NatWest has frozen my business account, can I make a claim against them?

Well, where do I start!

Natwest today has frozen my business account and stopped our debit cards, all because we haven’t filled in a form to explain to them the company structure, can they do this?

A bit of context, we have been trading for nearly 130 years, and have banked with them since the 1970’s, have no debt and a very healthy current account.

I was told on the phone they had tried to contact us several times via email, which is true but all went to our junk server, and it was only Friday we found out and did exactly as we were advised on the website that afternoon.

Today, our current account has disappeared from my phone app and online banking, and after a lengthy phone call have been told it will take a minimum of 2 business days to sort.

Is this legal? Do we have any recourse? We have a payroll to run this week along with suppliers to pay and direct debits going out?

Any info appreciated, pulling my hair out here….

Common sense would suggest that an automatic process for a customer not complying with a procedural request is perfectly legal.

The email being diverted to junk is entirely your fault and it may be regarded as unprofessional not to check it at least once a week.

Sorry if I am blunt but in this case the blame lies on your shoulders and the consequences are down to you.

Two days to reinstate your account that you failed to maintain is entirely reasonable.

in short no, they tried to contact you a few times. However it irritates me they can't pick up the phone to do this. I had the exact same issue with Tide bank, however the account was unfrozen within hours.

Why it would takes these dinosaur banks days to do anything the new challengers can do in seconds is beyond me.

Ah the dreaded compliance checks. An absolute pain. Also with NatWest and had to go through this. It really is a pain and the support not great from my experience.

I also delayed completion slightly but in their defence they did call me to tell me I need to do it or risk having accounts frozen.

After completion they then chased me again even though we had done it.

I hope you get it sorted and that you manage to whitelist their email address for next year!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick P

Common sense would suggest that an automatic process for a customer not complying with a procedural request is perfectly legal.

The email being diverted to junk is entirely your fault and it may be regarded as unprofessional not to check it at least once a week.

Sorry if I am blunt but in this case the blame lies on your shoulders and the consequences are down to you.

Two days to reinstate your account that you failed to maintain is entirely reasonable.

---

we check our local junk twice a day, the NatWest were on the webmail front end junk folder so not even getting through to our computers, we do check this periodically but as has been mentioned, if this is such an important thing why not pick up the phone or send a letter? The subject field to the email was awful hence why my ISP didn’t even forward on, and when I asked my Accounts team to forward on it ended up there again even though it came from an internal email account!

Had we have had proper notification we would have dealt with it properly and swiftly, random emails is not the way to go about it if the consequences are this serious, a letter at the bare minimum in my opinion.

I’m sorry but I don’t see why they deem it necessary to freeze a business account when the information they require is readily available @ Companies House, and what does it matter what shares myself and and my father hold in relation the banking we use them for? It all seems very strange to me?

After speaking with my accountant this afternoon and reading these replies it seems a common thing which makes me feel a bit better, but my staff and suppliers won’t see it that way come the end of the month if people are waiting for payment and wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mick P

Common sense would suggest that an automatic process for a customer not complying with a procedural request is perfectly legal.

The email being diverted to junk is entirely your fault and it may be regarded as unprofessional not to check it at least once a week.

Sorry if I am blunt but in this case the blame lies on your shoulders and the consequences are down to you.

Two days to reinstate your account that you failed to maintain is entirely reasonable.

---

Or, viewed another way, a reliable and long-standing customer of over 50 years, with no black marks against their name, has their entire business future aggressively threatened due to a very common electronic administrative error, resulting in a few days delay to a compliance request.

Heavy-handed? I think so. Some people are busy and other means of communication are available.

Nat West deserves to be reported to the financial ombudsman for excessive and threatening behaviour, for all the good that would do. They're all cut from the same cloth so I wouldn't expect any action to be taken.

p.s they also should write to you. They did to us.

