The Bank of Farage

[nomadking]

They excluded him in the name of inclusivity.

[jfman]

So

1. They’d a good reason to want rid of him (he’s a PEP)
2. They had a committee meet to discuss a series of unrelated (bad) reasons and he’s a PEP. And wrote them all down for safekeeping.
3. Told him it was not because of the PEP at step 1
4. Told the BBC it was a third reason, specifically discounted on the list at 2
5. Sent him the list from 2, directly contradicting what they told the BBC and him

Seems legit.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by jfman

So

1. They’d a good reason to want rid of him (he’s a PEP)
2. They had a committee meet to discuss a series of unrelated (bad) reasons and he’s a PEP. And wrote them all down for safekeeping.
3. Told him it was not because of the PEP at step 1
4. Told the BBC it was a third reason, specifically discounted on the list at 2
5. Sent him the list from 2, directly contradicting what they told the BBC and him

Seems legit.

Coutts are very left wing, of course they had it on for our Nige.

Anyway I just tried applying for a Coutts account and got the following:-

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR ENQUIRY
Based on the information you've provided, our services may not suit your current needs.

Bleeding socialists, me and Nige against the world !

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I caught some it earlier. Regardless of what you think of him, banks shouldn’t be allowed to do this. A law needs bringing in that prevents banks withdrawing services just because you don’t align with their way of thinking.

That's a bit of a bureaucratic socialist approach.

There's enough banks in this country for someone to find another one if their current bank feels that it will suffer reputational damage by having an outspoken individual as a customer.

And why single out private banks? Why not every supplier of goods and services in the country? Let's strangle British business with more red tape!

[jfman]

Tory Lords are concerned about PEP rules too apparently.

The obvious answer is a “bank of last resort” where those too risky deposit their money with the Treasury, who of course work with the Bank of England to back any deposits.

They could even work with HMRC to share data and automate their tax arrangements

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

That's a bit of a bureaucratic socialist approach.

There's enough banks in this country for someone to find another one if their current bank feels that it will suffer reputational damage by having an outspoken individual as a customer.

And why single out private banks? Why not every supplier of goods and services in the country? Let's strangle British business with more red tape!

We need banking services to live In todays society.

Your approach is naive.

You need food to live? What if all supermarkets decided not to sell you food because you did not align with their politics.

What if energy companies, through your smart meter……, decided to stop giving you power because you think a man can’t be a women, or that Putin is not all bad.

And won’t release your meter until you agree with them?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

We need banking services to live In todays society.

Your approach is naive.

You need food to live? What if all supermarkets decided not to sell you food because you did not align with their politics.

What if energy companies, through your smart meter……, decided to stop giving you power because you think a man can’t be a women, or that Putin is not all bad.

And won’t release your meter until you agree with them?

There's plenty of banks out there. No business should be forced to do business with someone if it damages their reputation. If the business gets this wrong then it will impact their bottom line and the shareholders will replace the management. That's how business works, not through oodles of red tape.

I don't think you're understanding the importance of reputation to certain businesses. In such businesses, where client acceptance procedures are crucial, companies would rather forgo a potential client's business than be tainted by association. You simply don't get that kind of reputational damage as a supermarket where someone does their weekly shop. You do get it if you're cited in a Sunday Times Insight Team article as the bank processing money from a sanctioned country into a controversial individual's bank account.

Originally Posted by Mr K

Anyway I just tried applying for a Coutts account and got the following:-
Bleeding socialists, me and Nige against the world !

Hmmm, I just missed out ....

Clients are required to maintain at least £1m in investments or borrowing (mortgage), or £3m in savings.

[nomadking]

Irrelevant whether there are also other banks, especially as the other banks are starting to use the same discriminatory policies with various people. The banks should act impartially, and not be looking into somebody's opinions and politics. Imagine other everyday businesses doing the same, eg supermarkets?



In the document, Coutts admit he DOES still meet their financial criteria.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

There's enough banks in this country for someone to find another one if their current bank feels that it will suffer reputational damage by having an outspoken individual as a customer.

And why single out private banks? Why not every supplier of goods and services in the country? Let's strangle British business with more red tape!

I don't think businesses should be allowed to withdraw service for reasons based on race, religious, politics, or sexuality apart from extreme or specific examples.

Farage isn't exactly beyond the pale. We're not demanding that the KKK are given a bank account for example.

The only possible caveat here is that private banking is more tailored and personal. It's basically a private club you can be invited into. So any law enforcing people's accounts that aren't withdrawn/not issued based on politics might exempt them anyway.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Irrelevant whether there are also other banks, especially as the other banks are starting to use the same discriminatory policies with various people. The banks should act impartially, and not be looking into somebody's opinions and politics. Imagine other everyday businesses doing the same, eg supermarkets?

In the document, Coutts admit he DOES still meet their financial criteria.

They’ve also admitted he’s a risk (PEP) - a risk none of the other banks he’s contacted want to take on. Having identified this risk gives them additional administrative and regulatory burdens in dealing with Farage as a client.

If that burden is better shouldered at NatWest, rather than Coutts, I fail to see how they can reasonably have been considered to refuse a service to him.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

They’ve also admitted he’s a risk (PEP) - a risk none of the other banks he’s contacted want to take on. Having identified this risk gives them additional administrative and regulatory burdens in dealing with Farage as a client.

If that burden is better shouldered at NatWest, rather than Coutts, I fail to see how they can reasonably have been considered to refuse a service to him.

Minutes of a meeting of Coutts’ wealth reputational risk committee held on Nov 17 2022 state: “The committee did not think continuing to bank NF was compatible with Coutts given his publicly-stated views that were at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation.
“This was not a political decision but one centred around inclusivity and purpose.”
Mr Farage has said Coutts told him he was not being treated as a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) – a legal term for customers who are deemed risky for political reasons – but the dossier specifically states that he is one.

The decision was still based SOLELY on his opinions.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Irrelevant whether there are also other banks, especially as the other banks are starting to use the same discriminatory policies with various people. The banks should act impartially, and not be looking into somebody's opinions and politics. Imagine other everyday businesses doing the same, eg supermarkets?



In the document, Coutts admit he DOES still meet their financial criteria.

How about Northern Irish bakeries?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The decision was still based SOLELY on his opinions.

No it wasn’t. His own documentation from them following the subject access request, plus subsequent rejections across the banking sector, say he was a PEP.

They may not have initially disclosed that to him, but it was certainly there on paper in the decision making trail.

Originally Posted by jonbxx

How about Northern Irish bakeries?

In case you forgot (though I suspect you haven’t), Ashers never refused service, they simply refused to reproduce a specific campaigning slogan that did not align with their company’s values. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Ashers won.

It is now established case law in the UK that nobody can be forced to promote a message they fundamentally disagree with. That case law cannot be overturned by any British court, given that it’s the decision of the highest court in the land. Only Parliament could change it, by writing legislation that would amount to compelling speech - a hopelessly illiberal idea that is vastly, vastly unlikely ever to occur.

None of which is in any way relevant to a bank closing someone’s account because they don’t like their politics.