Is the bank taking your Benefits ?

[JonCris]

Also address your next letter to the manager & reiterate your discussion with his member of staff & that you have sort advice & know she has attempted to mislead you as to the law. Furthermore you have reported their illegal conduct to the DWP.

 

Also it's worth noting that under the 2006 Fraud Act giving such misleading information is a criminal offence as follows:

 

All Theft Act deception offences are abolished to be replaced by 3 new fraud offences:fraud by misrepresentation.......fraud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of position..

Under section 1 a person is guilty of fraud if they are in breach of any offences in sections 2,3,4.

Under Section 2 representation must be made dishonestly which is established under the two-stage test as set out in Rv Gosh (1982) QB 1053, 75 Cr App R 154 in which the defendant was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people

Subsection (1)(b) requires that the representation is made with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing a loss or risk of loss to another. Loss and gain are defined in section 5 as being money or property

[JonCris]

surprise present yourself at the bank (with a signed authority from your daughter) & ask to see the manager. Then after telling him/her about the disgusting way you where treated on the phone ask them to refund the money whilst pointing out that by taking penalty charges from her benefits they are in breach of the Social Security Act

 

Also take a copy of the act's wording

[JonCris]

You could also quote the Ministers letter (post 213) which states benefits are not the property of the beneficiary but are provided for the upkeep of the said beneficiary. Therefore the bank is misappropriating monies it is not entitled too which is theft

[JonCris]

Griff yes it is as housing benefit is income related

[JonCris]

HSBC dose not acknowledge that right.

 

Can you help?

 

Of course they don't but then they believe their penalty charges to be "fair & reasonable"

[JonCris]

Whilst I agree with most of your post I can't agree with your statement that they believe what the higher management tell them, and are told to how to react on the phone.

 

It may be how they react when faced with a customer. but unless they have been living under a rock for some considerable time they most know that what they are being ordered to say is complete & utter 'rollocks'

 

Some of the complete tosh that I have heard spoken by bank staff has been unbelievable & has caused me to ask them "do you actualy believe what your saying" & it isn't just bank charges.

 

I know of probate lawyers being told by bank staff, despite providing a death certificate, that they can't give out any information about the deceased because of the DPA.

 

I can only assume the people they are now employing have little education & are poorly paid or just plain thick

[JonCris]

Then they should pack it in.

 

I can't understand for the life of me how they can, even to earn a crust, tell what they must know are blatant lies to their follow citizens who they also know are suffering considerable hardship (& in some cases death by suicide) because of their employers greed.

 

It's a bit like "I voz only vollowing orders mein herr"

[JonCris]

VS

 

Suggest the following with its amendments

 

Dear Sir/Madam [YOUR NAME, SORT CODE, and ACCOUNT NUMBER]

 

I write regarding the application of the following penalty charges to my account: [iNSERT DETAILS of charges applied].

 

As you know the monies in my account derive from means tested benefits paid by DWP, and/or the CSA. This is confirmed from my bank statements, where they are clearly indicated.

 

Accordingly, you have erred in law in levying such charges on exempt monies in my account contrary to The Social Security Act 1992 which for your information states as follows:

 

Social Security Administration Act 1992

Miscellaneous

Certain benefit to be inalienable **

 

187- 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 the beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.

 

I would also respectfully remind you that said benefits are not the property of the Recipient but of the State, and are provided by the State, for the Recipient and their Dependant's sole upkeep

 

Therefore as this is my only/main source of income please refund any and all such charges together with interest applied within 7 days from the above date

 

Yours faithfully

[JonCris]

You can quote a Scottish case but where the Courts might not & often DO refer to Scottish Law the banks can ignore it.........Unless you sue them 'in' Scotland assuming they have their HO there

 

You could if they had simular laws quote Australian cases

[JonCris]

Thanks Steven have amended accordingly as follows:

 

Template for getting a refund of benefits from you bank

 

Dear Sir/Madam [YOUR NAME, SORT CODE, and ACCOUNT NUMBER]

 

I write regarding the application of the following penalty charges to my account: [iNSERT DETAILS of charges applied].

 

As you know the monies in my account derive from means tested benefits paid by DWP, and/or the CSA. This is confirmed from my bank statements, where they are clearly identified.

 

Accordingly, you have erred in law in levying such charges on exempt monies in my account contrary to The Social Security Act 1992 which for your information states as follows:

 

Social Security Administration Act 1992

Miscellaneous

Certain benefit to be inalienable **

 

187- 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 the beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.

 

Note * if you claim Working Tax Credit or Child Tax Credit the corresponding legislation is the Tax Credits Act 2006. Section 45 states then include this para in your letter of claim.

