I stood up to Santander’s racial discrimination.
How it reacted will amaze you!
SUMMARY: British courts ruled that Santander UK (the high street bank), its Directors and its Heads, motivated by race, racially discriminated against me to throw me out of my job. Our courts also ruled that Santander had breached its written employment contract with me by under-paying me thousands of pounds of wages. One of the many arguments Santander made was that British law allows discrimination against people based on skin colour and that it had done nothing wrong whatsoever. Our courts re-iterated that discrimination against people based on their skin colour is unlawful in Britain. They highlighted that Santander Directors and Heads (including one, Steven Oon, who disclosed that he was paid discretionary annual bonuses of around £450,000, in addition to his salary) had failed to perform properly the British statutory duties expected of them. Of one Santander Head, Nigel Hopkins, our courts highlighted that the testimony he gave under oath was ‘contradictory’, ‘inconsistent’, and ‘changing’. In layman terms, he lied under an oath taken solemnly to serve our courts truthfully. Our courts also highlighted that Santander, having been found guilty of race discrimination, made no apology for its wrongdoings. They ordered Santander to re-employ me in an attempt to undo the damage it had caused and, thereby, avoid it having to pay compensation. Santander, however, refused outright to re-employ me, declaring initially that its reason was because I had stood up to its racially motivated unlawful acts. Our courts highlighted Santander’s unreasonable behaviour and ruled that it had disobeyed court orders without any good reason. They concluded that Santander’s racially motivated wrongdoings inflicted life changing damage, destroying and ending my career. For years, Santander argued to our courts that it should not have to pay me any compensation at all. It even tried to float the comical idea that I was to blame for its racially motivated unlawful aggression and for the ensuing destruction of my career. Our courts rejected all of its arguments, clarified that I was in no way to blame, and ordered it to pay financial compensation, the level of which they increased in light of its failures to act properly.
Santander’s proven unlawful, racially motivated, unreasonable, antisocial behaviours made British legal history, and are documented in British court records and judgements, which are available for the public to view, in the case Chagger vs Santander & Hopkins. For more details, read on below.
Unprovoked Racially Motivated Aggression
Several years into my employment with Santander, it suddenly and without any good cause gave me a false and undeserved poor end-of-year job-performance record. It created the false impression that I had been remiss in my duties. Then, it proceeded to use that false record (while I was still in the process of disputing it) to throw me out of my job and to under-pay me thousands of pounds of wages.
I wanted to let its wrongdoings against me go and move on by finding another job elsewhere. But Santander’s policy to communicate the unjust poor employment record to prospective employers asking it for a reference on me put me in a very difficult position – it jeopardised my prospects of getting another job and threatened my career. I had no choice but to try to set my employment record right; that meant having to stand up to Santander’s wrongdoings against me and its immense power.
Trying To Reason With Santander
I tried to reason with Santander privately with a view to resolving the situation quietly and amicably. I lodged numerous grievances and appeals, in accordance with Statutory procedures. But in dealing with them, Santander just dragged its feet for months on end, causing me meanwhile to suffer hardship and distress. When it eventually responded, it fobbed me off with wholly unsatisfactory justifications for its actions. In the end, it arrogantly denied all wrongdoings, considered the matter resolved and closed properly, and sent me packing to live with the negative consequences of its actions.
Of the two of us, Santander was the one with the decision making power and the upper hand. It took this advantage to serve its own interests by deciding arbitarily what was right and what was wrong. There was only one option remaining open to me now to try to achieve justice and save my career; that was to escalate the matter to our public courts, who are the ultimate power and authority in the land, and are independent.
Courts’ Judgement On The Matter
Santander brought 7 of the Directors and Heads (each holding a position that calls for an impecable level of personal integrity) to court to testify for it. Santander argued that it had done nothing wrong WHATSOEVER! To the contrary, after examining the evidence, our courts clarified unanimously that Santander had indeed committed wrongs and breached race discrimination laws. They said the false, poor job-performance record it had given me and its subsequent act of throwing me out of my job were unjust and racially motivated. They also clarified that it had breached its own written employment contract with me by under-paying me wages amounting to thousands of pounds.
Santander then argued that British laws permit discrimination based on people’s skin colour. It went on to claim that the discrimination it had subjected me to was quite within British law and, therefore, not a wrongdoing. Well, our courts threw its arguments and claims right out for being incorrect. They clarified that Santander was completely wrong and it had, in fact, committed unlawful racial discrimination.
Santander had been issued a Race Relations Questionnaire to answer. It had chosen not to answer it. Our courts ruled that Santander had failed in its duty to answer the questionnaire.
