Unprovoked Racially Motivated Aggression
Several years into my employment with the Santander (the UK bank), it suddenly and without any good cause gave me a false and undeserved poor end-of-year job-performance record. It fabricated the false impression that I had been remiss in carrying out my duties when, in fact, I had discharged them all well and correctly.
Then, it proceeded to use that false record (while I was still in the process of disputing it with the aim of getting it put right) 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 stood to ruin my otherwise good reputation, jeopardise my prospects of getting another job, and threaten my career.
I had no choice but to try to set my employment record right; that meant having to stand up to the immensely powerful Santander and its wrongdoings against me.
Reasoning With Santander
I tried to reason with Santander directly with a view to resolving the situation privately and amicably. I lodged numerous grievances and appeals, in accordance with UK statutory procedures.
In dealing with my formal grievances, Santander just dragged its feet for months on end, meanwhile causing me to suffer hardship and distress. When it eventually responded, it fobbed me off with wholly unsatisfactory justifications for its actions. In the end, it denied all wrongdoings, considered the matter resolved and closed properly, and left me to live with the negative consequences of its actions.
So far, Santander had the upper hand; it was in the advantageous position of having the power to judge itself and to serve its own interests by deciding arbitrarily what was right and what was wrong. Only one option remained open to me now to try to achieve justice and save my career; that was to escalate the matter to our courts, who are the ultimate power and authority in the land, and are impartial and base their decisions on the evidence.
Courts’ Judgement On The Matter
Santander brought 7 of the Directors and Heads (each holding a position that calls for an impeccable 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 decided 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 decided that Santander had breached its own written employment contract with me (which it had written up) by under-paying me thousands of pounds in wages.
Having been found guilty of racial discrimination, Santander then tried to get off the hook by claiming that British law allows discrimination against people based on their skin colour and, hence, it had done nothing wrong whatsoever.
Our courts dismissed its arguments and claims 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 highlighted that Santander’s Directors and Heads had failed in discharging the duties placed upon them by British statues and policies.
Britain has national statutory procedures which they should have followed when I tried to resolve the matter directly with Santander. They are designed to resolve the matter fairly and quickly. The courts said the officers didn’t apply those procedures properly. Instead, they purposely 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 officers 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 an oath that he had taken solemnly to testify truthfully. They highlighted that the testimony he gave to them under oath was ‘contradictory’, ‘inconsistent’, and ‘changing’. On one matter, he told our courts that his lawyers could confirm what had happened on one occasion because it had happened in their presence and they were witnesses to it. His lawyers, however, then stepped forth and informed the courts that, in fact, they had not witnessed any such thing.
Serving our courts truthfully is a fundamental national duty upon each and every one of us (especially after swearing solemnly to do so). It appears that Santander’s officers have little regard for the simple duties placed upon them by Britain.
Courts Judgement on Santander’s Conduct
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 be reasonable and amicable in repairing the damage they caused. Well, neither Santander nor any of its officers admitted their wrongdoings, nor apologised, despite our courts having unanimously established the wrongdoings and the basis for an apology.
It then spent years trying to avoid remedying the damages that it had caused.
Britain’s Primary Will
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 damages it had inflicted on me.
I opted for reinstatement. It was the amicable choice: reinstatement was mutually beneficial for all parties, it would restore my career; and reinstatement is the primary resolution encouraged by UK’s laws. Effectively, my decision forgave Santander for its racially motivated aggression and pre-empted any damages from 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 officers, and me).
Santander Rejects Britain’s Primary Will
Santander refused outright to re-employ me.
Furthermore, the reason it gave publically in court for its refusal was because I had stood up to its racially motivated unlawful acts. The courts warned Santander that its refusal for that reason would be a further unlawful act (that of racially motivated victimisation).
Our courts then ordered it to reinstate me.
Santander Disobeys Court Orders
Santander refused outright to obey the court orders. Furthermore, it gave no good reason for choosing to disobey.
Our courts decreed that Santander had disobeyed court orders without good cause.
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. Santander had told the courts that it was quite reasonable to think that its behaviour would destroy and end my career. Our courts determined in monetary terms the amount of damage Santander had caused. Santander conceded the fact that it had caused the said amount of damages.
Santander Not Bothered
Santander conceded that it had destroyed my livelihood and had caused me the financial loss that the courts had calculated. But, Santander made no apology.
It got on with trying to avoid paying even a penny towards the damage it had inflicted wholly unnecessarily.
Santander Attempts To Deceive Courts
Santander went about trying to escape paying anything for the damage it had caused.
In one attempt, our courts said it made to them what was a wholly fallacious negative suggestion about my character. In laymen language, it tried to deceive our courts, for that’s what knowingly making a completely false claim amounts to.
It seems Santander is ready and willing 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 that Santander 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. Perhaps it is also not surprising then that the British financial watchdog also found that Santander kept for itself monies belonging to some 40,250 of its UK customers, totaling £183M. The FCA fined it £32.8M for that – click here for the FCA’s press release.
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.
Our courts dismissed 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 in any way. 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 Held To Account
Finally, the courts ordered Santander to pay substantial financial compensation to remedy some (as much as the law could enforce) of the total damage it had caused. It paid the amount the courts had ordered and chose not to put right the balance of the damages, which it had conceded it had caused and which would have been avoided if it had obeyed our courts orders.
The courts included an extra amount in the compensation they ordered to address the fact that Santander had disobeyed without good cause their previous order to reinstate me.
Our courts had also ruled that Santander’s Human Resources department had carried out its responsibilities unprofessionally. Hence, they had also increased the compensation further to penalise Santander for its unprofessionalism.
Did Santander Reprimand Its Disgraced Staff?
I asked Santander whether it took any disciplinary action against its staff for their failures and unlawful acts. It refused to tell me. I have reason to believe that it did not take any disciplinary action against them; I believe it took their serious failings casually.
On the other hand, it informed me that it and its officers may take serious action against me if I say anything untrue or unfair about the affair that causes them a loss of reputation. On 29 April 2019, it informed me not to display or refer to its branded names, registered trademarks, nor logos as it is the legal and legitimate owner of them.
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 unprecedented negative behaviour resulted in our courts creating a significant new law (click here for details) which benefits millions of people in Britain. It deters unscrupulous employers from discriminating and gives more protection to victims who have been discriminated (not only Racial, but also other forms, e.g., Sex, Age, and Disability). The law came into effect in 2009.
About This Blog Account
Santander’s proven wrongdoings and conduct are documented in British court records and judgements, which are available to the public to view (see the case Chagger vs Santander & Hopkins). Santander was formerly known as Abbey National.
Any views I expressed are mine alone. Neither GetWellSantander.com nor I are affiliated with Santander nor any other parties mentioned.