 

In addition I remind you that included in this exemption are the following

 

Tax Credits Act 2006. Section 45 states:

 

45.: Inalienability

(1) Every assignment of or charge on a tax credit, and every agreement to assign or charge a tax credit, is void; and, on the bankruptcy of the person entitled to a tax credit, the entitlement to the tax credit does not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors

 

I would also respectfully remind you that all the said benefits are not the property of me, the Recipient, but of the State, and are provided by the State, for the Recipient and their Dependant's sole upkeep

 

Therefore in view of the foregoing and the fact that these benefits are my only/main source of income please refund, within 7 days from the above date, any and all such charges together with any interest applied.

 

 

Yours faithfully

[JonCris]

ragger no.

 

Prepare a skeleton argument about the sanctity of benefits & spring it on them by fax the night before the hearing. Your argument should include a brief reference to that evidence you will be relying on in court

 

Make sure you have all of your aces in place, Statute, Secretary of State correspondence etc, all of which is available in this thread

[JonCris]

ragger write your own then post it here.

 

Suggest start your argument with "I would ask the Court to consider the following etc:

[JonCris]

Had 3 DCAs, all debts are alleged and in dispute, telling me that they can and will take my DLA into account as income

 

Luckily, sought advice from national debtline and CCCS and they advised DLA CAN NOT be taken into account as income

 

Soz if this has been said before but only just found this thread...

 

Of course it can't although I doubt they knew it until you told them

 

The fact that the DCA's have claimed they CAN take your benefits is grounds to report them to TS & the OFT

[JonCris]

Hiya polonius. i relaly sympathise with you. Im going through the exactly same thing with the halifax.

 

I contacted them by letter twice then spoke to the customer relation manager thats apparently the highest person a member of the public is allowed to speak to???? so they say

 

So now i have contacted the ombudsman to try to get this money back. The main part they have taken is my daughters dla.

 

The customer relation manager told me if i want it back take them to court.

 

Good luck with your claim and keep us posted

 

karen

 

Karen may I suggest that you gather your evidence particularly that which confirms their action is unlawfull, Social Security Act 2002 + letters from the Secretary of Estate to the bankers representatives all of which are on this thread, & write together with that evidence to your local magistrates court & ask them to issue a summons on a charge of fraud based on the Fraud Act 2006 which states as follows & should be quoted when requesting the summons

 

The Fraud Act 2006 came into force on 15th April 2006

 

The act is small as it contains only 16 sections plus 3 schedules.

 

All Theft Act deception offences are abolished to be replaced by 3 new fraud offences: fraud by misrepresentation.......fraud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of position.:o

 

Under section 1 a person is guilty of fraud if they are in breach of any offences in sections 2,3,4.

 

Under Section 2 representation must be made dishonestly which is established under the two-stage test as set out in Rv Gosh (1982) QB 1053, 75 Cr App R 154 in which the defendant was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people

 

Subsection (1) (b) requires that the representation is made with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing a loss or risk of loss to another. Loss and gain are defined in section 5 as being money or property

 

This section is very wide ranging & could criminalise a lie. e.g; if the bank refused a loan whilst suggesting a reason that was not true then that could be an offence as the victim would have suffered a loss or gain based on the lie of the defendant. Furthermore there is no need to show that the victim was even aware of the lie for there to have been a crime committed. The victimless crime. This could also be applied to the unlawful seizing of benefits

 

Merely an email setting out the true reasons for refusal even though not sent would constitute the crime. It would not matter to whom, if anyone the representation was addressed nor the eventual effect, if any.

 

Fraud by failing to disclose information

 

Section 3 provides that where a person dishonestly fails to disclose to another information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, & intends to make a gain or cause a loss or the risk of a loss an offence has been committed.

 

Fraud by abuse of position

 

Section 4 makes it an offence for a person who occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not act against the financial interest of another person, to abuse that position dishonestly and intend, by means of the abuse, to make gain or cause a loss or risk of a loss to another. This creates a very broad offence which may catch the banks.

[JonCris]

muggins I should write to them pointing out their 'mistake' quoting the Social Security Act the details of which are included in the original appropriation letter at the head of this thread.

 

Give them a few days to repay you & if they don't then contact your MP

[JonCris]

puzz they are talking rubbish - as usual

 

Apart from their charges being unlawful they cannot negate your rights under statute just by claiming it's in their T&C's & to do so is an offence which should be reported to TS & the OFT

 

Write again telling them they are wrong & that unless they repay you + any interest they have added you will report them to the appropriate authorities forthwith

[JonCris]

VS write back & ask them that,

 

in order that I might consider any further action please advise how & on what date you disposed of my data. I feel this is particularly important for me to know as my account is still current

 

(assuming it is of course)

[JonCris]

As long as there are charges you can't close the account!!

