Claim for charges taken from benefits

[stonedecroze]

Shows how long it takes me to keep up with everything.

[steven4064]

I don't believe it! - got a standard letter from Halifax blah blah OFT case blah blah. Don't they READ letters we send them - made it perfectly clear we were claiming under SSAA 1992 and TCA 2002. OFT case is absolutely irrelevant to this claim.

[stonedecroze]

I don't believe it! - got a standard letter from Halifax blah blah OFT case blah blah. Don't they READ letters we send them - made it perfectly clear we were claiming under SSAA 1992 and TCA 2002. OFT case is absolutely irrelevant to this claim.

 

How far have you got with this Steven?. Of course they don`t read letters. that would take up to much time, and leave less time for them to think up new ways to rip off us poor suckers.

[deadlykiss]

aww sorry to hear that Steven :9 nope since when have banks listened to anything you write to them ,,,

[ja-de]

Best of luck with your friends claim Steven, I'm on IB, which is my only source of Income, but even though I told them on the phone & by letter, they still insisted that they were well within their rights, to take it all away from me - but you try telling them that as its IB, you are claiming it because you aren't well enough to work, & because you don't qualify for Income Support, you don't get free prescriptions, & all your much needed meds have to be paid for with something, (& mine are all pain-killers).

I for one will be following this thread with much interest.

[stonedecroze]

Have you tried asking DWP to write to them ja-de??.

that should not be touching your benefits

[steven4064]

How far have you got with this Steven?.

We sent prelim and are about to send LBA. However, Halifax are messing us about and not replying to Data Protection Act request - in fact they are now in default on this. It means we have not yet sent a schedule of charges but just requested payment of all charges on the basis that they know what they are and all charges are unlawful, whatever they are.

 

Because this claim is on a differnet basis than all the others, I wanted the POC to be seen and commented on in plenty of time. Current plan is to file in court in 2 weeks so long as we get the statements in that time. We are going to phone the DSAR people in Halifax tomorrow.

[stonedecroze]

You could also report them to Information Commissioners Office email "mail@ Information Commissioners Office.gsi.gov.uk (soz I havent got a linky thing )or phone 01625 545 700 or fax 01625 524 510 this gets to Janine Gregory, who was a great help to me, in the Compliance Dept. you might get a quicker response that way. just noticed bot has inserted full ico it is initials lower case.

hope you understand this

 

[JunkiMunki]

hi there ,

Just a quick reply to say I had exactly the same trouble with the HSBC, and on the 30th July informed the Financial Ombudsman , and told them that the HSBC had told me that all charge claims were stayed because of the pending court case, but that I was not claiming back charges under the UNFAIR TERMS , as theses charges were unlawfully taken from my benefits under the said ruling, and that they have actually acted unlawfully in taking charges from my account .

They have contacted the HSBC and have also posted me a complaint form with a reference no ; if I have not had it dealt with satisfactorily by the bank.

The Financial Ombudsman Service,

South Quay Plaza

183 Marsh Wall

London

E14 9SR.

 

Telephone 0845 080 1800.

e-mail : [email protected], or

Financial Ombudsman Service

 

make sure you tell them that it is a claim due to the unlawful taking from benefits.;-)you are allowed to click my scales if this info has helped you !!!!!!!!!!! well we all need brownie points dont we !!!

[Vital Spark]

Steven4064, why is your friend only asking the 8% interest rather than the compound interest the banks take and which I was advissed, by a site moderator, to ask in my reclaim case?

 

I intend taking Lloyds to task over the charges taken from my account on both counts and requesting the compond interest they charged me. My grounds will be twofolf: unlawful and unfair with the be nefits exempt therefore banks practise being illegal.

 

I'll be watching your/this thread with interest.

 

Btw, is your case in England?

[kennythecelt]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/107764-claiming-back-bank-charges.html

[steven4064]

Have you tried asking DWP to write to them ja-de??.

that should not be touching your benefits

We wrote to both DWP and Treasury (Tax Credits) and, so far, there has been a deafening silence.

[steven4064]

Steven4064, why is your friend only asking the 8% interest rather than the compound interest the banks take and which I was advissed, by a site moderator, to ask in my reclaim case?

 

I intend taking Lloyds to task over the charges taken from my account on both counts and requesting the compond interest they charged me. My grounds will be twofolf: unlawful and unfair with the be nefits exempt therefore banks practise being illegal.

 

I'll be watching your/this thread with interest.

 

Btw, is your case in England?

For this claim we could claim loads of things:

 

1) that the charges are contract penalties

2) that they are unfair under UTCCR1999

3) compound interest

4) charges going back over 6 years

 

However, all these things are contentious. We want a 'single issue' claim, hopefully that we might be able to get referred to a higher court so that everyone can benefit (no pun intended!). We also want to go for an injunction to prevent money being taken in future.

 

It is tempting to go for more money - but we want to keep the case simple so that it does not get bogged down in arguments that are secondary to the main issue.

[tomterm8]

For this claim we could claim loads of things:

 

1) that the charges are contract penalties

2) that they are unfair under UTCCR1999

3) compound interest

4) charges going back over 6 years

 

However, all these things are contentious. We want a 'single issue' claim, hopefully that we might be able to get referred to a higher court so that everyone can benefit (no pun intended!). We also want to go for an injunction to prevent money being taken in future.

