“Statements made to customers may be limited, as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 sets out clear obligations for banks not to indicate to a customer that an investigation may be ongoing.” “However, we may terminate this agreement immediately or with less notice (and stop providing services and close your account) if we believe that you have seriously or permanently breached the terms of the agreement or if we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have done any of the following that you cannot do.” Banks are not required to explain their actions to customers. Thanks to closed review processes, clients will often never know what crime they may have committed. It is worrying that a fraud marker was put on an account so easily before being properly examined, as well as the way the banking giant treated a vulnerable customer. A barclays customer suffering from acute anxiety and depression is struggling after the banking giant suddenly closed her three accounts without explanation or warning. In the letter, seen by This is Money and signed “The Barclays Team”, the bank indicated section 11 of its retail agreement. What is more telling is that a Barclays spokesman told Telegraph Money: “We do not comment on individual customer cases. As soon as we are alerted to any suspicious account activity or if we are taken over by our transactional profiling, we review the circumstances and, if we are satisfied that the account is being used to launder the proceeds of crime, we act as quickly as possible to close the account. “It says, `We may close an account (and stop providing services and terminate this agreement) by notifying you at least two months in advance. In a third of the cases, fos was favourable to the customer. Mr. Bentley`s case appears to be part of a growing trend where customers are suddenly “laid off” by their banks and quickly asked to relocate their operations elsewhere. A young entrepreneur is one of the youngest customers who are told that his bank no longer wants his business, without explanation. Critics say these rules are being enforced “too zealously” by banks.

The Financial Services Consumer Panel, which reports to the entire custodian of the city, calls for customers to be treated more fairly under these conditions (see right). We also reported on a retired pilot, a 49-year-old NatWest client, whose accounts were closed without explanation. Caroline Barr, a member of the Financial Services Consumer Group, said of Bentley`s case: “The bank acts as if the suspicion is the responsibility of the account holder. He may behave as if he does not have a duty of care to that client because he does not have one. He was initially told that his samples had all been stopped, but this later turned out to be wrong. “It was other stories all the time,” he said. In a Letter dated February 4, it was simply stated: “. Your accounts with us will be on 05.02.2016 in accordance with . § 15 of the business customer agreement. She contacted Barclays and was told that all three accounts had been verified – a fact she had not mentioned or contacted before to inform her.

It is said, however, that it was recovered during a subsequent verification and that the accounts will be reopened if Eve wishes to stay at the bank. What further complicates matters is that Mr. Bentley was one of the victims of the data breach in November, with TalkTalk informing it that the bank code and account number of its business account were accessed. He adds that he checked to ensure that there was no major financial impact following the closure of the account, and possibly compensated with £200 that was accepted. Mr Bentley said that at one point, a statement told him that a number of fraudulent transactions had been made on his account. Small payments of around £99 came in, and then further payments were made to a large number of accounts that he did not recognise.. . . .