 

What complete & utter rubbish.

 

Ammani the person or persons your dealing with are obviously not full shillings

[JonCris]

ammani Get them to put it in writing

[JonCris]

karen your situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the pending OFT case. However what it does do is that it shows once again the complete lack of knowledge of the regulator

 

In your case it not a matter of whether bank penalty charges are lawful or not. Your penalty charges have been taken unlawfully from your benefits in direct contravention of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 in which your benefit payments are deemed sacrosanct.

 

The bank & the regulator must understand that the benefits paid to you don't 'belong' to you they 'belong' to the State & are given to provide support to you & your dependants.

 

You will see below that even a Trustee in Bankruptcy can't touch your benefits.

 

Social Security Administration Act 1992

Miscellaneous

Certain benefit to be inalienable **

187- 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 bancrupcy of the beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors

__________________

 

I suggest you write to them using the template above & provide the FSA with copies in order they might learn something.

 

If all else fails you will need to consider issuing court proceedings. If you do you must ensure that your POC does not refer to the charges as being unlawful but only that taking them from your State benefit is

[JonCris]

This was given in a skeleton arguments doc to me yesterday by an HSBC barrister from Temple, London

 

 

Social security adminstration act 1992. The claimant argues that the levying of bank fees amount to an unlawful 'charge' on benefits she receives from the State. It is plain that this argument is wrong as a matter of construction of the Act, and confuses 'charges' in the sense of fees (to which the act has no relevance) and 'charges' in the sense of a proprietary right attaching to benefits (to which the Act relates, but which the levying of fees on overdrafts does not create).

 

 

A CAG lawyer told me earlier this week that possibly the SSA argument we are all using is a misinterpretation of the Act. Someone needs to work out once and for all whether or not the illegal taking of benefits is occurring and get it established/find a precedent once and for all in LAW. HSBC may well be wrong above, in which case their argument needs some case law against it as they will undoubtedly use it again. Or they may be right, in which case claimants (us lot) need to use the argument only in the correct context.

 

Skint sorry mate then your CAB lawyer is wrong (& not for the 1st time I shouldn't wonder) Not only does the DWP disagree with him/her but so does the Minister of State.

 

What your CAB lawyer & the banks need to understand & accept is that they are not taking the debtors money but that of the state. Unfortunately when this government forced the banks to set up 'basic' accounts in order to receive payments there was no joined up thinking.

 

The government probably thought because there would be no overdraft facilities that claimants on fixed low incomes would not incur any debts they couldn't afford to repay.

 

No one in government even considered the possibility that someone could be penalized to the tune of many hundreds of pounds within a very short time. A situation from which there is no hope of recovery. So instead of insisting the banks simple refuse to pay anything over budget WITHOUT penalizing the most vulnerable they simply ignored what could & has happened.

 

When these accounts were announced the banks must have been rubbing their hands in anticipation of the huge sums they where about to extract from the poor

[JonCris]

Hi tina

 

van is correct & I was in the process of preparing a response to your question which I will still add below even though much of it is duplicated

 

The letter you need is at the beginning of this thread & quotes the relevant legislation. Just amend it to suit

 

To handle your sons affairs as his 'Attorney' you need to have him (if still compos men tis) sign an 'Enduring Powers of Attorney' You can download the form directly from The Court of Protection's website

http://www.guardianship.gov.uk/formsdocuments/forms.htm

which you can print one off & complete without the aid of a solicitor.

 

However you must do this prior to 1st October 2007 as then it becomes necessary to complete a 'Lasting Power of Attorney' which is 32 pages long & will almost certainly require a solicitors help.

 

Unlike the present 'Enduring Power of Attorney' which doesn't need to be registered until the person granting it becomes 'non compos men tis' the Enduring one has to be registered from the outset thereby attracting court costs immediately - another stealth tax on the sick

 

Many solicitors are trying to encourage their clients to prepare Powers of Attorney now in order to beat the deadline when the cost will become prohibitive

 

If using a solicitor then the costs rises from about £60-£100 to £500+ post 31st September

[JonCris]

Here’s the form http://www.guardianship.gov.uk/downloads/Make_An_EPA.Web.pdf which is in PDF & will need an Adobe Reader which like most you should have & if not if you go to the main site you will be given the opportunity to download it FOC

 

One small point to anyone who is a defendant & who the bank are chasing for a debt which probably includes disputed bank charges. If this be the case I should ask the court for a stay until the conclusion of the OFT case:D Sauce for the Goose & so on

[JonCris]

Yes & I would point out that it they who are guilty of committing an offence

[JonCris]

wobbles are you saying the bank have never taken your benefit payments to cover their penalty charges. If not your question doesn't make sense