Authorised by the FCA
This firm is on the FCA register and authorised to carry out regulated activities.
Website, phone number and address
Compare these against whatever you were given. Scammers clone real firm names and reference numbers but use their own phone number and website, so a detail that does not match the register is the clearest warning sign there is.
-
Phone number
-
Address
Northern Bank Ltd, PO Box 183, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT1 6JS, United Kingdom
In the full report: 3 background checks
- When danskebank.co.uk first appeared online, and whether it can receive email
- What kind of line 0345 600 2882 is
- Who else gives the postcode BT1 6JS
Other names (2)
If you were contacted under any of these names, it is this firm.
- Danske Bank Trading name: A name it trades under now.
- Northern General Insurance Services Former trading name: A name it used to trade under.
FCA permissions and consumer protection
- Hold or safeguard your money FSCS may applyEligible deposits are typically protected by the FSCS up to £120,000 per person, per banking group.
- Give regulated advice FSCS may applyA claim for unsuitable advice is itself FSCS-protected, up to the limit that applies to the product you were advised on.
- Manage or trade investments FSCS may applyEligible investment and pension claims are typically FSCS-protected up to £85,000 per person, depending on the product and your circumstances.
- Sell or arrange insurance FSCS may applyEligible insurance claims may be FSCS-protected, often 90%, or 100% for compulsory or long-term cover.
- Advise on or arrange mortgages FSCS may applyMortgage advice and arranging may be FSCS-covered, up to the limit that applies.
- Lend or arrange credit · Hire out goods to consumers No FSCS coverConsumer credit is not covered by the FSCS, so there is no compensation scheme if the firm fails.
- Complaints Ombudsman, freeYou can refer a complaint about this firm to the Financial Ombudsman Service for free, whichever activity it relates to.
Show FCA detail (24 permissions)
- Accepting Deposits
- Administering a regulated mortgage contract
- Advising on investments (except on Pension Transfers and Pension Opt Outs)
- Advising on P2P agreements
- Advising on regulated mortgage contracts
- Arranging (bringing about) deals in investments
- Arranging (bringing about) regulated mortgage contracts
- Arranging safeguarding and administration of assets
- Assisting in the administration and performance of a contract of insurance
- Causing dematerialised instructions to be sent
- Dealing in investments as agent
- Dealing in investments as principal
- Debt-collecting
- Debt-counselling
- Entering into a regulated mortgage contract as lender
- Entering into Regulated Consumer Hire Agreements as owner
- Entering into regulated credit agreement as Lender (Excluding high-cost short-term credit, bill of sale agreement, and home collected credit agreement)
- Exercising/having right to exercise lender's rights and duties under a regulated credit agreement (excluding high-cost short-term credit, bill of sale agreement, and home collected credit agreement)
- Exercising or having the right to exercise the owner's rights and duties under a regulated consumer hire agreement
- Making arrangements with a view to regulated mortgage contracts
- Making arrangements with a view to transactions in investments
- Managing investments
- Safeguarding and administration of assets (without arranging)
- Sending dematerialised instructions
FCA disciplinary action and Ombudsman complaints
FCA action
- fine
- 1
- in fines
- £1.25m
- most recent
- August 2003
-
Fined £1.25m on 4 August 2003
Final Notice Issued on 4 August 2003 on Northern Bank Ltd. 1. THE PENALTY 1.1 On 4 August 2003 the FSA imposed a financial penalty on Northern Bank of £1,250,000 in respect of breaches of Rule 3.1.3 of the FSA's Money Laundering Sourcebook (ML). 2. REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.1. Between March and July 2001 (i.e. before ML came into effect on 1 December 2001) Northern Bank conducted a large-scale review of compliance with its account opening procedures. The review identified high rates of non-compliance with Northern Bank's own client identification requirements. 2.2. In January and February 2002 (i.e. after ML came into effect) a further review of anti-money laundering compliance identified continuing high rates of non-compliance with client identification requirements. Despite this, the report of the review concluded that the overall standard of money laundering compliance was satisfactory although noting that weaknesses existed which required attention. 2.3. Following the January 2002 review Northern Bank did not put in place a detailed improvement plan specifically aimed at increasing compliance rates in respect of client identification. There was no specific follow-up testing of branches that had performed particularly poorly. 2.4. In April 2002 the FSA asked Northern Bank about its anti-money laundering compliance rates. Northern Bank provided the FSA with the non-compliance rates identified by its 2001 review but, due to its failure to recognise the seriousness of the non-compliance rates identified by its January 2002 review, did not provide the detailed results of that review to the FSA until October 2002. 2.5. In September 2002 a further internal review of compliance with client identification requirements identified that, while the overall rate of non-compliance had declined somewhat from the rates detected in the January 2002 review, it was still at an unacceptably high level. Following the September review and in light of the FSA's concern regarding its non-compliance rates, Northern Bank drew up and implemented a comprehensive remedial action plan. 2.6. A further internal review in early 2003 indicated that, as a result of the remedial action, non-compliance rates had fallen to low single figures. 