Very disappointing from NW, especially for such a long-standing and reliable (and presumably valuable) customer. What happened to common-sense, and indeed courtesy? I'd be taking your business elsewhere after this, unless they can repair the damage. Do you have a local branch (still) and do you have semi-regular contact with them? I wonder over how long a period they tried to contact you (e.g. months, a week). Good luck.

It happened to a friend just before Christmas.

He ended up in branch to resolve it although he is actively looking to move away because he wasn’t made aware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jukeboxs

Very disappointing from NW, especially for such a long-standing and reliable (and presumably valuable) customer. What happened to common-sense, and indeed courtesy? I'd be taking your business elsewhere after this, unless they can repair the damage. Do you have a local branch (still) and do you have semi-regular contact with them? I wonder over how long a period they tried to contact you (e.g. months, a week). Good luck.

---

Dont worry, its the first thing on my to do list next month when this is sorted!

We do have a local branch, but they never contact us, which is absolutely shocking as we are a fairly large firm for where we are based. I’m with Barclays Premier with my personal account and they are amazing, always reaching out on the phone, but I don’t even know a name of anyone in our local branch to even speak to about this!

I was told we have been sent “several” emails over the past 3 months, today I found two on the junk server and if it was not for the contact on Friday we would be none the wiser.

We are so busy at the moment, if there is any chance of recourse through a complaint I will pursue it but simply do not have time to flog a dead horse, I’ve spent all afternoon on this as it is and will be working most of the evening to catch up only to be at it again with them in the morning. The department involved are also clueless, and the form we have been advised to fill in is a joke, it’s an excel document which looks like a child has done it! Why not have an online form to fill in and sign with Adobe if it’s such an important part of their T&c’s?

Shocking bank, even worse customer service, we will be moving on as soon as feasibly possible where they may actually appreciate our business instead of putting needless hurdles in front of us.

I hear very good things about Starling bank business accounts. Considering switching to them myself, from a dinosaur bank who are also useless :encouragement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Onelasttime

Or, viewed another way...............

---

You know it is not worth the effort.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This

Consider switching, but be prepared for an interrogation which makes an MI5 positive vetting look like a pub quiz - and even then, if you can't prove which particular sixpence you won at the fair at age 5 be prepared for the "computer says no" response.

Meantime certain banks get a slap on the wrist for knowingly rinsing grubby pesos.

One rule some folks and....

I doubt there’s recourse. The bank have attempted to contact you, and had no response.

The legislation requires them to make reasonable efforts to obtain information, and take steps where they are unable to do so.

It’s a pain, but I would provide them with the information and have the accounts working again. If they close your account you’re likely required to advise that when opening a new account elsewhere.

HSBC took me through this same nonsense last year. It was an LLP account which their employees didn't seem to understand. Company structure and share allocation....it isn't a company etc etc.

Took me a huge amount of man hours to sort out, for no real purpose in the end.

Only positive aspect is once it's done, it's done.

Sent from my SM-G950F using TZ-UK mobile app

Do it yearly for a member of my family.

You get a letter and about 6 weeks. Letter this week and we have until the end of March.

Gotta read your post.

Precisely what Scott said.

They are not permitted to provide service to a client where they don’t hold client due diligence information which includes the structure.

Perhaps they should have called or you RM been more proactive.

Have you considered Starling ?

All banks are required by regulations to carry out KYC checks - they all seem to do it in slightly different ways (we run business accounts with multiple banks so that we don't have a single point of failure) Typically they contact you via email, post to registered office address and prompts on business internet banking. Filling out the KYC details are a pain and the review process by the bank is also painful. In my estimation, NatWest would appear to have gone over the top here by suspending access to your current accounts - but this does appear to be modus operandi for NatWest. Of all the big banks Natwest is the one that would do this type of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wileeeeeey

Do it yearly for a member of my family.

You get a letter and about 6 weeks. Letter this week and we have until the end of March.

Gotta read your post.

---

But there was no post, only spam mail that was filtered by security software. Something I’m sure Nat West would insist on but has actually prevented them contacting a customer.

Whatever the customer does, they can’t win.

