Technical issue, 3 accounts not functioning: HELP


#1

I wrote to the CEO on 26 June and she promised to investigate a technical issue with my personal and business accounts which have have been non functioning since Wednesday, 20 June.

Unfortunately, despite my sending a number of follow up emails the situation has not been resolved and I am unable to operate the fundamental banking operations of receiving and sending money on these accounts.

All business payments have been rejected and direct debits from the personal account have not been paid, causing major aggravation with utility companies and domestic suppliers.

I have another business account which has accepted one faster payment and one CHAPS payment yet appears to have rejected numerous faster payments, worth tens of thousands of pounds of client invoice payments, furthermore the account is not allowing outgoing payments.

There appears to be a disconnect between the customer service team, who say they will have to talk to the bank when the impression the bank give is that they are part of the organisation.

The bank has tens of thousands of pounds of my money tied up in thee accounts that I am unable to use, my business is crippled and personal life made very complicated and this is causing a great deal of stress. Customer services via the App simply respond that there is a technical issue which is being looked into. I have it in writing and verbally that this is a technical issue, nothing sinister.

Can someone please help, even if the solution is to close the accounts with the issues and open a new one to put my money in.


#2

Sorry to hear about these issues you’ve been having @PSInternational, very strange!

@StarlingSupport can you please help here as it sounds like a bizarre situation that shouldn’t have been allowed to go on for so long?


#3

@danmullen - This was posted yesterday, and subsequently removed after Anne personally got involved.

It is being dealt with behind closed doors, and @PSInternational has said they will report back once it has been cleared up.

However, posting another thread is not going to get things sorted quicker.

It is a private matter, and one Starling can’t discuss in an open forum.


#4

I don’t think removing the thread is the right approach - lock it for sure after Starling have responded to say that this is being dealt with outside of the forum.


#5

I’m still awaiting an answer, I asked Anne to respond to my latest email, the thread last night was removed, nobody is communicating with me, I don’t know what else to do to get a response - do I go to the office, or social media or Fintech media?


#6

Removing the thread shows Starling have something to hide or are embarrassed, hardly being transparent.


#7

I saw the thread last night.

This cannot simply be a technical issue going on so long, it can surely only be a money laundering type issue (not saying that is what the OP is doing but this happens on a regular basis with accounts and people locked out for weeks at a time). If it is due to this the bank are also unable to tell you why!


#8

The thread was hidden - it’s not been removed. In fact, it still shows up in a Google search. I won’t go posting links as obviously Starling are dealing with it, as @nickhoward said - “behind closed doors”, but it’s there…


#9

Is there a difference between hidden and removed ?why hide something, if you have nothing to hide.


#10

Every operative I have spoken to has confirmed there is a technical issue, nothing else, this has been confirmed verbally and in writing numerous times.


#11

Removing it would delete it completely (I believe). Hiding it just takes it from the main forum list. Discourse allows both, although they call it “unlisted” rather than “hide” (screenshot from another Discourse site):

image


#12

But… isn’t it correct that if a bank ‘suspects’ something around money laundering etc they are NOT allowed to inform the account holder. Therefore IF that is what they suspect, they are legally NOT allowed to tell you!


#13

"Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”) sets out the offences when a person fails to disclose money laundering. Section 330(2) states:

(2)The first condition is that he -

(a) knows or suspects, or
(b) has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that another person is engaged in money laundering.
Therefore, a Bank may believe a certain transaction is suspicious; it does not need to know the nature of the offence or where the funds came from. A mere suspicion shall suffice.

Following the financial crisis of 2007/2008, Banks are under heavy scrutiny. In what was seen as a failure of the system then, Banks have since taken a firmer approach in complying with the law.

Those dealing with client money, especially Banks, have had to tread more carefully and it has long been the position that illegality is not sufficient as a defence against an offence it is far more nuance than that. A Bank can act on mere suspicion but it cannot use that wholly as a defence. The courts will look to the basis of that suspicion, how it came about, how long was it before any action was taken.

When a client’s account has been frozen the client will of course not know why it has been frozen, as the Bank informing the client prior to freezing would amount to an offence of tipping off under s333 POCA. Clients are therefore left frustrated as they are unaware as to why access has been cut off to their funds. "


#14

If the bank had any suspicions then they should surely have informed me that they was an issue that they couldn’t discuss with me and would respond in due course. They have maintained the technical issue stance throughout, I even asked point blank during what I assume was a recorded conversation if it meant something more sinister. The personal account has run as personal account with normal payments in and out and every incoming payment to there business account has a relevant invoice.


#15

I was unaware this has been posted previously. I don’t agree with removing or hiding it, why not just lock it?

It’s a long time to drag on, I would have thought that any suspicion of money laundering or any other issue would be dealt with swiftly. Three weeks with no access to accounts and no explanation seems unreasonable.


#16

Are you Rumpole of the Bailey? What part of “the bank have maintained throughout that there was a technical issue” was unclear?


#17

I’m giving Starling the benefit of the doubt here - I was surprised to find it had initially been hidden, but perhaps they know something we don’t, and it’s best not to expose the situation to a public forum? (I honestly don’t know).

Either way, I don’t think it’s always helpful for customers to weigh in on an unknown situation (appreciate you didn’t see the thread yesterday).

2 threads in 2 days? Personal public responses from Starling staff already? It all seems a bit off to me…


#18

The response from Starling staff was not really a response, just a deflection, may also have been from a minion not the real person and has not resulted in any communication with me, the customer. Put yourself in my shoes, what would you do, sit on your hands and wait?


#19

I think the point being made is that if it was indeed in relation to a money laundering investigation then that would be a reasonable explaination for Starling to keep giving you. Obviously no one knows what is actually happening and the speculation isn’t really helpful but I do think it is important that your initial post is not removed/hidden.


#20

I actually have no issue with you posting - Generally, forum posts and social media posts are the last resort for an unhappy customer.

It’s more the fact that this forum allows interaction from other users, and all of a sudden we are all talking about a situation we have no idea about.

I have no reason to believe you (I also have no reason NOT to believe you).

I hope you get the outcome you desire, and I hope you can tell us what happened at the end of it all.

Until then, I wish you all the best.