Here’s a different angle:
Let’s suggest as a scare-ario, the following “I speculate”…
(1) Farage had a savings account with Coutts with the minimum £3million in it to qualify for such an account.
(2) Farage also had a substantial mortgage on property worth in total around £2million - also taken out with Coutts.
Now, with recent sharp interest rate hikes - Farage’s mortgage payments WILL have increased substantially by this point, the same as they have for tens of millions of other folk all over the western world.
Meanwhile, “passing rate rises onto savers” has the banks showing their usual level of “feel of clay” when it comes down to it.
So, Farage like any sensible person decides to transfer £2 million out of his savings to cover the entire mortgage debt, thus saving his otherwise increased mortgage rate bill.
This leaves Farage with NO debts, and savings of £1million with coutts.
Coutts, then furious that Farage has side-stepped this meaty interest money tree they once had with him - decides to call time on his savings with them now “dropping below the qualifying level”…
If it were a regular deep-state approved person with the account, the bank would likely “waive” their right to shut down this account…
Because Farage continues to be a Right-of-center Liberal who’s not deep-state approved however… Why can’t Coutts just have him bang-to-rights, and give him the heave-ho?
I argue that Farage has done nothing wrong here, Coutts is within their rights as well, and there’s no “conspiracy” as such, just a whole bunch of sour grapes, which would only be news-worthy IF other people with mortgages are about to have their houses re-possessed in the near future, despite not being behind on their payments!
The only “Conspiracy” I am aware of in Bank World is that Bank lenders would dearly love to re-possess people for whom their property sold would currently pay off their mortgages, but not if the market price falls much further… Eg. Re-possessions not based on “Payment Arrears” but instead “Sheer amount of negative equity” - which represents a huge loss for the banks, if they don’t trick people with outstanding mortgage debt into either:
(1) Paying off that debt early Risk removed of default, outright.
(2) Switching to a more expensive mortgage over a longer period of time making more money for the bank in the medium and long term especially.
(3) Switching to a higher rate, in return for GETTING a longer stay-of-execution but still likely going to happen eventually, nonetheless…
(4) Tricking mortgagees into over-paying, thus building up some equity, which then means the bank can re-possess, and sell for a fire sale price because the householder has already covered the shortfall with their overpayments. There would be no legacy written-off shortfall debt for the lender that way.
(5) Missing a payment, so re-possession proceedings - can then begin immediately, as “house eviction” doesn’t have the same protections as Tenents do under the new “Anti-Eviction Legislation” introduced during the lockdown… If banks feel they will lose money later, then rest assured - they’ll act sooner to prevent such loss…
Translation: "We get your pallets to you on time.