Should Banks Be Able To Close Accounts If They Do Not Like Your Opinion

growstuff

I have no idea what the real reason was for Metro Bank to refuse an account. However, it appears that he wanted a business account, but OurDuty doesn't appear to have any funds. He admits that he's "skint".

... skint. Well I can't think of a better reason not to offer someone a business account.

Many, many years ago now, I had a huge overdraft with Barclays. I received a letter (in the days when banks used to write personal letters) which suggested that I "return to the normal arrangement whereby I banked with them rather than they banked with me"... Apparently, this was a standard little repartee that bank managers would use with customers they had met and had a 'relationship' with. Of course, they couldn't make that kind of joke now I suspect.

Namsnanny

It is possible to find evidence of all the shenanigans the banks have been up to DaisyAR without 'links'
Imo it is easier to check for once self anyway
This has been happening for 10 years that I know of

It's just taken the public a long time to recognise it is a growing problem.
Enter NF.

I do my own research; probably more than the majority. I was not asking for "links" to gain information but to check why people were saying what they were saying.

In all the time I have been on GN, N &P has always tended to discussion and debate while Chat has been opinion led. I am not asking questions that haven't been asked before.

What is it that you believe is "a growing problem". Have you ever thought that it is one part of the discussion (the OP was quite diverse) that others are just not interested in.

Good work growstuff. According to a poster up thread who supports Our Duty, Metro closed their account. After doing my usual noseying on the Companies House site I suggested it was because they have no funds. Looks like they had more than one good reason not to want their custom then. He sounds an odious individual.

Yes we must police who people associate with that's very important.

I agree with you GSM. The public has only heard one side of the story with Metro Bank. It was a telephone conversation apparently, so there's no permanent record.

However, being a nosey so-and-so, I've been looking at the director of OurDuty's Twitter accounts. It wouldn't surprise me if he's busy deleting some posts because they don't give the same impression he's trying to give as a victim of the banks.

He's used violent and threatening language directed at supporters of trans rights, including a quote from Hitler. He's encouraging people to cause a run on "woke" banks and associates with a group which wants to decriminalise hate speech. Apparently, Metro Bank refused Reform a bank account in 2021 (according to Richard Tice). This was before the current furore.

I have no idea what the real reason was for Metro Bank to refuse an account. However, it appears that he wanted a business account, but OurDuty doesn't appear to have any funds. He admits that he's "skint".

I don't think he's telling the whole story.

Discrimination against GC beliefs such as the forstater case is available in any source you like. Hysteria, etc were all thrown around with regard to those cases, those women just ignored that and preceded via the legal channels available to them. And won.

This is the kind of thing which attracts sensationalist reporting.

I don’t know where you find ‘evidence’ Namsnanny. We don’t hear the bank’s side of any story. The tale the customer tells isn’t ‘evidence’. It’s just one side of the story. As with the Farage business.

It is possible to find evidence of all the shenanigans the banks have been up to DaisyAR without 'links'
Imo it is easier to check for once self anyway
This has been happening for 10 years that I know of

It's just taken the public a long time to recognise it is a growing problem.
Enter NF.

MerylStreep

DaisyAnnReturns
You don’t believe the right wing papers.
I give you a link to a newspaper that is considered liberal/ left of centre and you consider them biased.
You don’t know what you believe, do you?

I have an issue with our current journalism. I am not angry or upset by you. I simply question the sources you offer. Why do you feel the need to make it personal?

I may need factual input to know "what" conclusion to reach, but I do know "how" to do that.

DaisyAnneReturns

Callistemon21

DaisyAnneReturns

I don't think I will bother with your second offering as the first seems to have been written without the banks side to balance it. It is completely biased.

Why not try reading a less (iyo) biased account?
🤔

The reason I know about the banks replies is because I have tracked several reports on this - but not in newspapers.

Then why not share with us the information you have so that we can all make more informed judgements?

Most of us I think rely on the media for information on current affairs, hopefully across a broad spectrum rather than a single source.

And the banks are hardly likely to comment on individual cases where they have closed an account and, as this situation has only come to the fore because of Farage, prompting a response from government, the banks have yet to issue a collective or single response - that's assuming they intend to do so - therefore we're hardly likely to know the "bank's side" of the story.

Freya5

Have just heard Metro Bank have refused accounts of a gender critical group. How's that for political interference.
Apparently also hold accounts for lgbt groups. We'll what do you know. Pressure.
Banks should be a political, full stop. How dare they.

Where did you hear it? How do you know it is the truth.

Callistemon21

DaisyAnneReturns

I don't think I will bother with your second offering as the first seems to have been written without the banks side to balance it. It is completely biased.

