Farage made them the talking point when he complained the bank kicked him out because they were being too woke. The second tweet quoted about clearly notes that Coutts recognised Farage was not the only customer with views divergent from their own, and recommend keeping him as a customer.
I hardly think it’s fair to suggest a bank should have ignored considering the potential reputational damage from being associated with anyone. They can by all means consider the evidence and decide it won’t factor into their decision - but to not even assess it in the first place would be a dereliction of duty.
The report clearly says that
Farage had not really met the conditions for holding an account for a while
They had kept him on as a customer regardless
The security he had with them in relation to a mortgage was keeping his account afloat, as we’re
Once the mortgage was repaid - early - he fell so far outside the conditions now that exiting was appropriate
Anyone who knows much about Nigel Farage should have anticipated that as soon as the SAR was made public, NatWest’s reputation would suffer much more damage if they closed his account, than it would do if they just kept quiet and let him keep his account.
Breaking news:
BBC News - Nigel Farage: NatWest boss admits ‘serious’ error in bank closure row
Seems likely, resigning with dignity rather than being fired. Can’t imagine they’re actually very happy with the PR storm it’s created needlessly. We’ll see I guess.
And all of this just gives Nigel Farage attention which is like oxygen to him. He never has actual policies or objectives just sensational sound bites.
I hope it goes away and he can return to his increasing obscurity again.
I’m definitely no fan of Farage but ultimately the CEO of a bank should not be discussing an individual customer with a BBC journalist - whoever they are.
I’m solidly “meh” about it all. I see your point but I also can’t summon up enough to care about how an exclusive bank chooses their supposedly equally exclusive customers. To me it’s akin to a private members club cancelling someone’s membership card.
The only bit that bothers me is the interaction with the wider RBS offering.
Predictably now it’s happening to privileged people it’s suddenly in politics and the media, but I seriously hope all this extends beyond who said what soon into a serious look at the powers banks have to refuse customers with no stated grounds.
I do think Farage being denied a bank account is wrong but also it’s the tip of the iceberg. There’s a huge number of people who can’t get bank accounts and won’t be told why (as we all know from this forum) and that leaves a lot of people unbanked or with limited services.
Yes this bothers me loads more. There are vulnerable people, with no other options, being denied everything but the most awful inaccessible banking options. That is a news story that should be properly investigated and run. With the aim of driving changes.
Not this nonsense about ONE rich guy being inconvenienced and a load of other rich people in government rushing to change things.
It’s the principle of the matter here not the person, and with the best intentions I can see there is a disassociation between these two things even on this thread.
It shouldn’t matter that it’s Farage. It shouldn’t be “meh”. It should be outrageous that a customer was leaked to journalists.
If this was the CEO of Monzo discussing you and your account with the media I’d bet all the money I have you’d be outraged. It has to apply equally. It has to.
In your opinion. I don’t agree that it should be outrageous.
Coutts made an error in assuming that their decision would automatically require a press statement or comment just because it concerned a public figure. That was a big cock up but I am absolutely not outraged.
There are many things that outrage me and this isn’t on the list.
I do think there’s an element of it a) being a person who’s generally not well liked by a lot of people and b) it being a premium account that barely anyone is eligible for anyway, which I think is unavoidably going to skew opinions (mine included) on how much of an issue it is seen as being. In other words it’s different to a regular person being completely de-banked and having no account to their name as it’s fundamentally not that in this instance.
If I had to come down one way or the other, I’d say I don’t generally have an issue with the account being closed as I still don’t think it’s entirely clear cut if it was because of views, for commercial reasons, or both, but I agree that the public disclosure of information isn’t appropriate or acceptable regardless of who it is.
3 Likes
Anarchist
(Press ‘Help’ search ‘Contact us’ or email help@monzo.com or call 0800 802 1281)
97
Looks like the CEO might be exiting through the door marked “Do One.”
Well then. Farrage gets to play “look at me” yet again and someone I thought seemed to be doing a great job gets scalped.
If we take him out of the equation I sort of agree that it really was a dumb move to talk about someone’s account with the press. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’de been sandbagged by farrages team though.
“He separately told GB News that “the first rule of banking is you have to respect the privacy of the customer. You also have to respect the GDPR regulations. They were both broken, very clearly, by the boss of NatWest.”
His pal Arron banks knows all about GDPR….
I really do think if this had been anyone else it wouldn’t have had anywhere near the furour. I’ll bet he’s loving the attention.