Regarding banks being able to close peoples accounts on a whim. This has always sat uncomfortably with me, and hell, I used to work in a bank and frequently had to deliver the bad news to customers.
"Sorry, the bank has chosen to end the banking relationship with you and this is your two months' notice. You'll need to withdraw or transfer out all your money by this date, and set up your standing orders and direct debits with a different bank. I haven't been told the reason for this decision, and this isn't something that can be contested or reversed. The reason for the decision won't be divulged even if you put in an official complaint as it relates to our internal policies. You won't be able to reapply for banking services with us for at least the next six years, which is the minimum statutory period your information is held on file. Have a nice day"
And what's more if the customer expressed the frustration of being denied essential banking services that they needed to receive their salary or benefits, and pay for bills, rent and shopping, the official line was: our banking group does not run a monopoly. There are plenty of other banks you could apply to, hence we have no moral duty to keep your accounts open.
The obvious problem, in the age of credit agency reports, shared databases of Politically Exposed Persons, (and who knows what it being very efficiently and opaquely scraped from the internet by AI these days), is that being blacklisted from one bank often in effect means being blacklisted by all. Having access to banking is all but a prerequisite for participating in society, but while your employer, landlord and utility companies may all treat your presence and participation in the banking structure as a non-negotiable, to your bank, your participation is a privilege. A privilege that can be rescinded at any time, for any reason (and very often for no stated reason at all). Banks are private, for-profit entities. They can, and
should be selective about who they do business with. But, it's very worrying when accounts can apparently be denied simply on the basis of appearing in the news for the "wrong" reasons, or holding legal but unpopular political opinions, or association (however tenuous) with another person. Without oversight, impartiality and accountability, the whole system starts looking a lot like a social credit system.
Without having given too much though to the practicalities or logistics, I suppose the solution could come in one of two forms. On the basis that participation in retail banking is a prerequistie for an individual to access many basic services in society (key among these being the ability to receive and spend money),
a) The onus of denying banking facilities could be inverted. Instead of the bank asing "Prove why should we accept you as a customer?", the question becomes "Do you have any valid reason to deny me an account?"
b) Allow commercial banks to be as selective as they like, but allow all individuals to have bare-bones, no-frills banking directly with the Bank of England, including a debit card and online banking. The Bank would have no option to deny or restrict an individual's access to these facilities except for provable fraudulent or criminal behaviour, for example.
Right, that's the world put to rights, time for a nap.
