Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Post Office scandal expert Moorhead predicts solicitor strike-offs Richard Moorhead, professor of law and professional ethics at the University of Exeter and a prolific writer on the Horizon scandal, said it was ‘highly likely’ that people would be removed from the profession. He added that he also expects one or two individuals to face criminal prosecutions. He was ‘cautiously supportive’ of the Solicitors Regulation Authority's position of waiting until the public inquiry has finished before taking any decisions on disciplinary proceedings, saying the regulator has been doing a lot of investigatory work behind the scenes. But Moorhead said the SRA should provide ‘greater clarity and detail’ about what it is doing currently.   Professor Richard Moorhead predicts strike-offs over Post Office Horizon scandal | Law Gazette WWW.LAWGAZETTE.CO.UK Lawyers have been 'everywhere' in the scandal, Professor Richard Moorhead tells legal ethics conference.
    • If this goes to court, you'll be asked to declare your earnings. Any fine is a percentage of what you earn per week.  
    • Hi Dx, HB can you share the link of Tireddodo's case thread , may be i can learn something from there?  
    • As i don't have any mitigating circumstances other than trying to save pennies, will they fine me to the maximum? What is the maximum fine they will impose? I honestly don't know how many times i use it.  I will get a criminal record which means i can't find another job? Will they prosecute my partner?   
    • Yes. They won't inform your employer but you may need to. You need to check what it says iin your employment contract. I don't think it usually causes huge problems for most people. HB
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

!!PLEASE help with hsbc taking *£150* a month in charges out of benefits


chris22
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5807 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Please can somebody advise me on what i can do next ...

 

I have so far rang and sent letters to hsbc about there charges and requesting a refund of them like many people i have been sent the leter your claim and complaint has been logged and stored ect ect..

 

I have been really ill for the past year and a bit with neurological illness and have been in receipt of incapacity benefit with not being able to work due to illness. I am struggling each month to get but i recieve £196 every 2 weeks (long term incapacity) to get by on to pay bills and rent and to live on.

 

I recently looked up about the legality of banks taking charges out of benefits and found that they shouldnt be under section 187 of the social security administration act 1992 which states.....

 

187:

Certain benefit to be inalienable

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of or charge on—

(a) benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;

(b) any income-related benefit; or

© child benefit,

and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.

 

Here is the letter i sent requesting my money back...

 

Dear Sir/Madam

Unlawful bank charges following an arrestment of welfare benefits – request for refund for XXXXXXXXXXXX sort code: XXXXXX account number: XXXXXXXX

I write with respect to the application of the following charges to my account:Please see list below.

I am of the view that your charges are irrecoverable in law. As you know the monies in my account derive from Incapacity Benefit. This is confirmed from my bank statements.

Social security benefits are exempt from arrestment in terms of section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 is an identical provision to the said section 187 of the 1992 Act.

It is therefore trite law that tax credits and other such maintenance or social security benefits are exempt from arrestment. The case of Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland 1913 SLT 1 Reports 499 is authority for the proposition that where exempt monies are paid into a bank account, those monies remain exempt from arrestment insofar as such monies can be clearly identified within an account.

Accordingly, you have erred in law in arresting exempt monies in my account. You cannot impose administrative or penalty charges for your legal error. I would therefore ask you to refund said charges to my account within the next 7 days, failing which I will commence an action for payment and wrongful diligence without any further notice.

 

With a list of all charges since in reciept of benefits and a total amount requested back.

 

Also i put on the bottom of the letter this..

 

All the above charges have been taken while in recipet of benefits. All the charges bellow are charges recieved beofre benefits but due to my financial situation being how it is and not having enough money to live on you are requiered by the court waiver to continue with my case. Under the conditions of the Waiver Banks must:

not take the period during which the Waiver is in place into consideration in any decisions made about limitation periods or time limits for complaints

 

not make materially adverse changes to the level of charges during the Waiver

 

do all you can to help account holders avoid incurring these charges in the first place

 

apply the relevant principle(s) established in the test case when dealing with complaints about charges, and continue to deal with genuine hardship cases during the wavier period.

 

So by way of the wavier you should still continue with my case without knowing the out come of the test case. Due to the fact i am i reciept of benefits and not having enough money to pay bills and live on. The following charges are those that have been charged from my account before my reciept of benefits started and they are as follows:

 

followed by a list of charges to my account before benefits..

 

There reply to this letter was...

 

thank you for your letter dated 4th feb 2008

 

You have mentioned that you are presently in financial difficulties we are sorry to hear that.

 

Turning to your comments concerning the social secrity act1982. If my understanding of the position is correct you allege the bank has unlawfully deducted charges from your account in contravention of S187 of the social security act 1982. It is your belief that the levying of bank fees amounts to an unlawful 'charger' on the benefits you recieve from the state.

 

As you will appreicate given the nature of your allegations it has been necessary for the matter to be ruferred to the banks legal advisers. Thier consideredview is that your argument is wrong as a matter of construction of the act.