Regardless of ins and outs, I’d be taking my 50+ years of loyal business elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Onelasttime

But there was no post, only spam mail that was filtered by security software. Something I’m sure Nat West would insist on but has actually prevented them contacting a customer.

Whatever the customer does, they can’t win.

Regardless of ins and outs, I’d be taking my 50+ years of loyal business elsewhere.

---

Missed the email part, that's a bit weird.

The one we get is by post.

I'd provide the details ASAP and reconsider who to bank with afterwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Integrale

HSBC took me through this same nonsense last year. It was an LLP account which their employees didn't seem to understand. Company structure and share allocation....it isn't a company etc etc.

Took me a huge amount of man hours to sort out, for no real purpose in the end.

Only positive aspect is once it's done, it's done.

Sent from my SM-G950F using TZ-UK mobile app

---

Had exact same experience with Barclays Business. Appalling customer service.

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

I think Natwest are still smarting a little after their ‘wee’ 2021 fine and hence need to be seen to be proactive in ensuring they dot the ‘i’s’ on compliance matters.

However that is no excuse for them not to have allocated you a RM with responsibility for sweeping up any ‘non-responders’ that would affect ongoing trading particularly given a 50 year relationship.

Looking for retribution from a bank is like trying to ‘Smack a Hedgehog’.

Change banks by all means but it will be hassle and ’different bride same dress’.
================================================== ========
Mrs Justice Cockerill, the sentencing judge at Southwark Crown Court, today said: '….it must be borne in mind that although in no way complicit in the money laundering which took place, the Bank was functionally vital. Without the Bank – and without the Bank’s failures - the money could not be effectively laundered.'

NatWest pleaded guilty at Westminster Magistrates Court on 7 October. This is the first time the FCA has pursued criminal charges for money laundering failings.

The charges covered NatWest’s failure to properly monitor the activity of a commercial customer, Fowler Oldfield, a jewellery business based in Bradford, between 8 November 2012 to 23 June 2016. When taking on the customer, NatWest initially understood it would not handle cash from the Fowler Oldfield business. However, over the course of the customer relationship approximately £365m was deposited with the bank, of which around £264m was in cash.

We have only been going 20 or so years, but I am certain our realtionship manager at Lloyds would have called me before they allowed this to happen.

I think the rectification is pretty quick but they must have other ways to get your attention if they are not happy with your admin.

Sounds very strange that they didn't try to reach you by phone or post before taking such drastic action. If in your shoes I'd definitely be looking at changing banks. I find Lloyds business to be courteous, reliable and professional.

Many thanks for all feedback, problem now resolved, another 2 hours wasted today but I can now access my own cash once again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neil.Ldn

I hear very good things about Starling bank business accounts. Considering switching to them myself, from a dinosaur bank who are also useless :encouragement:

---

As I read the thread, I thought Starling is the one to go to. Their bank is brilliant and so is the app.
I wouldn't hesitate myself. I have a current account with them but left my RBS one open just in case. I'm now very confident using Starling (voted top British bank several times)

Why would a bank do this unless you had a loan etc.

If you had healthy accounts with no problems and as you said been with them for many years. Seems like a bad way to treat a customer

I've been doing business with my local bank and never once have they emailed me about my accounts. Only time is to update my info or my investments.

DON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DONGinsler

Why would a bank do this unless you had a loan etc.

If you had healthy accounts with no problems and as you said been with them for many years. Seems like a bad way to treat a customer

I've been doing business with my local bank and never once have they emailed me about my accounts. Only time is to update my info or my investments.

DON

---

KYC - Know your client rules in the UK differ to Canada

My experience based on Tide and the research I did on the newer banks a few years ago. Great for smaller one director business but not larger ones.

based on my experiences with Tide

+
great app
so easy to issue expense cards
open subsequent accounts
assign receipts and notes to out goings etc

_
no dual authorisation
only one person can have online access both on app and online (single director)
Xero etc or granting access to accountants doesnt integrate despite what they say

overall great for small businesses not medium or large