2.7. The FSA investigation reviewed the accounts tested by Northern Bank in its January and September 2002 reviews. Each account file was examined, having regard to the identification criteria set out in the Guidance Notes, to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to show that the client was who he had claimed to be. 2.8. The FSA investigation showed that in 35% of the accounts included in the January 2002 review and 18% of the accounts included in the September 2002 review Northern Bank had failed adequately to verify that the client was who he had claimed to be. Northern Bank therefore breached ML 3.1.3 in respect of those accounts. 3. FACTORS RELEVANT TO DETERMINING THE SANCTION The seriousness of the breaches 3.1. The high level of breaches identified applied across the whole of Northern Bank's branch network and existed for a considerable period of time. 3.2. The non-compliance rates identified in the January and September 2002 reviews for non-personal accounts were particularly high. The Guidance Notes state that corporate entities are amongst the most likely vehicles for money laundering. The FSA notes, however, that in most cases at least some attempt had been made to identify both personal and non-personal customers. 3.3. The seriousness of the breaches is exacerbated by the fact that they took place against a background of increased regulatory emphasis on the importance of effective anti-money laundering controls and Northern Bank's own earlier testing in 2001 having already revealed high rates of non-compliance with its own client identification requirements. 3.4. The FSA has considered whether the risk arising from organised crime in Northern Ireland should be afactor relevant to determining the penalty. It has decided that it would not be appropriate to penalise Northern Bank on the basis of its location and therefore this has not been a factor in determining the size of the penalty. ML applies with equal force throughout the United Kingdom. The size, financial resources and other circumstances of the firm 3.5. The size of Northern Bank in the retail banking market in which it operates means that its failure to have strong and effective procedures for the identification of its clients, as part of its anti-money laundering systems and controls, presented a serious risk to the FSA's statutory objective to reduce financial crime. Conduct following the contravention 3.6. The FSA considers Northern Bank's failure between January and September 2002 to produce an effective strategy to deal with its high rate of non-compliance with the requirements of the Money Laundering Regulations 1993 and the FSA Money Laundering Rules to be a particularly serious matter. Although the non-compliance rate declined in the period between January and September 2002, the absence of a strategy after the January review resulted in the non-compliance rate continuing at unacceptably high levels. 3.7. Due to its failure to recognize the seriousness of the non-compliance rates revealed by its January 2002 review, Northern Bank did not inform the FSA of them until after the FSA made specific enquiries later that year. 3.8. The FSA notes, however, that after September 2002 Northern Bank devoted considerable resources to correct the problem and implemented a comprehensive remedial action plan. The FSA is satisfied that the remedial action plan has appropriately addressed the problem. Furthermore, the FSA notes that during its remedial action Northern Bank re-examined the accounts that had not been properly opened and found no evidence that actual money laundering had taken place. 3.9. Northern Bank has co-operated fully with the FSA's investigation and, by moving quickly to agree the facts of the case and to settle the matter, has helped the FSA to work expeditiously towards its regulatory objectives, which include reducing financial crime. Previous action taken by the FSA 3.10. In a Final Notice dated 12 December 2002 the FSA imposed a financial penalty of £750,000 on Royal Bank of Scotland plc (RBS) for breaches of ML 3.1.3 and ML 7.3.2. The FSA noted at the time that, were it not for the prompt and effective remedial action taken by RBS once it had identified its failings and for the full and pro-active co-operation demonstrated by RBS in relation to the FSA's investigation, the financial penalty imposed would have been very substantially higher. The present case is distinguished particularly by Northern Bank's failure to recognise the seriousness of its breaches and its consequent failure to take prompt and effective remedial action after they were identified in January 2002 and for some nine months after that. 4. CONCLUSION 4.1. Taking into account the seriousness of the breaches and in particular the lack of urgency with which Northern Bank dealt with the matter after January 2002 and the risks that posed to the FSA's regulatory objective of reducing financial crime, the FSA has decided to impose on Northern Bank a financial penalty of £1,250,000. 4.2. Without the effective remedial steps taken by Northern Bank after September 2002, the co-operation afforded to the investigation and the early settlement of the case, the penalty would have been very substantially higher. 4.3. The full text of the Final Notice is available from the FSA.
Ombudsman complaints
- new complaints, January–June 2025
- 43
- upheld, against a 31% median
- 33%
- about banking and credit
- 39
A bigger firm gets more complaints simply because it has more customers. With this few, one case moves the upheld rate a lot.
Customer compensation schemes
The FCA has ordered this firm to review past sales and pay back customers who lost out.
