Personal Finance

Bank is closing my account for no reason

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 18th, 2020 8:53 pm
Deal Guru
Jan 19, 2017
10057 posts
6148 upvotes
It is possible that TNG thinks you as someone else with the same name.
Banned
User avatar
Mar 9, 2012
815 posts
430 upvotes
Drummondville, QC
Tell us what crime you committed...
Current credit card set up:
CIBC Dividend Visa Infinite: 4% groceries, 4% gas, 2% transit, 2% restaurants, 2% recurring bills
Tangerine MC World: 2% drugstore, 2% home improvement, 2% hotel-motel
Deal Fanatic
Apr 16, 2007
8134 posts
3485 upvotes
Financial District B…
skunkyjosh wrote: Tell us what crime you committed...
Probably more-so from MLTF causes as more accounts get closed for this reason

It also should be noted (predicated on the cause and offense) if the OP had a mortgage and auto loan he/she would have been sent notice to pay them out within a specific timeframe or they would subject to be closed and then the bank would proceed with foreclosure/seize/repossession recovery
----------------------------Licensed Credit Bureau member, S1, FI Automotive, CCP forums most banned = x 13 and counting, guess who that is?... stomped to the curb once again
Deal Addict
Feb 17, 2015
1143 posts
454 upvotes
Windsor, ON
I would escalate it to obudsman if there is any large deposits you could try to explain those the best you can, you could also explain to them you will go sign up for another FI get some free money out of it and gladly take your business elsewhere then be a jerk and bash them on social media after. I don't like to be that guy either...but it happens they shouldn't expect anything better to happen after they send that letter out lol
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 14, 2012
3442 posts
2672 upvotes
Montreal, QC
mikeymike1 wrote: It also should be noted (predicated on the cause and offense) if the OP had a mortgage and auto loan he/she would have been sent notice to pay them out within a specific timeframe or they would subject to be closed and then the bank would proceed with foreclosure/seize/repossession recovery
From what I've read, in other cases where the financial institution no longer wanted the customer, for lines of credits and credit cards, they were informed that they needed to pay it before a certain date.

For something fixed term like a mortgage where the length of time is fixed and the payments are fixed, the customer was told that they would not be renewed at the end of the current term. What this meant is that with a 5 year mortgage, prior to the end of the 5 years, they would need to find another financial institution to deal with regarding the mortgage. I don't believe that the same thing held true for something fixed term like a car loan since car loans are normally "open" where there is absolutely nothing in the contract which prevents the customer from making a lump sum payment which pays the entire loan off. The mortgage contract prevents the customer from doing something similar. He/she can make additional payments stipulated by the contract (I believe based on a percentage amount for the year) but can't pay it off for example (without paying a penalty/fees) if he/she won a huge amount in a lottery.
Deal Expert
Dec 5, 2006
16792 posts
12573 upvotes
Markham
mmikeman wrote: I would escalate it to obudsman if there is any large deposits you could try to explain those the best you can, you could also explain to them you will go sign up for another FI get some free money out of it and gladly take your business elsewhere then be a jerk and bash them on social media after. I don't like to be that guy either...but it happens they shouldn't expect anything better to happen after they send that letter out lol
Really no point to tell them you are going to take your business to other FIs, because that's what they want you to do
Deal Addict
May 15, 2013
2048 posts
636 upvotes
Alberta
I wonder what is the reason for the closure of the credit products that appears on Equifax or Transunion report.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 29, 2012
9301 posts
10316 upvotes
It should be illegal for banks to close a customer's bank account unless they have evidence of fraud, just like when signing up. I am worried of a future where big data is more prevalent and more and more people are branded as undesirables and shut out of everything. It should work as a public utility.

It's BS anyway because the banks only target the little guys who can't defend themselves, while aiding big corporations with expensive accountants hide money abroad, and turning a blind eye to criminal cartels laundering money.
Deal Addict
Feb 17, 2017
1318 posts
1145 upvotes
Poutinesauce wrote: It should be illegal for banks to close a customer's bank account unless they have evidence of fraud, just like when signing up. I am worried of a future where big data is more prevalent and more and more people are branded as undesirables and shut out of everything. It should work as a public utility.

It's BS anyway because the banks only target the little guys who can't defend themselves, while aiding big corporations with expensive accountants hide money abroad, and turning a blind eye to criminal cartels laundering money.
I'd honestly like to see an EU style rule where banks are obliged to provide a basic bank account to anyone. That way people can't be shut out of the financial system completely.
Deal Fanatic
Jan 21, 2018
9652 posts
10924 upvotes
Vancouver
Poutinesauce wrote: It should be illegal for banks to close a customer's bank account unless they have evidence of fraud, just like when signing up.
I'm sure the banks would point out that they are being subjected to ever-increasing scrutiny from government authorities looking for money laundering and tax fraud, and the bank may be held liable if they did not detect it and take action to stop it. Their policy is therefore likely "better safe than sorry" if there is anything even slightly suspicious in their view. Although it's hard to have sympathy since the banks knowingly assisted wealthy clients with money laundering and tax fraud for many years to make more money for the bank, resulting in this increased scrutiny (for example see https://www.investopedia.com/stock-anal ... s0129.aspx)
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 29, 2012
9301 posts
10316 upvotes
Scote64 wrote: I'm sure the banks would point out that they are being subjected to ever-increasing scrutiny from government authorities looking for money laundering and tax fraud, and the bank may be held liable if they did not detect it and take action to stop it. Their policy is therefore likely "better safe than sorry" if there is anything even slightly suspicious in their view. Although it's hard to have sympathy since the banks knowingly assisted wealthy clients with money laundering and tax fraud for many years to make more money for the bank, resulting in this increased scrutiny (for example see https://www.investopedia.com/stock-anal ... s0129.aspx)
That is one thing, but you see banks kicking out consumers just because they deem them unprofitable. That shouldn't be allowed.