 

It is tempting to go for more money - but we want to keep the case simple so that it does not get bogged down in arguments that are secondary to the main issue.

 

Hi, steven, can I suggest getting in contact with the specialist debt team? they may help fund your test case:

[steven4064]

Thanks tomterm, do you have contact details. My friend is on benefit (obviuously ) and therefore pobably entitled to legal aid. We are exploring that ATM

[tomterm8]

Thanks tomterm, do you have contact details. My friend is on benefit (obviuously ) and therefore pobably entitled to legal aid. We are exploring that ATM

 

Unfortunatly, the contact details I've got were given in confidence, so I don't feel - ahem - confident in giving them out:)

 

officially, i believe you're supposed to ring up the CAB, and ask for an appointment with the specialist debt team, HOWEVER, I would suggest you PM sequenci, since he knows quite a few senior people in the CAB debt team and may be able to suggest a way of drawing their attention to this matter:)

[steven4064]

OK TT, I'll keep it in mind until I've exhausted the legal aid angle. In fact I have a close friend who works as a debt counsellor for CAB - I'll ask her.

[Vital Spark]

You and your friend have my utmost admiration, Steven. Seems he/she is forgoign higher return for the sake of all.

 

Thank you.

[tomterm8]

Is it worth publicising the claim:) LOL... sure some of the national newspapers / press / watchdog would be interested:)

[Vital Spark]

Tomtern, Can't you bring yourself to divulge via pm. Seems Steven and his friend are sticking their necks out for all of us. Plus, surely such an agency is for all of those how need it or it's useless, tehrefore, contact details for it should be public knowledge or at least accessible to the public at large. .

[tomterm8]

Tomtern, Can't you bring yourself to divulge via pm. Seems Steven and his friend are sticking their necks out for all of us. Plus, surely such an agency is for all of those how need it or it's useless, tehrefore, contact details for it should be public knowledge or at least accessible to the public at large. .

 

Vital Spark, contact details for the C.A.B. are both public knowledge & accessible to the public at large... Get advice .

 

Private contact details of particular members of staff, which were given to me in confidence, will remain in confidence... sorry, but there it is. that's not negotiable.

 

I would note that if steven were to pm the member I mentioned earlier it would work to his friends advantage:cool: .

[steven4064]

If you bring a claim in Scotland (against a Scottish bank or possibly if you live in Scotland) then there is also some case law you can use:

Under s187 of the Social Security Administrtation Act 1992 and s45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 benefits cannot be assigned. The theory is that benefits should not be subject to ordinary forms of arrestment. The principles underpinning the theory are in the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, in common law and in the case of Woods.

 

In the case of Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland 1913 SLT 1 Reports 499, a worker got compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (an early form of benefit) and paid it into a bank account. This case held that the benefit itself could not be assigned to another person. If benefit was plainly identified in a bank account, it should also have statutory protection from arrestment. The money did not change character because it was paid into an account. In the judgement in this case it says, "A weekly payment, or a sum paid by way of redemption thereof, shall not be capable of being assigned, charged, or attached, and shall not pass to any other person by operation of law, nor shall any claim be set-off against the same."

Unfortunately this precedent does not apply in England or Wales.

 

The two Acts (SSAA 1992 and TCA 2002) both forbid "assignment from" or "charges on" money paid in benefits. The "charges on" bit doesn't apply to bank charges because it refers to things like attachment of earnings - a legal claim on the money (this is all defined in s27(1)(b) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947). The point we have to establish is whether bank charges constitute an assigment from the benefits.

 

As the result of discussions I have edited the PoC in the first post.

[tomterm8]

27.

Attachment of moneys payable by the Crown.

— (1) Where any money is payable by the Crown to some person who, under any order of any court, is liable to pay any money to any other person, and that other person would, if the money so payable by the Crown were money payable by a subject, be entitled under rules of court to obtain an order for the attachment thereof as a debt due or accruing due, or an order for the appointment of a sequestrator or receiver to receive the money on his behalf, the High Court may, subject to the provisions of this Act and in accordance with rules of court, make an order restraining the first-mentioned person from receiving that money and directing payment thereof to that other person, or to the sequestrator or receiver:

Provided that no such order shall be made in respect of:—

 

(a)

pay wages or salary payable to any officer of the Crown as such;

 

(b)

any money which is subject to the provisions of any enactment prohibiting or restricting assignment or charging or taking in execution; [F1 or]

 

©

[F1 any money payable by the Crown to any person on account of a deposit in [F2 the National Savings Bank]]

 

 

(2) The provisions of the preceding subsection shall, so far as they relate to forms of relief falling within the jurisdiction of a county court, have effect in relation to county courts as they have effect in relation to the High Court, but with the substitution of a reference to county court rules for any reference in the said subsection to rules of court.

 

[F3 (3) In their application to England and Wales the preceeding provisions of this section shall have effect subject to any order for the time being in force under section 139(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.]

[tomterm8]

not completly sure why s27(b) would limit the meaning of "charge"?

[kennythecelt]

Tomtern, Can't you bring yourself to divulge via pm. Seems Steven and his friend are sticking their necks out for all of us. Plus, surely such an agency is for all of those how need it or it's useless, tehrefore, contact details for it should be public knowledge or at least accessible to the public at large. .

 

Don't worry Vital Spark.

 

Tom Term was referring to a specific individual, a friend who happens to work in one of the many CAB offices around the country, and he can't name an individual. That wouldn't be right.