 

They state;

 

"you have confused 'charges' in the sense of fees, to which the act has no relevance and 'charges' in the sense of a proprieatryright attaching to benefits to which the act relates, but which the levying of fees on overdrafts does not create".

 

I acknowledge that your source of income into the account is derivedfrom state benefits paid to yourself however your account is governed by the banks stipulated terms and conditions and by conducting your account as you have then charges have been deducted from your account.

 

thats there letter they replyed to me with..

is it just me or are they trying to tell me its not charges its fees they take off me then under that quote they refer to it as charges ??

 

And i dont understand how they can say its the way i have been conducting my account when it is they who have been charging me so much causing me to go further and further overdrawn so they can charge me over and over again month after month after month leaving me with nothing at all to live on

 

Hsbc charge me on average of £150 a month, They are quick to bounce some of my direct debits and charge me further more but are quick to take there charges out causing me to go further overdrawn with there ridiculous charges of £150 which then in turn swollows up my benefits leaving me with next to nothing at all to live on and with this happening month after month after month it is a never ending loop hole and i do not know what to do next

 

Please guys any advise you can give me on where i stand with this or what i can do next will be greatly appreciated. I need help desperately

 

Thanks Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Chris, they are using the same argument against your allegations as they do against general unlawful bank charges i.e. if you call it something else it will confuse the customer and they will think your right and go away.

I would write to them telling them that whatever they call their penalty charges they are still governed by the social security act, tell them you are giving them 14 days to repay the charges or you will submit a claim to the county court to recover the unlawfully taken money and do just that.

 

As you are using the social security act you wont have to worry about the test case so you have nothing to lose.

 

here's the CAG thread on banks taking benifits http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/42170-right-appropriation-stop-bank.html

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply and help pete and i shall draft out another letter to them tonight and get it in the post tomorrow see what else they have to say on the matter.

 

Thank you so much

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris

 

I would open up another account elsewhere. Nat west do a basic step account, where you could put your money. You need to break the cycle of their charging regime, if you are still being charged.

 

You're in good hands with Pete.

 

Good luck

 

Uk

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Uk yeah i have thought about opening a new account to have money paid into and i have been told nat west are good and i am in the future going to use them. Thank you for your advice uk i am greatful.

 

I also forgot to mention in my original post that i recieved a letter today telling me they are going to take out another £158 out of my account on the 4th march in charges due to the fact i have been overdrawn £11 for the past couple of weeks because my benefits were not enough to cover there last charge they took out. Theres nothing like daylight robbery

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Chris, as UK says open up another account to actually run your finances and your life from, and submit your claim to the county court against HSBC.

 

I wouldn't worry about the charges (overdrawn balance) building up because the more charges they add the larger your claim (or second claim) gets and the only way they can recover this legally is to get a judgment in court.... and thats exactly where we want to go too :D.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you guys for all your help and advice means a lot it realy does better than the people on money saving expert who thought they would turn it into a argument against me Cheers guys

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,l am in same position - my only income is DLA and JSA and the charges that HSBC charge take me over my overdraft limit.

I have tried to get them to increase my overdraft by £500 which would get me clear but this has been refused.

I My problem is that my original claim was based on the Social security admin law which i now know is not applicable -

and i dop not know where to start - your post helped so I will try to keep track of your progress.

From one HSBC claimant :-?to another one.

 

Gwarpt

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a reply from Steven 4064 in response to a query I asked on thefoloowing forum located at:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/benefits-tax-credits-minimum/125278-social-security-administration-act-new-post.html

The charges are unlawful, just not under these 2 Acts. You should start a claim using the same method that everyone on CAG uses. It will take a little time because of the OFT case which ended on Friday but the expectation is that you will get them back.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I can see Stevens point about using soley the Socialy Security Act in a court room however I would still say the deduction of any amount that you dont agree with from a benifit payment is questionable and if you add the unfair terms and conditions statutes to this it will make a very strong claim.

 

pete

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ta Pete,

I have just now drafted a letter to HSBC requesting details of charges and interest applied to my account giving 40 days for a reply cos I am not sure which interest charges are applicable.

I am quite concerned about the result of this cos they are already threatening to close my account unless I pay full amount of overdraft or deposit something - which was done cos both JSA and DLA benefits still going into account.

I tried to get some cash from ATM tonight without any joy - what do they expect me to live on???

Can any one advise best bank to try for a "parachute account"?

 

Jan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya both, here's the full list of what the banks are offering with minimal or no checks, all pretty basic but you have to have a bank account of some sort in todays world :mad: and it helps if your bank doesn't remove all of your money as soon as its paid in.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/13832-do-you-need-parachute.html

 

good luck

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hi Chris

If you are still having hassle you can get your benefits paid into a post office card account.

You have to get an "Invitation"to set up a card account" letter from the same people who give you the benefit.

In my case i got this from the Jobcentre and when it was set up I got in touch with DWP

and they put my DLA into it too.

You cannot set up Direct Debits or go overdrawn but at least it keeps it out of reach of the bank..

Good look with everythng

Gwarpt1

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...