Nigel Farage de-banking scandal as Head of NatWest resigns

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: AlienBorg
And a bank has no business judging your political or religious views.

Unless it's on the contract that they can act to avoid, like they call it, "reputational risks".

If the contract has a clause allowing them to investigate clients to avoid "reputational risk" then Farage can't do a thing about it.

But the public opinion will.

A contract like this can be voided.
What legitimacy does it have even if we assume it exists.

a reply to: AlienBorg

When you open a bank account don't you sign some papers? If you do that's a contract, in which you are accepting the bank's conditions, in the same way you are accepting ATS' conditions of use by posting here.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: AlienBorg

When you open a bank account don't you sign some papers? If you do that's a contract, in which you are accepting the bank's conditions, in the same way you are accepting ATS' conditions of use by posting here.

Yea and no.
You can still find holes and irregularities in the contract with your bank. Some of the terms and conditions may not lawful for example or may have not been expressed clearly and transparently to the client or may have been misleading. Just because something it's in the contract doesn't make it valid. There is a whole bunch of lawyers dealing with cases in this area.

I found Coutts' "Private Client Core Terms", available here.

In it they say:

12. Cancelling, closing or converting an account
...
12.4 This Agreement is indefinite, but we can close an account or terminate the Agreement immediately where we:
• reasonably suspect that you have given us false information;
• reasonably suspect that the account (or any other account you hold with us or another member of the NatWest Group, or are otherwise connected to) has been used, is being used or is likely to be used for an illegal purpose or to abusively avoid tax;
• consider that you have behaved in an offensive, threatening or violent manner, which includes any racist or other discriminatory conduct, towards our staff;

I wouldn't be surprised if they have a "Reputational Risk" clause hidden somewhere.

If they do not have then they are in a bigger trouble.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
You can still find holes and irregularities in the contract with your bank. Some of the terms and conditions may not lawful for example or may have not been expressed clearly and transparently to the client or may have been misleading. Just because something it's in the contract doesn't make it valid. There is a whole bunch of lawyers dealing with cases in this area.

I know, and I also know that the banks also have lawyers dealing with those written terms.

But, as I said, without knowing what was signed by Nigel Farage we cannot really know if the bank could even close his account in the way they did, specially seeing that they were looking at it back in November 2022.

Well it looks all up for the bank now doesnt it? Especially after that foi request by Farage that showed up the minutes of the meeting when they were discussing him after formerly lying about why they closed his account and spilling his private account details to the BBC in order to big up their own version.

I note that there are some opponents of Farage in the media trying to9 say this is not a big deal and others trying to distract by saying well he never spoke up when muslim groups were being unbanked...

The political stupidity in the UK media continues to depress and surprise me.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Can't stand Farage myself but this is a major event and de-banking someone just because of their opinion is a totalitarian policy and I'm not aware of anyone else experiencing this. They seem to have a vendata against Farage and aren't applying their rules/ethics to other customers.

Hate preacher and recently convicted terrorist, Anjem Choudary, still has his bank accounts despite leading proscribed terror organisations

The financial sector and banks are guilty of dodging billions in tax and laundering billions of Cartel money so the tax evasion clause is a load of balls.

- A banks only job is to protect customers money and personal info; they've failed at their only job and broken many laws in the process.

If I was a Natwest customer I'd be changing banks and their shares are tumbling for a good reaason.

EDIT: Misread the document ArMaP supplied and didn't notice it was about offending staff; I wrongly interpreted it as if customers has made such comments in public settings.

I never thought Id have sympathy for Farage and cheering him on hoping he is succesful before but he's been treated so badly I hope he wins and gets a huge payout for this.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: AlienBorg
You can still find holes and irregularities in the contract with your bank. Some of the terms and conditions may not lawful for example or may have not been expressed clearly and transparently to the client or may have been misleading. Just because something it's in the contract doesn't make it valid. There is a whole bunch of lawyers dealing with cases in this area.

I know, and I also know that the banks also have lawyers dealing with those written terms.

But, as I said, without knowing what was signed by Nigel Farage we cannot really know if the bank could even close his account in the way they did, specially seeing that they were looking at it back in November 2022.

The problem with the bank in this case is multidimensional.

One is breach of confidentiality for which Farage can sue them for a lot of money.

The other is libel and defamation. Another area where they will have an out of court settlement imo

The other is they admitted his political views were part of the reason why they decided to close his account. This is scandalous.

Resignations upon resignations won't solve the problem but it seems other banks have done the same thing to customers. Just have a look online, there are many similar cases.

a reply to: AlienBorg

Good summary

I'm 99% certain that de-banking him because of his political views is a massive breach of both the UK Human Rights Act and EU version (I think UK is still under EU HRA law which is based on UK HRA) and even interntional law via the Universal declaration of human rights

UK Articles 8, 9, 10 and 14 appear to have been broken IMO - UK HRA - UK HRA

EU HRA - 8, 9. 10. 11 and 14 are broken IMO

www.echr.coe.int...