Now imagine the day where they share this data with other banks and credit unions, and other institutions like insurers, retailers, airlines. Now that is truly scary. And I don't think any of these should be allowed to give lifetime bans either. All of these should have a duty of care just like utilities.
Deal Expert
Dec 5, 2006
16792 posts
12573 upvotes
Markham
Poutinesauce wrote: That is one thing, but you see banks kicking out consumers just because they deem them unprofitable. That shouldn't be allowed.

This will actually create more issues for consumers: if you don't allow private companies to kick out nonprofit customers, they will put a lot conditions upfront: like each year, you have to spend 50k in your credit card, you have to maintain min balance in chequing account, all those requirements are bad for customers

So instead of kicking out customers, now they don't even allow you are in
Deal Fanatic
Apr 16, 2007
8134 posts
3485 upvotes
Financial District B…
Scote64 wrote: I'm sure the banks would point out that they are being subjected to ever-increasing scrutiny from government authorities looking for money laundering and tax fraud, and the bank may be held liable if they did not detect it and take action to stop it. Their policy is therefore likely "better safe than sorry" if there is anything even slightly suspicious in their view.
The reach is very broad according to MLTF guidlines.
https://www.fintrac-canafe.gc.ca/guidan ... c_mltf-eng
Any number of these indicators can cause bank flags and other financial account closures including deportation.

If one is caught sending just 1 dollar via etransfer or receiving 1 dollar from a known extremist group, then welcome to cancel-ville
----------------------------Licensed Credit Bureau member, S1, FI Automotive, CCP forums most banned = x 13 and counting, guess who that is?... stomped to the curb once again
Deal Addict
May 16, 2017
2809 posts
3663 upvotes
Poutinesauce wrote: That is one thing, but you see banks kicking out consumers just because they deem them unprofitable. That shouldn't be allowed.

Now imagine the day where they share this data with other banks and credit unions, and other institutions like insurers, retailers, airlines. Now that is truly scary. And I don't think any of these should be allowed to give lifetime bans either. All of these should have a duty of care just like utilities.
Federally regulated banks and FIs must open an account for you regardless of job status, income, or initial deposit unless:
it believes you plan to use the account for illegal or fraudulent purposes
you have a history of illegal or fraudulent activity with financial service providers during the past seven years
it believes you knowingly made false statements in the information you gave
it believes you might cause physical harm to, harass or abuse other customers or its employees
you don’t already have an account and it only offers accounts which must be linked to an existing account with another financial institution
you don’t allow it to take steps to verify that the identification you presented is valid
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 29, 2012
9301 posts
10316 upvotes
robsaw wrote: Federally regulated banks and FIs must open an account for you regardless of job status, income, or initial deposit unless:
it believes you plan to use the account for illegal or fraudulent purposes
you have a history of illegal or fraudulent activity with financial service providers during the past seven years
it believes you knowingly made false statements in the information you gave
it believes you might cause physical harm to, harass or abuse other customers or its employees
you don’t already have an account and it only offers accounts which must be linked to an existing account with another financial institution
you don’t allow it to take steps to verify that the identification you presented is valid
Yes but what is the point if afterwards they can close it for any reason at any time? It should work just like a utility.
Deal Expert
Dec 5, 2006
16792 posts
12573 upvotes
Markham
Poutinesauce wrote: It should work just like a utility.
Are you promoting nationalize banks ? :)
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 29, 2012
9301 posts
10316 upvotes
smartie wrote: Are you promoting nationalize banks ? :)
No but like Rogers, Cogeco and the others, they should be required by law to offer service.

I don't understand why so many people are so masochistic toward many corporations providing essential services. In France for instance, they could never get away with garbage like closing a customer's bank account just because they don't like their business anymore, with no appeal or any form of due process.
Deal Expert
Dec 5, 2006
16792 posts
12573 upvotes
Markham
Poutinesauce wrote: No but like Rogers, Cogeco and the others, they should be required by law to offer service.

I don't understand why so many people are so masochistic toward many corporations providing essential services. In France for instance, they could never get away with garbage like closing a customer's bank account just because they don't like their business anymore, with no appeal or any form of due process.
Not sure whether Rogers has to provide service

But let's say they have to provide service by law regardless they like customers or not, since they are public list company and they need increase stock price, then the only way to compensate those non profitable customers' revenue lose is increase price for everyone. so as the result, everyone has to pay more . I don't know why this is better.

Do you want to pay more for same bank service because other people churning card or whatever and banks have to provide service to them by law?
Deal Addict
Dec 22, 2007
1657 posts
1316 upvotes
Mississauga
i would be really surprised if the bank didnt make money on a customer. can it happen of course but it would cost them more in man power to shut down stuff and mail out then just let it take up some space in a database somehwere.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)