The struggling mortgage lender is to be nationalised, the government confirmed today.
The break-up marks a dramatic end to a business which can trace its roots back more than 150 years.
The Financial Services Authority decided on Saturday morning that B&B was not strong enough to continue as a deposit-taking business after financial turmoil undermined confidence in the bank.
"The government, on the advice of the FSA and the Bank of England, acted immediately to maintain financial stability and protect depositors, while minimising the exposure to taxpayers," the Treasury said.
The combined business of Abbey, Alliance & Leicester and B&B will have 1,286 branches across the UK, giving Santander a 10 per cent share of the retail savings market.
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid out £14bn - as a loan funded by the Bank of England - to allow B&B's retail deposits to be transferred to Abbey, with a further £4bn to be paid by the Treasury to cover deposits not protected by the scheme. B&B's shares have been cancelled, with compensation to be paid in `due course', the government said.
Chancellor Alistair Darling sai today: "We had to stabilise the situation in order to protect the banking system as a whole."
B&B has been squeezed by the credit crunch and the housing market slowdown casting doubt over its main buy-to-let business. It also taken an £18m hit from organised fraudsters hitting the buy-to-let sector by gaining bigger mortgages than properties are worth.
Banking shares were among stocks under pressure in London early today, as the Footsie returned below the 5000 mark.
Royal Bank of Scotland was the biggest faller, after three European governments agreed a £8.9bn bail-out package for financial giant Fortis. The cash injection included a demand that Fortis resell the share of ABN Amro it bought with RBS a year ago.
Fortis, the UK's third largest private care insurer, paid £19bn for its holding.
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 11 and replies | View All
The Seeker, Eccles (29/09/2008 at 11:18)
Mark, South Manchester (29/09/2008 at 14:00)
But how come the pictures of the directors & executive directors of these "failed" banks - aren't similarly printed?? Plus information on any other businesses these "executives" are involved in - so we the British public can avoid them!!
The Seeker, Eccles (29/09/2008 at 15:30)
Black Flag (29/09/2008 at 16:03)
www.bbg.co.uk/bbgar07/dir_report/bod/
The Seeker, Eccles (29/09/2008 at 16:44)
Why are they all still smiling though?
Black Flag (29/09/2008 at 16:59)
The Seeker, Eccles (29/09/2008 at 20:48)
citycentre, manchester (30/09/2008 at 16:41)
if you sought a little further you would find that demutualisation of the building societies (meaning they became available on the stock market for anyone to buy, foreign banks included) began in earnest after the Building Societies Act 1986.
now i know i am getting old and my memory sometimes fails me but who was in power in 1986? was it labour and gordon brown? no
maybe mrs thatcher and the conservatives? oh yes that was it
while you are checking that out, have a look at the reforms to the LSE enabled in the same year (big bang) that, some would argue laid the foundations for the current problems
better off red (01/10/2008 at 13:30)
those boom years of "me ME M_E_E_E" are now coming homing to us all.
increased gas bills.
increased petrol.
less competition.
less trains.
worse and now very confusing public transport system (any remember the old BR and InterCity days? "I'll buy a ticket please" as opposed to "Can I buy an advanced saver return to be used on easter mondays only in forward facing purple seats in a quiet zone" "Certainly sir, this ticket can only be used on the following trains run by the following operators at the following times".
My question, is why sell them off to santander? why not bring them under the government?
this new labour is nothing more than old tory and I haven't a clue what new tory is.
Black Flag (01/10/2008 at 14:08)
Because the government has no need for a branch network. Post Offices have been shutting because they haven't been able to sustain themselves, so why take on the burden of something that would fulfill a similar function?
Like almost all nationalised industries, it would be a money pit which would end up costing the taxpayer a fortune.
Bean B4, manchester (01/10/2008 at 14:13)