Court Judgements About Santander Staff
Our courts disgraced Santander’s Directors and Heads. They said that they had failed in discharging their duties. Britain has national statutory procedures which they should have followed when I tried to resolve the matter amicably directly with Santander. The courts said the Directors and Heads didn’t apply those procedures properly. Instead, they avoided investigating the wrongdoings properly, they dragged their feet and created long delays, and in the end, they just ‘repeated the party line’ and denied completely the wrongdoings. National statutory procedures are designed for the good of our nation. Applying them properly is a fundamental duty upon each and every one of us. These Directors and Heads included Nigel Hopkins, Steven Oon, Niel Wilson, Alan Brener, and Chris Mogridge (there were others too). One of them, namely Steven Oon, revealed that Santander paid him bonuses of around £450,000 per year, in addition to his annual base salary and benefits package. What the courts said about Nigel Hopkins amounted to saying that he had lied to them on many matters whilst under a solemnly taken oath to testify truthfully. On one matter, he told our courts that his lawyers could confirm it because it had happened in their presence and they were witnesses to it. His lawyers then stepped forth and addressed his claim, clarifying to our courts that, in fact, they had not witnessed any such thing.
Serving our courts truthfully is a fundamental duty upon each and every one of us (especially after swearing solemnly to do so). It appears that Santander’s highly paid Directors and Heads won’t live up to their relatively simple duties in our nation’s statutory procedures and courtrooms while other citizens on ordinary incomes (like police officers, fire fighters, and soldiers) honourably and bravely live up to their extreme duties of risking their lives and limbs for us.
Courts On How Wrongdoers Should Behave
Our courts clarified that the correct way for wrongdoers to behave once they have been caught is to admit their wrongdoings and apologise promptly, and then participate reasonably and amicably in repairing the damage they caused. Well, Santander neither admitted its wrongdoings, nor apologised for them. Read on and see how it behaved from thereon.
Britain’s Preferred Resolution
To put right the damage Santander had caused, our courts gave me the choice of either being reinstated in my job, or paid financial compensation by Santander for the damage I suffered. I opted for reinstatement. It was the sensible choice: reinstatement was mutually beneficial for all parties, it would restore my career; and reinstatement is the resolution encouraged by our nation’s laws. Effectively, my decision forgave Santander for its racially motivated aggression and pre-empted any damage flowing from its wrongdoings (i.e., saving it from having to pay out any financial compensation). My decision meant this whole affair would be closed off amicably, which would be good for all parties (our courts, Santander, its Directors and Heads, and me).
Santander Rejecting Britain’s Primary Will
A professional company would jump at the chance of reinstating me – I would be under its control again and have a duty of care to it – it would have the advantage over me. But, Santander refused outright. Furthermore, the reason it gave publically in court for its refusal was because I had stood up to its racially motivated unlawful acts. (It seems like it expects people to take its violations against them lying down, quietly). Well, the courts warned Santander that its refusal for that reason would be a further unlawful act (that of racial victimisation). Perhaps, when you recall that Santander had not apologisied for its wrongdoings, it is not surprising that it was about to commit further wrongs openly in public infront of our court judges. A lack of apology in the face of court-confirmed wrongdoings seems to signify arrogance. Our courts warned Santander to reconsider its stance. Santander maintained that it would NOT reinstate me and tried hard to convince the courts why it couldn’t. But the courts were not even the slightest convinced by its excuses. They ORDERED it to reinstate me. Reinstatement would put me back in the position I would be in if Santander had never thrown me out of my job – my life would continue as if nothing had ever happened – I would not sustain any loss and Santander would not have to pay out any compensation.
Santander Disobeying Court Orders
A professional company would obey court orders that are intended for everyone’s benefit. But, Santander did not; it refused outright. Furthermore, it gave no good reason for choosing to disobey our courts. Well, our courts were thoroughly dissatisfied with Santander’s stance and discraced it with the decree that it had disobeyed court orderswithout good cause. We all have a moral obligation to comply with the considered will and orders of our country. By defying our courts’ orders, Santander denied an amicable closure and, instead, forced damages and compensation back into play. Furthermore, it needlessly forced our courts to devote more time and resources (which are funded by the public purse) to deal with its wrongdoings instead of getting on with serving other citizens who are waiting. That seems utterly senselessness and inconsiderate.
Santander Senseless Destruction
The courts concluded that Santander’s unlawful racial discrimination and failure to reinstate me destroyed my career, causing me a huge loss of earnings (which the courts calculated). In fact, Santander had already shown the courts that it was reasonable to expect its actions to have jeopardised my career. It seems that destroying my livelihood had been its intent.