UN International Human Rights Law

Article 18

'Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'

Articla 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

ATS wont let me link to more than one document so the links may not display correctly

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: AlienBorg

When you open a bank account don't you sign some papers? If you do that's a contract, in which you are accepting the bank's conditions, in the same way you are accepting ATS' conditions of use by posting here.

yes and no, contract laws cuts multiple ways, and terms can be express or implied.. as it turns our this bank tried to use the express terms of min amount yet did not apply that to all customers and in not doing so created the implied terms of some vague amount.

i hear a lot of people say its a private company it can do what it likes when thats not true in the uk.. a recent case of a privately us owned hospital in the uk trying to impose its version of same sex care only to be slapped down by the cqc (watchdog) as in breach uk's equality act..

so yes they can write clauses but they have to stand up in court they knew they would lose hence trying to muddy the water by leaking misinformation the BBC..

the mess is such this looks like a ploy to bring the debanking into the light to be sterilised, that this has been followed up with farrages arch nemesis gina miller debanked has both leading leave/remain figures debanked a tad too convenient.

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: AlienBorg

When you open a bank account don't you sign some papers? If you do that's a contract, in which you are accepting the bank's conditions, in the same way you are accepting ATS' conditions of use by posting here.

yes and no, contract laws cuts multiple ways, and terms can be express or implied.. as it turns our this bank tried to use the express terms of min amount yet did not apply that to all customers and in not doing so created the implied terms of some vague amount.

i hear a lot of people say its a private company it can do what it likes when thats not true in the uk.. a recent case of a privately us owned hospital in the uk trying to impose its version of same sex care only to be slapped down by the cqc (watchdog) as in breach uk's equality act..

so yes they can write clauses but they have to stand up in court they knew they would lose hence trying to muddy the water by leaking misinformation the BBC..

the mess is such this looks like a ploy to bring the debanking into the light to be sterilised, that this has been followed up with farrages arch nemesis gina miller debanked has both leading leave/remain figures debanked a tad too convenient.

Private companies may have a degree of freedom but can't do what they like. They still have to follow the laws of the State, either in the UK or in the US or anywhere else.

The idea a contract between a business and a client is binding/valid is simply not true. This is my post earlier

You can still find holes and irregularities in the contract with your bank. Some of the terms and conditions may not be lawful for example or may have not been expressed clearly and transparently to the client or may have been misleading. Just because something it's in the contract doesn't make it valid. There is a whole bunch of lawyers dealing with cases in this area.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
The idea a contract between a business and a client is binding/valid is simply not true.

If contracts are not binding/valid, why are they used?

A signed contract, at least in Portuguese law, is always valid. If there are some paragraphs in the contract that are against the law those are considered null, but the rest is, obviously, valid.

A contract is considered a private (because it's between two or more parties) addition to the laws, a kind of private law that applies to those that signed it.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: AlienBorg
The idea a contract between a business and a client is binding/valid is simply not true.

If contracts are not binding/valid, why are they used?

A signed contract, at least in Portuguese law, is always valid. If there are some paragraphs in the contract that are against the law those are considered null, but the rest is, obviously, valid.

A contract is considered a private (because it's between two or more parties) addition to the laws, a kind of private law that applies to those that signed it.

It depends on what is in the contract.

Lawyers can find some holes in a contract as I said above. From something which could be potentially unlawful to something else which could be non transparent or even misleading.

The contract was written by the bank and not by the client or his/her lawyers. This is where you lawyers can have a shot.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
Lawyers can find some holes in a contract as I said above.

If they exist.

a reply to: ArMaP

Only if someone is paying us?

Update

news.sky.com...

Nigel Farage says Coutts has offered to reinstate his bank accounts

The former Ukip leader said he was seeking compensation from the private bank and "the fight goes on". He wants a face-to-face meeting with the bank's bosses in a bid to understand how many other people had been affected by account closures.

First he needs to sue them and get the compensation, then expose the widespread wrongdoing against other citizens who don't have the means and powers Nigel Farage has.

.www.theguardian.com...

Nigel Farage has said that the newly installed boss of Coutts has offered to keep his accounts there open, reversing a decision that triggered a scandal and the resignation of the private bank’s previous chief executive.

The former Ukip leader said he welcomed the offer but was still taking legal action against NatWest, which owns Coutts, demanding compensation, a full apology and a face-to-face meeting with the banking group’s bosses.

Peter Flavel resigned as Coutts chief executive last Thursday, less than two days after the NatWest boss, Alison Rose, also stepped down over her role in the row. Flavel has been replaced by Mohammed Syed.

The new CEO of Coutts … has written to me to say I can keep both my personal and my business accounts, and that’s good, and I thank him for it,” Farage said on GB News on Monday night.

“But enormous harm has been done to me over the course of the last few months … It has taken up a huge amount of my time and it has cost me, so far, quite a lot of money in legal fees. So I have today sent a legal litigation letter to Coutts, where I want some full apologies, I want some compensation for my cost.

Just sue them and ask them £1M in compensation. They wanna go woke? There are consequences.