Good luck with your appeal. However, nothing states they have to open a new UK account.... in the opposite respects nothing states they cannot.

Therefore the final decision is still at the banks discretion.....perhaps a favourable outcome from your FSA letter may hopefully encourage the bank to change their mind??...keep us posted

I have written to the FSA and the Treasury Select Committee (TSC) as they are supposed to be pursuading banks to offer bank accounts to UK ex pats after the debacle of the failure of the Derbyshire BSoc in the Isle of Man when the Icelandic parent company folded. In this example 10,000 plus UK citizens lost everything and most of them it appears had been forced offshore just to keep a sterling account with their bank/B Soc.

This was written in April 2009 by the TSC:

13. We accept that there is no specific regulation or law preventing the provision of bank accounts to expatriate British citizens, but in practice the supply appears to have been extremely limited. As such, many expatriates have been forced to deposit their money offshore, outside the protection of the Financial Services Authority, and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, as a direct result of the way in which Financial Services Authority regulations were interpreted in the UK. We therefore recommend that the Financial Services Authority liaise with both the Building Societies Association and the British Bankers’ Association, to identify why provision is so poor, and report back to us on steps to be taken to ensure better provision in the future, whether by new products, or greater access to existing products.

I agree it's a quandary, but you cannot force the bank to open a new account if it opposes their policy of acceptance, there is no law that says a bank has to open a new UK account in your circumstances.

You could appeal to the banks head office on the grounds of unfairness, asking they reverse their decision by informing them of your situation and asking for their understanding of your position, at the end of the day though it is at their discretion.

Hi conmankiller, unfortunately the situation is more complicated. We have money in an account that now pays very poor interest rates. As we all know banks commonly do this, have an account at a good rate then reduce the rates. So we are being forced to change accounts to maintain a decent return. So even though we are long term customers and we have an excellent credit rating we are being penalised because we live in France. France is part of the EU it is not a foreign state. The bank have decided that they can do this to us but it is discriminating against us and is hence unfair. The interest rates being offered by the offshore accounts are inferior to Uk rates and the protection is woth less. So I feel we are definately being discriminated against so that the bank can profit from the situation.

I am not commenting on the business conduct here just on the legalities, in your opening statement you asked about opening a new account, the below extract from your second post refers to retaining existing accounts......not opening new.

this would not be a burden for customers who move offshore but wish to retain existing accounts.[186]

If it is the banks HQ policy to refuse non-resident new accounts, then they are acting lawfully by placing that in their T&C's of acceptance, no matter if you are known personally at the branch.

When we joined BofS many years ago it wasn't a problem. It is a recent change. They cannot do anything locally its a corporate mandate from on high. The local bank people have done their best but someone has thrown the switch and we are excluded unless we go to an offshore account. My argument is that we would never have chosen to do that unless forced so we have been coerced and as a result have had to move banks. It doesn't seem a very sensible way to conduct business to stamp on yoour customers after years of loyal service.

Argue your case with the BOS then.!

As far as the law is concerned it is not illegal for this bank to refuse you, especially if it's written into their terms and conditions that you must be a UK resident.

Below is a excerpt from a recent government document. The money laundering regulations as you can see are a red herring. In fact if you go to the national savings website they indeed allow non resident Uk nationals to open accounts if they provide evidence of identity. So the Uk government bank allows it. In our case we are very well known to our branch and are on first name terms with some of the staff. We were left with no choice but to go offshore if we wanted to get a better interest rate so we were effectively being forced to go offshore or move banks. Most people I suspect would have gone offshore without realising the inherent dangers if the bank got into trouble. So I feel we were bullied, coerced, or forced....

100. Mr Ian Pearson MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, stated on 6 November 2008 that:

There is no legal bar under UK financial services regulation that would prevent a non-UK resident from opening a new bank account here. When an account is opened remotely, more onerous anti-money laundering checks are, quite properly, required because of the increased risks involved. This might well be a factor in the willingness of some UK banks to offer new accounts to non-residents. However, this would not be a burden for customers who move offshore but wish to retain existing accounts.[186]

In its response, the FSA reiterated that neither the Treasury's Money Laundering regulations, nor the FSA's handbook, prohibited expatriates opening accounts in the United Kingdom:

The Treasury's Money Laundering Regulations require firms to know their customer. … Guidance sets out how firms should identify their customer and which aspects of their identity they should verify. There is a section in the Guidance on customers who are non-resident, not physically present in the UK, wishing to open a bank account. This section explains what firms should consider when dealing with such applications: for example, it states that a firm should apply enhanced due diligence where the customer is not met personally or where other high risk factors come into play. It does not, as noted above, suggest that firms should refrain from entering into a business relationship with a UK citizen not residing in the UK.[187]

There is new consumer law in the UK that prevents "aggressive" acts forcing a customer to do something they would not normally choose to do.

The option in which you have the freedom of choice of whether you open a offshore account or not, is not something you are being forced to do. !

That does not apply in your case, at least not with the BOS they are simply refusing to let a foreign resident open a UK account, which is their prerogative, indeed they are almost obligated to do so under the money laundering regulations.

For years we have had business and personal bank accounts with the BofS. We now live permanently in France and recently we have been told that we cannot open any new accounts due to our living in France. We can however have an offshore account with the BofS in the Isle of Man but that is not a safe option as their bank guarantees are incapable of paying out if a large bank like BofS goes insolvent. So we said no thanks and moved to HSBC. However I don't think what the BofS is doing is strictly legal. There is new consumer law in the UK that prevents "aggressive" acts forcing a customer to do something they would not normally choose to do. The forcing of us to go to an offshore account I think may be such an aggressive act.(The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008) (relevant section below)

Any lawyers on this forum? Anyone had the same treatment from BofS? Any advice?

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

7.—(1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances—

(a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and

(b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

2) In determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence account shall be taken of—

(a) its timing, location, nature or persistence;

(b) the use of threatening or abusive language or behaviour;

(c) the exploitation by the trader of any specific misfortune or circumstance of such gravity as to impair the consumer’s judgment, of which the trader is aware, to influence the consumer’s decision with regard to the product;

(d) any onerous or disproportionate non-contractual barrier imposed by the trader where a consumer wishes to exercise rights under the contract, including rights to terminate a contract or to switch to another product or another trader; and

(e) any threat to take any action which cannot legally be taken.

(3) In this regulation—

(a) “coercion” includes the use of physical force; and

(b) “undue influence” means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer’s ability to make an informed decision.