Santander Not Giving A Damn
Santander conceded that it had destroyed my livelihood and had caused me the financial loss that the courts had calculated. You’d think a company that implies in its adverts that it is fair would have apologised at this point and repaired the damage. But, Santander did neither of these things. It made no apology. It just got on shamelessly with trying to avoid paying even a penny towards the damage it had inflicted wholly unnecessarily. That’s like, for example, someone destroying your house, conceding he destroyed it, and then not apologising and simply looking for ways to escape paying for it with the intention of leaving you (the innocent victim) to sustain the huge loss and endure the hardship it inflicts on your life. How is that right? Furthermore, as an ordinary working person, how could you bear such a huge loss?
Santander Shameless Intention To Deceive Courts
The ways Santander went about in trying to escape paying anything for the damage it had caused seem utterly shameless and appalling.
In one attempt, the courts said it made to them what was a wholly fallacious negative suggestion about my character. In other words, it tried to deceive our courts – that’s what knowingly making a completely false claim amounts to. It seems that the powerful multi-billion pound Santander is ready and willing to do whatever it takes to achieve get its way, to deceive even our courts, to whom we all have a fundamental duty to serve truthfully. Perhaps it is not surprising then that, subsequently, the British financial watchdog found it deceived UK customers on a mass scale whilst advising them. The FCA fined it £12.4M for that – click here for the FCA’s press release on that.
In another attempt, it tried to float the idea that I was to blame for its racial unlawfulness – saying that I had brought its racial discrimination and the ensuing destruction of my career upon my own head. Well, the courts threw that idea right out. They clarified that I had not committed any wrong whatsoever, that Santander and its officers were the only wrongdoers here, and that I was not to blame for their wrongdoings at all. They also clarified that I had not done anything that brought the damage and destruction of my career into play. In fact, I had kicked damages out of play by opting to be reinstated.
Santander Unprofessional Decisions
Ironically, Santander would not have had to pay out any compensation anyway if it had simply reinstated me (as I had requested and our courts had ordered it to do). It wouldn’t have had any need to operate at the shameless low level of trying to deceive our courts or make ludicrous arguments and assertions. What good had it hoped to achieve by undermining the considered will of our courts by disobeying their orders? Only it can tell us that. What it actually achieved was senseless destruction, for which it was unapologetic and trying shamelessly to wriggle out of paying for. A professional company would never have allowed the situation to sink to such a low level – it would have responded logically and nipped it in the bud.
Santander Held To Account
In the end, after court hearings spanning across 5 years marked by hardship and distress, the courts ordered Santander to pay compensation in accordance with the law, which allowed for extra due to its arrogant disobedience of their reinstatement orders. It was its own fault.
Our courts had also ruled that Santander’s Human Resources department had carried out its responsibilities unprofessionally. They increased the compensation further to penalise Santander for its unprofessionalism.
To this day, Santander has never apologised for its behaviours. Perhaps that says something about its level of morals and decency.
Did Santander Reprimand Its Disgraced Staff?
I asked Santander whether it took any disciplinary action against its staff, whom the courts had disgraced for their failures and unlawful acts. It refused to tell me. I don’t believe it ever did. I believe it took these serious failings of its staff casually.
On the other hand, it informed me that it and the Directors and Heads may take serious action against me if I say anything untrue or unfair about the affair that causes them a loss of reputation. I am not under any obligation to stay silent. And, staying silent is in their interests (Santander’s and the individuals’), helping them to keep their true characters, attitudes and wrongdoings hidden while they deceive the public with an image of nobility (like the Sir Jimmy Savilles and the Harvey Weinsteins of our world).
Not everyone is able to stand up successfully to Santander’s mighty power and strength and bring it to account. Some Santander customers and staff, who said Santander wronged them also, have reached out to me for advice and thanked me for sharing this. If you’re having issues with Santander, then I feel for you and wish you good luck; I know it can behave extremely unprofessionally and unreasonably, breaching a written contract that it had drafted up and agreed to, even defying official court orders, and inflicting significant difficulties and stress.
The Public Benefit In Standing Up To Santander
Wrongdoings undermine peace, security, justice and social progress. They violate human rights, harming individuals and destroying our society. My standing up to Santander’s wrongdoings and its remarkable antisocial behaviour resulted in our courts creating a significant new law which further deters unscrupulous employers from discriminating, and which gives more protection to victims who have suffered discrimination (not only Racial, but also other forms, e.g., Sex, Age, and Disability). It benefits millions of people in Britain. Santander fought very hard to prevent the law’s creation and, thereby, deny Britain its benefits – but, it failed. The law came into effect in 2009.
About This Blog Account
Please refer to the court judgments in the UK legal case Chagger v Santander & Hopkins. Santander UK was formerly known as Abbey National. Any views I expressed are mine alone. Neither GetWellSantander.com nor I are affiliated with Santander or any other parties mentioned.