Tazlil v First Trust

[tazlil]

Hi - I sent First Trust Bank (NI) a LBA some time ago and got the usual rejection. As I am in receipt of benefits, I sent an updated LBA quoting the Social Security Admin. Act 1992. I got the following response from First Trust today, and it would appear that this 'line of attack' does not work in Northern Ireland. Their reply was as follows:
"We refer to your letter dated 27"' September 2007. You are correct in your contention that any benefits lodged to the account are alienable, that is to say they are capable of transfer to the ownership of another. The legislation to which you refer, the Social Security Administration Act 1992 does not apply to Northern Ireland and there is no corresponding provision in our version of the legislation, the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. Further the case to which you make reference was decided in Scotland and does not create a precedent nor is it binding upon our local courts. As such you are bound by the terms and conditions of your account agreement which you entered into at the time of the opening of the account.

The Bank's position is set out in our letter of 14th' August 2007 and is reflective of the agreed position adopted by the OFT, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Financial Services Authority and all of the major banks and building societies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Courts in both jurisdictions are supportive of the genuine efforts of all parties concerned to resolve the "bank charges" issue and cases in both jurisdictions are being adjourned in accordance with the FSA's recommendations of 27th July 2007. Whilst you are of course entitled to make your position known to the court, we will be making an application to stay any proceedings issued in respect of this matter."

There you have it. Is this true? If so, should I just now go ahead with my court claim, then apply to have the inevitable stay removed?

Cheers - Tazlil

[iancognito]

Re: Tazlil v First Trust

Hi Taz (used to be my nickname at school!) and welcome to Beagles.

Regardless of whether the law allows your benefits to be transferred, if you are on benefits you only get enough money from the government for essentials and the FSA were quite clear in their statement that cases of severe financial hardship should continue to be dealt with.

You need to emphasis your hardship when you send your N1, and if it is stayed, apply for the stay to be lifted for the same reason.

I like the way the NI banks pick and choose which legislation applies to them, I have a feeling this matter has already been investigated in NI, I'll try and find the results for you.

One thing that puzzles me about their reply is this:

You are correct in your contention that any benefits lodged to the account are alienable, that is to say they are capable of transfer to the ownership of another

Can you post a copy of the the LBA you sent please?

[tazlil]

Re: Tazlil v First Trust

Thank you for your prompt reply. I have attached a copy of the LBA you requested, as well as a copy of my response to their letter. I was informed by another similar site (penaltycharges.co.uk) that the NI version of the act DOES cover my benefits. Here was the reply from penaltycharges.co.uk:

Write back to them and say that they are correct in that there is a different legislation for Northern Ireland. But suggest they read it first before saying "there is no corresponding provision in our version of the legislation".


Quote:
Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c. 8)
Part XIV - Miscellaneous
163 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 121 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
(b)any income-related benefit; or
(c)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.

(2)In calculating for the purposes of Article 30, 73(5)(b), 99(6)(b) or 107 of the [S.I. 1981/226 (N.I. 6).] Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 or Article 101(5)(b) of the [S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26).] Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 the means of any beneficiary, no account shall be taken of any increase of disablement benefit in respect of a child, or of industrial death benefit.
Keep this letter and treasure it. They have given you false information when they should given their responsibilities know the legislation. You can tell them that you will be informing them as you believe they have tried to deliberately misinform as to your legal rights under legislation.

Feel free to publish these letters on-site. I have removed my personal information for obvious reasons!

Best regards,

Tazlil

[tazlil]

Re: Tazlil v First Trust

For my Particulars of Claim, could you tell me which law, act or ruling do the banks have to abide by in having to respond to a DPA request within 40 days and a LBA within 14 days?

[Kafka]

Re: Tazlil v First Trust

BUMP

Can someone confirm this for Taz pls?

[iancognito]

Re: Tazlil v First Trust

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998..._en_3#pt2-l1g7

Subsections 9 & 10 for the 40 days under the DPA.

(9) If a court is satisfied on the application of any person who has made a request under the foregoing provisions of this section that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the request in contravention of those provisions, the court may order him to comply with the request.
(10) In this section—

• “prescribed” means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations;
• “the prescribed maximum” means such amount as may be prescribed;
• “the prescribed period” means forty days or such other period as may be prescribed;
• “the relevant day”, in relation to a request under this section, means the day on which the data controller receives the request or, if later, the first day on which the data controller has both the required fee and the information referred to in subsection (3).

[tazlil]

Another reply!

Since sending my response as per my earlier posting, I have filed a claim against First Trust (no reply from Court yet). However, today I received the following letter in response to my response!!

Many thanks for your letter of 4th October, the contents of which are noted. In your earlier correspondence you quoted English legislation to support your case and whilst this legislation does not apply to Northern Ireland we did take the time to locate the Northern Irish equivalent. You are correct in stating that there is an equivalent provision applicable in this jurisdiction and we apologise for this oversight on our part which in no way was an attempt to mislead you. We endeavour to investigate and respond to any comments or grievances that are raised to facilitate an expedient resolution but cannot and would not ever seek to offer you legal advice.

In any event we are satisfied that the section to which you refer is not relevant in the present circumstances as the Bank neither assigned nor charged any of the Benefits which you received but rather debited your account, which contains monies from various sources for Bank charges incurred.

As previously advised the Scottish law case concerning workmen's compensation does not create a precedent in this jurisdiction and as such you remain bound by the terms and conditions of your account agreement which you entered into at the time of opening of the account.

If you are unhappy with the outcome of your complaint you may treat this letter as our final response in the matter. You may refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service within six months from the date of this letter.

A leaflet outlining details of the Scheme is enclosed for your attention.

We note your comments regarding financial hardship. The "hardship exception to the waiver enables claimants to obtain a decision from the Bank or from the Financial Ombudsman Service in accordance with the timeframe prescribed under the FOS scheme. A final response has already been given by the Bank in your case and accordingly the issue of filtering by the Bank on the grounds of Hardship does not arise.
Yours Sincerely

Very interesting I think. When they say that my account contains monies from various sources, they seem to be saying that in order for the Social Security Act to apply, I MUST have only ONE source of money going in to this account ie, my benefits, and that if any other money whatsoever is paid in to this account then the Social Security Act does not apply! So if I have lodged ANY money into my account (say cash, or a cheque or even a refund on my debit card) then First Trust consider this as another source and therefore they can legally incur bank charges without breaking the Social Security Act!
As for the hardship case, my recent letters to them about my financial position and benefits seem to be irrelevant to them as they simply refer to a 'final response' letter which (conveniently for them) happened before my benefits issue was addressed, and even though since this 'final position' letter, they have received an updated LBA which mentions my financial hardship position and also a letter about the Social Security Act (both of which they responded to!). So not really their 'final response'.
If this is the case, then surely mentioning your financial hardship position in the POC is pointless, because the bank was given no time previously to consider it and they had already made their final position clear.
I would be grateful if you could give me your thoughts on this.

Best regards,

Tazlil