I didn’t suggest it is expensive. I suggested that the costs involved for a highly exposed PEP could be a factor in a bank’s reasoning. Who knows, other than the bank itself, what in 2023, they regard as relevant.

Nobody here knows what the elements were that resulted in Coutts deciding to review Farage’s account status, whether this was treated in the standard way or whether his high public profile meant he was given a different level of attention. I respect the fact that you, and others, have more experience of banking practice than myself and find the descriptions interesting and informative. These alone though cannot tell the whole story, which none of us actually know. What we do know, and have agreed on, is that whatever happened, whether stupid, irritating or appearing to be unfair, it was the bank’s decision to make it.

I didn’t suggest it is expensive. I suggested that the costs involved for a highly exposed PEP could be a factor in a bank’s reasoning. Who knows, other than the bank itself, what in 2023, they regard as relevant.

Nobody here knows what the elements were that resulted in Coutts deciding to review Farage’s account status, whether this was treated in the standard way or whether his high public profile meant he was given a different level of attention. I respect the fact that you, and others, have more experience of banking practice than myself and find the descriptions interesting and informative. These alone though cannot tell the whole story, which none of us actually know. What we do know, and have agreed on, is that whatever happened, whether stupid, irritating or appearing to be unfair, it was the bank’s decision to make it.

This isn't what happened though. The facts of this are in the public domain now. The bank used the excuse of a possible, future balance under their threshold to close Farage's account. Farage was suspicious. The bank then told the BBC that they were closing Farage's account because they don't like him/ his views/ he's a risk. I believe it was reported but I didn't particularly follow it. Farage got that information.
He's now been milking it - but as I say, the facts aren't as hard or nuanced as is being made out.
Mostly incompetence mixed with virtue signalling that backfired in a spectacular fashion. There's no real argument or debate to be had. It's not a battle of opinions.

They are the facts in the document revealed by Farage. They aren’t, and cannot be, the facts that lie behind them. It’s confusing cause and reason again.

The BBC were misled by the CEO who later claimed she was too and lost her job. That’s a huge internal mess for Coutts but nothing to do with the reasons that lie behind their decision.

Those could well be regarded as virtue signaling by some, but the truth is no one actually knows and in any event it was their decision alone.

So you are right. There is no argument. Coutts were inept and it backfired on them but they had the right to do it.

Might I respectfully suggest you reread what I wrote. I didn’t suggest they were expensive but that if costs might exceed income value could’ve been a consideration.

I too look forward to the report. Your friend’s suspicions may well be correct and if so there will no doubt be a shake up. That’s never been an issue for me and always possible, indeed likely.

My only point is that whatever the reasoning, or whether regarded by others as good, bad, inept or stupid, it was theirs to make.

Not mine, yours or Farage’s.