposed changes to the law to quietly disappear once the hullabaloo dies down.

[Mussels]

Just to show what a proverbial pickle this all is - the government are to move quickly to call for new regulations requiring clear explanation of bank account closures.

However, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 banks are actually banned from giving closure information to customers suspected of financial wrongdoing ie 'tipping off' rules. Oops.

So, if the rules change and a bank closes an account and refuses to tell the account holder why they will have clearly tipped off the account holder that the authorities are on to them. The National Crime Agency will probably try to stop the change.

Expect the proposed changes to the law to quietly disappear once the hullabaloo dies down.

Hmm, which crook to clamp down on most?

[Bigjawa]

Happened to one of the local politicians who just happened to be critical of Ulster Bank. (Owned by NatWest)

Ironically he's an ex employee.....

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/n ... 49368.html

[Mussels]

I just got pinged an article on LinkedIn by Alison Rose talking about a meeting between the senior management team and a junior one. There weren't many comments so I was tempted to congratulate her on the great example she is setting them, I decided it might backfire on me somehow so I didn't bother but did notice someone else berating her for using the pejorative term 'junior'.

[Ant]

Nat West are in panic stations.....

From the peoples man, Farage....

"NatWest are in panic mode again.
My new Subject Access Request submitted to NatWest Group about personal information they hold on me has been categorised as ‘complex’!
Instead of a regular 30 days, they say I will have to wait until 21st Oct…
What are they trying to hide now?"

[Mussels]

Probably because he's been the hot topic at the bank for the last month and his name now appears on millions of communications.

[Yambo]

When I was having my problems with Santander, a friend who works in the BoE suggested that I submit a Subject Access Request so I did just that.

Apparently, the banks hate them as it ties people up for quite a bit of time. I didn't get mine within the 30 days so I opened another complaint about that and then it turns out that the person dealing with the closure of my accounts and their incompetence in giving me my money had cancelled my request as he thought that as he'd got the account re-opened I didn't want the information!

I put him straight, suggesting that I thought he may well have broken the law and I got all the data about 10 days later and £250 to keep me quiet.

[gremlin]

I suspect I may be 'debanked', or 'off-boarded' if you prefer, by my employer. In fairness, I don't really use the staff account, although they did stipulate some years ago that my salary gets paid into it, which I simply transfer out on pay day, so no biggie.

What I do find amusing is that if I wasn't an employee, they certainly wouldn't give a jubbo like me an account.

[Cousin Jack]

A bank de-banking a banker. There is a certain irony about that.

[mangocrazy]

When I got an IT job in banking in 2000 I was told I had to have a staff account to pay my salary into. Apparently that requirement was quietly removed a few years later.

[gremlin]

When I got an IT job in banking in 2000 I was told I had to have a staff account to pay my salary into. Apparently that requirement was quietly removed a few years later.

A few years ago, the CEO of a certain bank, which shall remain nameless, which was expanding in the UK was asked how many of the staff bank there. The CEO didn't know and set about asking. He was a bit miffed that the answer was a bit lower than he'd anticipated. Hence all new staff had to have their salaries paid into a staff account. A few years later the goalposts were moved and everybody had to have their salaries paid into a staff account.

Imagine then, when said bank, which shall still remain nameless, was given a slap on the wrist for certain inadequacies in its KYC processes. Suddenly all these staff accounts, which cost the bank money to maintain, but made feck all money coz everybody simply paid all the money out on pay day, leaving a zero balance, came under scrutiny. Suddenly the vanity project that it was from the start became very obvious....

[mangocrazy]

When I got an IT job in banking in 2000 I was told I had to have a staff account to pay my salary into. Apparently that requirement was quietly removed a few years later.

A few years ago, the CEO of a certain bank, which shall remain nameless, which was expanding in the UK was asked how many of the staff bank there. The CEO didn't know and set about asking. He was a bit miffed that the answer was a bit lower than he'd anticipated. Hence all new staff had to have their salaries paid into a staff account. A few years later the goalposts were moved and everybody had to have their salaries paid into a staff account.

Imagine then, when said bank, which shall still remain nameless, was given a slap on the wrist for certain inadequacies in its KYC processes. Suddenly all these staff accounts, which cost the bank money to maintain, but made feck all money coz everybody simply paid all the money out on pay day, leaving a zero balance, came under scrutiny. Suddenly the vanity project that it was from the start became very obvious....

I am entirely unsurprised by that...

What became apparent to me was that senior management positions were filled by means of what appeared to be a cross between a revolving door and an old boy's club. Or, more accurately, membership of the same golf club. The same faces pop up every 4-5 years, but at a different Bank. The Bank I worked for hired a couple of the old boys from Lloyds and before long we were knee deep in the buggers. They were every bit as shit as the senior managers they replaced.

[Mr. Dazzle]

and £250 to keep me quiet.

You should probably pay that back

[Dodgy69]