Why not try reading a less (iyo) biased account?
🤔

The reason I know about the banks replies is because I have tracked several reports on this - but not in newspapers.

No idea but that wont be the issue.

So why choose that particular bank?

I expect Metro Bank is fully aware that its stance will deter some customers.

Oh and many lesbian and gay people are concerned that there was a form of conversion therapy happening with regard to young people and the treatment offered at places such as the tavistock, it was part of the concerns expressed by the whistleblowers. So I hope metro bank is carefully examining all their accounts with that in mind.

Gender critical belief falls under the equality act so their honesty might not be so wise.

Metro Bank doesn't hide the fact that it supports LGBTQ rights. The group, Our Duty, is gender critical and promotes conversion therapy, so there's an obvious conflict. I don't understand why Our Duty would choose a bank which blatantly opposes their core belief. There are plenty of other banks. At least Metro Bank has been honest about why it refused to take on the account.

DaisyAnnReturns
You don’t believe the right wing papers.
I give you a link to a newspaper that is considered liberal/ left of centre and you consider them biased.
You don’t know what you believe, do you?

NON POLITICAL.

Have just heard Metro Bank have refused accounts of a gender critical group. How's that for political interference.
Apparently also hold accounts for lgbt groups. We'll what do you know. Pressure.
Banks should be a political, full stop. How dare they.

DaisyAnneReturns

I don't think I will bother with your second offering as the first seems to have been written without the banks side to balance it. It is completely biased.

Why not try reading a less (iyo) biased account?
🤔

growstuff

I once had a bank account closed. I hadn't used the account for years and I think I had no more than a few pence in it. The bank sent me a letter, asking me whether I intended to use the account in the future and, if I didn't, they gave me notice that they were going to close it. There was a contact number to ring. The reason they gave me was that an active bank account could be a target for scammers, especially as I never checked it. That seemed reasonable to me.

DD had a dormant building society account closed and the money put into a holding account, the money from which went to charity.
If she liked she could claim the £6 or so back at any time.

I don't think I will bother with your second offering as the first seems to have been written without the banks side to balance it. It is completely biased.

DaisyAnneReturns

MerylStreep

DaisyAnneReturns

Surely banks are just like any other business though, be they pub or greengrocers? They may turn customers away if they choose.

I asked if anyone had been in this position because I just don't believe the reports I'm reading. It feels as if, every day that goes by, I trust fewer and fewer sources.

If that’s what you believe, why has Jeramy Hunt warned the banks?

Interestingly, the newspapers reporting Jeremy Hunt warning banks they must protect free speech seem to be The Mail, The Telegraph and The Express. A clear example of the Tory client media. Why should I believe anything they say?

It would be great if you could provide a more believable source.

Does The Independent suit your political persuasion?
Or the FT. They are all there if you search.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-bank-accounts-brexit-sunak-b2368480.html

Whitewavemark2

I agree gsm and dar

It is an unnecessary panic. It will die a death like they all do.

I tend to agree, on the other hand, it's a tad concerning that the Scottish Equalities and Human Rights Commissioner has had her account closed after 32 years. Allegedly, she's not been involved in any controversy and has a 'healthy' bank balance. RBS are "not able to discuss this decision..."nor provide any further information" in relation to the decision. Again, allegedly, when her and her husband approached a rival bank, they were told that Professor Sawyers "has a mark against her name" but were given no further details.

There's a Facebook group called "Nat West Closed Down My Account" which around 10,000 people have joined. It might be interesting to hear their stories.

My interest / concern is that there has been for some time now a culture of censoring views of high profile people - especially those who are labelled 'gender-critical', and we know that there have been people fired from their positions for such reasons. But at least these individuals are told why they've been censored (or sacked). If - presumably like the Scottish Commissioner - you've not been involved in any illegal financial shenanigans nor any particular controversy, have a few thousand on account - and you get notice after 32 years that your account will be closed with no explanation, then I think that is worrying.

There might well be a good reason for that and other closures, but as long as banks are under no obligation to give their reasons, the speculation will remain. And that will make people nervous.

Considering how important it is to nearly everyone to have a bank account, I do think banks have a duty of 'care' towards their customers and should whilst retaining their right to close an account - be compelled to give a reason. Obviously they don't want to because if they were challenged, it could/ would be costly.

As for Farage, well he does apparently have some odd 'business' set-ups. A 'party' that isn't a party but a business with no employees, or something like that and, as he'll make political capital (but not financial) out of the situation, I'm not taking him as any yardstick. Maybe he just didn't have sufficient funds to bank with Coutts - they did after all offer him an ordinary Nat West account, so it might not be personal... after all, he's been Mr Brexit for many years now and his views are well known.