- January 2015 To address possible selling issues affecting customers who purchased Card Security Products provided by Affinion International Limited, where the sale (or renewal) of such products was on or after 14 January 2005 and…
The FCA's wording
-
Amendment to a consumer redress exercise
The Requirements became effective on 27 January 2015 and were supplemented on 15 May 2015. The Requirements shall be supplemented as follows: The definition of 'Scheme of Arrangement' at paragraph 1.33 of the Requirements shall mean the solvent scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 described more particularly in Annex 1 hereto and all references in the Requirements to ”Scheme Document shall be references to the Scheme of Arrangement in Annex 1 hereto. Changes to the Scheme of Arrangement originally appended to the Requirements are highlighted through underlined or struck through text. Paragraph 5.1 of Part 3 of Annex B of the Requirements shall be amended so as to read as follows: If a Scheme Creditor disagrees with the amount of compensation payable to him, he may initiate the Dispute Resolution Procedure to refer the dispute to the Scheme Adjudicator, provided he does so within the time limits specified in Clauses 4.6 and 4.9 of the Scheme Document. If a Scheme Creditor disagrees with the rejection of his Claim Form by the Scheme Administrators, and provided that the Claim Form was received on or before 15 November 2016, he may initiate the Dispute Resolution Procedure to refer the dispute to the Scheme Adjudicator, provided he does so within the time limits specified in Clauses 4.8 to 4.10 of the Scheme Document.
-
Amendment to a consumer redress exercise
Supplemental Requirements 6. The Requirements shall be supplemented as follows: 6.1 A new paragraph 1.21(A) be inserted as follows: 'Extreme Distressed Suppression Population' means Scheme Creditors in respect of whom Schemeco and/or the Scheme Administrators receive a direct communication, in writing or otherwise, from: 1.21(A).1 that Scheme Creditor expressly requesting that no further communication be sent to that Scheme Creditor in connection with the Scheme of Arrangement; or 1.21(A).2 a third party on behalf of a Scheme Creditor stating that the Scheme Creditor is deceased and requesting that no further communication be sent to that Scheme Creditor in connection with the Scheme of Arrangement (provided that the Scheme Administrators are reasonably satisfied that the third party is authorised by law to make such a request on behalf of the Scheme Creditor), and in each case the Scheme Administrators reasonably determine at their discretion on the information available to them that the sending of further communications in connection with the Scheme to the Scheme Creditor will or will be reasonably likely to cause distress or harm.. 6.2 The definition of 'Scheme of Arrangement' at paragraph 1.33 shall mean the solvent scheme of arrangement under Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 described more particularly in Annex 1 hereto and all references in the Requirements to Scheme Document shall be references to the scheme of arrangement in Annex 1 hereto. Scheme Claims Decisioning Procedures 7. The requirements set out in Annex B to the Requirements be supplemented by inserting a new paragraph 5.2 at Part 3 of Annex B as follows: 5.2 Certain time limits apply where Scheme Creditors wish to initiate the Dispute Resolution Procedure or (as part of the Dispute Resolution Procedure) to refer a dispute to the Scheme Adjudicator. These are set out in Clauses 4.6, 4.8, 4.9 and 7.1 of the Scheme of Arrangement.
-
Firm must undertake a consumer redress exercise
The firm is required to establish and operate a consumer redress scheme scheme to address possible selling issues affecting customers who purchased Card Security Products provided by Affinion International Limited, where the sale (or renewal) of such products was on or after 14 January 2005 and was before the relevant Amendment Date (as defined in the scheme documentation). For full terms see the scheme documentation: www.aischeme.co.uk. The amount of redress may be calculated to off-set any insurance claims made under the Card Security Products. This consumer redress scheme must be implemented no later than 31 October 2015. This consumer redress scheme shall be binding on the Financial Ombudsman Service. Further details are also available on the FCA website: www.fca.org.uk/affinion-scheme.
Key dates in its history
Northern Bank’s history from the FCA register and Companies House, newest first.
2015
27 January 2015
- FCA ordered a customer compensation scheme
FCA register
2013
1 April 2013
- Regulated by the FCA from this date
- Regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority from this date
FCA register
2003
4 August 2003
- Fined £1.25m by the FCA
FCA register
2001
1 December 2001
- Regulated by the Financial Services Authority from this date
- Became authorised by the FCA
FCA register
In the full report: all 14 events
- All 14 events in its history (6 shown here)
Firms like Northern Bank
Other firms of the same type (bank or building society), nearest first.
In Belfast
Firms are listed by type and location, best known first. Being listed is not a recommendation: check any firm before you deal with it.
Get the full report on Northern Bank
Everything on this page, plus everything locked above, in one dated PDF you can keep, file or send on.
- 3 background checks on its contact details
- All 14 events in its history
Instant PDF One-off payment Secure checkout by Stripe
Frequently asked questions about this firm
Is Northern Bank Limited FCA authorised?
What is Northern Bank’s phone number and website?
Is Northern Bank a scam or clone?
Is my money safe with Northern Bank?
Has the FCA taken action against Northern Bank?
How many complaints does Northern Bank get?
Does Northern Bank use any other names?
Sources and links
- Its entry on the FCA register register.fca.org.uk
- Check your FSCS cover fscs.org.uk
- Complaints the Financial Ombudsman Service can help with financial-ombudsman.org.uk
- Ombudsman complaints data, January–June 2025 financial-ombudsman.org.uk
- Report a scam to the FCA fca.org.uk