Bank Insists on Telephone Closure of Account

I would ask why you agreed to those terms and conditions and now complain. Why would the condition be described as "unfair"? If you lost the ability to speak there are services available for text to talk. Many people use them. Your last bit about contractual matters is a sweeping statement and does not make sense or apply to you not agreeing to terms and conditions you previously did agree to. Don't sign or agree to contracts if you do not agree with them or understand them. Maybe you need an adult to help you next time, or someone with a bit of common sense.

Thank you for your considered response - however, you need not have bothered.

I have never noticed your posts before. I have looked back over your history, and I see that you were probably seeking to confirm that you are a knob once again .

Well done.

Steady on.... The OP's asking a perfectly fair question, not complaining.

That's what the OP's asking. Conditions, even in writing, can be deemed to be unfair. Indeed, I reckon this has been established in banking more than any other sector I can think of.

And if the called party doesn't agree to have this facility, too?

It's only a sweeping statement if you regard a statement of fact as "sweeping". I doubt I'm alone in understanding what the OP wrote.

The OP hasn't suggested she didn't understand and agree to the terms. My reading is simply that she is now curious about why they insist on this - given that wanting evidence of her request to close an account is pretty fundamental and certainly totally reasonable.

You evidently regard them as mutually exclusive, so which category do you think bankers fall into?

Many thanks for spending more time with "Roger" than I did.

You have summarised the position very well.

He has been here a while - he used to be known as "Ian"

It does seem odd, but giving them the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they thought customers would on the whole find this a more efficient and easier way of doing it. I suppose they might have also considered this a slightly (only slightly) more secure way of doing things, as it's easier (in theory) to confirm an identity over the phone that in a letter which - lets face it - could have been written by anyone. I do see your point though. By insisting on a phone call transaction, you have no physical proof that the agreement was made other than a recording of the call which they may or may not have kept.

Sam posted

Why would one do that with a bank, given their records?

If that's all it is, they don't need to make it compulsory. Just provide it as an option.

No it couldn't, because the bank can compare the signature with that of the original account holder.

Of course. It is quite deliberate on their part.

When I tried to close a joint account with the Abbey, they insisted that I and the other party both attend the branch together, with our passports. Preposterous though this was, we managed to organise it, only to be told that we would now have to write to a hitherto unknown address to close the account. We duly did this, but our letter was never acknowledged and the account was not closed; the statements continue to arrive to this day.

I have simply given up trying, but have kept a copy of the letter (and notes of the branch visit) for that inevitable day when the Abbey tries to stick charges on the account. I suggest the OP does the same; ignore the nonsense about closing by phone, and just write to them.

That's right, use it or lose it! Wont be long before they insist you accept shrink wrapped T&C heaven forbid or something worse. Most people need to quickly grow a spine - time is running out.

Which one?

Not ME!!!!!

Althoug rather obnoxos his comments are valid though judith , why did you agree to the terms if you were not happy with them

When i tried to close an account they refused point blank unless i wrote in

It really is time that the banking sector actually sat down and discussed setting up a uniform set of rules

Personally i would ring them and confirm in writing and ask them to confirm the telephone conversation .

Any bank that requires only a telephone call to shut an account down when you have funds would worry me

Well, presumably there's more to it than that. I doubt you could just phone up and say "I want to close account XYZ, please transfer the balance to my account ABC". They'd put you through the whole validation process of security questions - and may even offer you a better interest rate than your new account would offer. None of which they could do for a written instruction.

Sorry, I had a funny turn. Normal service will resume shortly. Don't adjust your set.

True

Again, true. It's as easy to find out the answers to a few simple security questions as it is to copy a signature, so neither method is really any more secure from the customers viewpoint.

Similar problem here with Natwest about 10 years ago.

I would suggest this is related to trying to retain customers who want to leave ... once the customer calls in they can try and persuade them to say (the same trick mobile phone companies use. If you want an instant reply when calling customer services, select the "I wish to leave" option, and see how quickly you get an answer :-) )

I would suggest these T&Cs might fall foul of the DDA, as they clearly prevent a deaf/dumb person accessing the banks services, when a "reasonable adjustment" (to whit : someone who can read and write) is available to the bank.

Just leave a balance of less than 10p, and leave it.. The bank will get fed up before you do.....

No, his tone was definitely different! You can see him in other groups posting under other names - e.g. "nothing here" on uk.adverts.computer.

Then i requested weekly statements

No perhaps they thought that forcing customers to telephone them would give them an opportunity to talk them out of closing an account.

They can also screw a little more money out of them with their effing 0845 numbers.

click no - see 0800 numbers

click yes - see 0845 numbers

I did read them a couple of years ago - I was obviously happy with them at the time - if I even noticed it. It would not have been an important issue *then*.

I am just very surprised that that is a condition.

I have never ever not been able to conduct such matters in writing elsewhere - that was purely the point I am making - I believe it is very unusual.