Not upheld: unfair contract variation and breach of marketing promise complaint against Santander UK Plc

Decision detail

Summary

N, a limited company, complained that Santander unfairly migrated its free business current account opened in 2009 to a fee-paying account (£9.99 monthly) in 2025, despite being promised 'free banking forever'. Santander argued the account terms always allowed changes with notice, the marketing promise was qualified by regulatory changes, and significant compliance costs since 2009 justified the fee. The ombudsman found Santander entitled to rely on contractual change clauses, that adequate notice was given, and that substantial regulatory changes supported the commercial decision to introduce fees. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that while the account was marketed as 'free banking forever', the contractual terms and conditions have always contained clauses allowing Santander to make changes with notice. The original marketing literature itself qualified the 'free forever' promise by stating it was subject to changes in law and regulation. Significant regulatory changes since 2009 (anti-money laundering, fraud prevention, etc.) have substantially increased banking compliance costs, justifying the fee. Santander provided adequate notice (over 60 days) and offered reasonable alternatives. As a commercial business, Santander is entitled to withdraw uneconomic products. The ombudsman would not interfere with commercial product decisions even if a contractual obligation existed.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website