A Cambridge University study has brought to light figures showing that black victims of fraud are more than twice as likely to be denied a refund by their bank as white customers. The notion that being from an ethnic minority would make your claim less believable is, on the surface, shocking. But given the stereotypes of ethnic minorities and a history of racial discrimination in the banking sector, these figures should not really come as a surprise.

Black Americans unfairly targeted by banks before housing crisis, says ACLU Read more

One possible explanation for banks being less likely to believe ethnic minority customers is because of stereotypes in relation to fraud. When former prime minister David Cameron was caught telling the Queen that Nigeria and Afghanistan were “fantastically corrupt”, it highlighted the perceptions many have of the countries minorities have migrated or descended from.

As Prof Ross Anderson, who was behind the Cambridge study, has explained, “bank staff have the same prejudices as the general population”. Due to the nature of segregation in Britain, many people’s only experience of Nigerians, for example, may be the cliche of internet scammers, as explored in the Channel 4 documentary 419: the internet romance scam. There is clearly a lot of work that needs to be done for people to see past the stereotypes of minorities that we are often fed.

These latest figures highlight a much larger problem in the banking sector. We are quick to point to the police, schools and even universities as sites of discrimination, but there have previously been suggestions that banks are just as institutionally racist. In 2011 Nick Clegg highlighted the problem that ethnic minority businesses have historically had in receiving finance from banks, with black African businesses being four times less likely to be approved for loans, and all groups being subject to higher interest rates. When the government eventually published a report in response to these allegations it did not refute the figures, but argued that there was “no evidence to indicate that disparities are due to racial discrimination per se”. This is exactly how institutional racism works: the clearly discriminatory playing field is acknowledged and then rejected on the basis that there could be “other factors” at work.

To understand institutional racism means looking beyond simple notions of the banks, or bank staff, being racist

To understand institutional racism means looking beyond simple notions of the banks, or bank staff, being racist. A routine way to dismiss claims of racism is to say that ethnic minorities tend to be more disadvantaged, and therefore are less likely to pass credit checks, which are essential to receive banking finance. But this way of thinking entirely ignores the fact that minority communities are more likely to be disadvantaged is in itself racism: we are poorer because we are darker. A lack of access to finance is a key cause of the staggering ethnic wealth gap, which further prevents people from owning homes and setting up businesses. These systemic issues are clearly about racial discrimination and the banking sector colludes in institutional racism if it ignores this to focus on “other factors”.

As far as we know Britain has never had overtly racist discrimination in mortgage lending as in the US, where African Americans were historically denied loans in certain “redlined” districts. However, there have long been complaints about lack of access to mortgages and credit from ethnic minority communities in the UK. This lack of trust in the banking sector was underscored by the 2008 financial crisis. Not only did the resulting austerity impact more on ethnic minorities but a major cause of the crisis was American subprime mortgage lending at high rates to African American communities. And when the housing bubble burst, the mass evictions of African Americans sent shockwaves through black communities in Britain.

A moment that changed me: learning people disliked me for my skin colour | Poppy Noor Read more

A severe lack of faith in the banking sector to support minority communities has led groups to develop their own initiatives. In the African-Caribbean community, collective forms of saving such as a “pardner” are still common. People will pay money into the pardner regularly and each person takes a turn using the collective pot of money. Pardner money has been a vital source of financing things such as weddings, new businesses and house deposits. It also take a level of trust that belies the stereotype of the corrupt black community.

Ethnic minorities have also avoided using mainstream banks in order to try to get a better deal. Foreign institutions such as the Bank of India are becoming a feature in urban communities and people are also turning to credit unions. There are even a number of groups working towards building black-led financial institutions.

When faith in mainstream banks is so low that ethnic minorities are turning to alternative sources of finance, it is time to acknowledge a systemic problem. Having to fight to be believed when we are victims of fraud is just the latest example of the barriers facing minorities in the banking sector. A concerted effort needs to be taken by the banks and government to address the systemic racial inequalities in banking and access to finance.