De-banked for expressing alternative social views

The leaked banking review document even confirmed that they gave him special treatment and kept him longer than a normal customer, precisely because they knew he would try pull this exact grift.

He didn't meet the requirements of a premier account so they asked him to move to the main brand. That's it. That was the entire story.

I dont think Farage has made any claims about his finances that are different to the bank’s position. His view and allegation have been that the bank’s reason for debanking him was different to their public claims.

If their claim was not meeting their financial thresholds then they should apply that rule across the board. However, it seemed that they had not done so with others far below the threshold allowed to stay on. That, coupled with the actual report released by the bank, proved that they lied about the reason.

What did the bank lie about? high end private banking of this level is a very bespoke service - it's far divorced from a normal personal banking relationship that you or I have. They'll be various thresholds for customers applicable at various times but for these high level services that doesn't necessarily mean you'll operate on blanket terminations - Farage himself had been allowed to still be a customer for some time whilst below the threshold whilst his mortgage continued

The cost to serve and commercial risk (+ remember - reputational risk is part of commercial risk) applying to a PEP customer who actively makes it their business to be incredibly controversial will be higher than "normal" private wealth customers. Farage no longer met account requirements for a Coutts private banking account, had been given a grace period which had now expired, and there wasn't a commercial case for continuing with Farage as a private banking customer.

Even then he wasn't "de-banked" - he was offered a still reasonably exclusive NatWest Account, it just didn't come with a dedicated named private banker available on the phone 24/7 who can get you in-demand theatre tickets or seats for Wimbledon the bank block booked for customers and didn't come with events and drinks invites at Coutts HQ (and yes it is this sort of stuff that high end private banking services compete on)

The bank played an own goal and should have come clean at the start.

There were different reasons why the bank chose to remove Mr Farage from their client list. This included Farage not reaching the financial threshold, Farage being a politically exposed person and so on.

When the story broke, Farage claimed that the reason why he was de-banked was because he was basically not ‘liked’ which was denied by the bank who hid behind the financial threshold claim. Farage’s rebuttal was that there were other individuals who also fell short of the threshold but still had their accounts. So his argument was strengthened that it was more to do with Farage as a person rather than a client.

Let me give you another example that could be controversial. Imagine there are two people (Jack and Kwame). Both go to an exclusive high-end restaurant with a threshold of having a minimum of £100,000 in their bank accounts at all times. At the door, both show their bank statements and both meet the threshold.

During the meal, both bank balances fall below the financial threshold so they technically no longer qualify to remain in the restaurant. The concierge then goes to Kwame and asks him to leave. Kwame was then sent to another lower budget restaurant close to their own restaurant but part of their Group.

He is suspicious because he knows Jack also did not meet the threshold but was allowed to stay in the restaurant. Kwame’s feeling is that there was more to do than the financial threshold, maybe his race was also taken into account, which the restaurant strongly denied.

Kwame investigates and finds a report where his race was negatively talked about by some of the restaurant’s managers. So Kwame’s position is strengthened that his financial threshold was not the only reason for being asked to leave the restaurant.

We need to be honest about the de-banking scandal. The bank did so due to Farage as a person. They tried to use an excuse but fell flat on their faces when the report was released.

Farage as a public figure will have featured in the banks decision making process because (i) reputational risk is part of you commercial risk and (ii) managing a high end banking relationship for a high profile PEP (who chooses to actively court controversy) has a higher cost to serve than a "normal" high end private banking relationship & Farage's account was loss-making.

Re your restaurant - discrimination on race is (rightly) illegal as a general principle. Coutts did not exit Farage as a customer because of his race and there's no suggestion that he was racially discriminated against. It is legal to discriminate on the customers you wish to serve on commercial risk grounds (and again - reputational risk is part of commercial risk) - which is what happened.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with private banking services but these are very bespoke ongoing services which are very different from ordering a restaurant meal.

Farage as a public figure will have featured in the banks decision making process because (i) reputational risk is part of you commercial risk and (ii) managing a high end banking relationship for a high profile PEP (who chooses to actively court controversy) has a higher cost to serve than a "normal" high end private banking relationship & Farage's account was loss-making.

Re your restaurant - discrimination on race is (rightly) illegal as a general principle. Coutts did not exit Farage as a customer because of his race and there's no suggestion that he was racially discriminated against. It is legal to discriminate on the customers you wish to serve on commercial risk grounds (and again - reputational risk is part of commercial risk) - which is what happened.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with private banking services but these are very bespoke ongoing services which are very different from ordering a restaurant meal.

They actually discriminated against him because of his political opinions.
Do you think it is acceptable to discriminate against someone for their opinions?

Shared by 'many' but considered repungent by the actual majority.

They actually discriminated against him because of his political opinions.
Do you think it is acceptable to discriminate against someone for their opinions?

As a general rule no, but it depends on the situation, and this is much more nuanced than that.

In the context of providing a bespoke and highly specific private banking service to an individual that no longer meets the financial requirements for the service and has already been given a grace period to remedy (and didn’t), I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the service provider to consider the wider implications and costs of serving a highly controversial individual, who actively makes it their business to court controversy, with incredibly harmful lies about all manner of topics (immigration, society, net zero etc… etc…) and consider how that public expression impacts on the account profitability, together with the banks corporate values and stakeholder relations and decision to provide that selective & exclusive bespoke service, and whether it’s better for the bank to serve that individual with a more regular (but still exclusive) bank account for those reasons.