Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

[littlesally]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

Open another bank account to have any benefits paid in. If you can't get another bank account then open a post office account.
Then go into the bank to speak with them about this. How come they don't send you notice of taking money? They should have a record of any letters they've sent you so that should go in your favour.
Write down all your incomings and outgoings, say how difficult it has been these past few months (or whatever comes to mind) and remember to cry!!
Sally xx

[Angel3745]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

lol cry I will in fact I will go hysterical when its packed and show them up. nice one for the advice. I will defo open another account. If I went overdrawn on a Monday by 3am Tues morning the charges will be in my account. I have never had a letter for the £38 ones only one telling me about the £28 at the end of each month. If the £28 is their admin charge I need to find out if the £38 is a penalty charge which is illegal. Their new code now says they cant close your account if you complain.
I`ll keep you posted. Just added my charges up without interest since 1st May last year. £2,144.00 and £2,863.38 with interest. Now thats extortionate.

If it wasnt for the forums I would never have known half as much as I do and I appreciate it.

Thanks x

[Amethyst]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

LavenderRose - your thread is now LavenderRose Hardship claim - Legal Beagles

[LavenderRose]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

Thank you

[Amethyst]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

Thursday 18 September 2008 Sections187and45 - epetition response

We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to compel the High Street banks to obey the law on state benefits.”
Details of Petition:
“It is government policy that people on state benefits (income support, tax credits, etc) have their benefit paid into a bank account. All High Street banks impose charges on banking accounts for going overdrawn, not having funds to cover a direct debit,etc. In the case of accounts which have money from state benefits payed into them , such charges are contrary to section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002. However, the High Street banks continue to ignore this legislation. This petition is to request the Prime Minister to compel the High Street banks to obey the law.”

· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage
Read the Government’s response

The purpose of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 Section 187 and section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 is to prevent people’s benefit money being at risk by it being assigned over to a third party in settlement of a debt. It is not intended to prohibit the application of bank charges. Bank charges are in the nature of an expense, and are incurred by the holder of the account; tax credits and benefits are payable in order to help customers meet their expenses, and as such it is legitimate for banks to deduct charges from the balance of an account held in that bank, whether the money paid into the account comes from tax credits, benefits or other sources, such as earnings.
However, to directly address concerns about unarranged overdraft and returned item charges (UOD), the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) launched an investigation, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs) into the fairness of standard terms in personal current account contracts that provide for the charges. This investigation continues and is considering (among other things) the level of UOD charges and how they are applied.
The first phase of the test case was launched in the High Court in July 2007. In April 2008 it was ruled that the UOD terms in banks’ personal current account contracts can be assessed for fairness under the UTCCRs. In May 2008, the Judge gave the test case banks permission to appeal his finding. In July 2008 a hearing took place into whether UOD terms in the banks’ historical and basic bank account (and certain other non-mainstream current accounts) can also be assessed for fairness under the UTCCRs, and whether they are capable of being penalties at common law. This judgment is yet to be handed down. The OFT is continuing to progress the investigation as quickly as possible and will shortly be writing to the banks with its initial views on fairness issues. However, as the test case has not been completed and the OFT not yet concluded its investigation, it would not be appropriate for the OFT to ask the banks to make changes to their charging structure at the present time.
Until there is a resolution of the uncertainties involved, the Financial Services Authority (FSA) does not believe that it is in the interests of all consumers for complaints regarding UOD charges to be dealt with. Therefore, the FSA announced on 26 July 2007 that firms would be allowed not to comply with the FSA’s rules about complaint-handling in respect of complaints about charges – referred to as the waiver – pending the establishment of a consistent approach toward resolving complaints concerning the level, fairness or lawfulness of unauthorised overdraft charges. As the waiver expired on 26 July 2008, the FSA has agreed following a review of the prevailing circumstances, to put in place for the next six months, a new waiver that commenced on 27 July 2008.
To ensure consumer protection, the FSA has imposed a number of conditions on the waiver to which firms must adhere. These conditions include the firms agreeing:
· not to 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 to make any change to the level or structure of its unauthorised overdraft charges. If a firm proposes to do so, then it may apply to the FSA for a variation of this condition. The FSA would expect to grant the variation if a firm satisfied the FSA that the proposed changes are not materially adverse to its customers. A firm must pay particular attention to the impact on customers who are unable to modify their behaviour in response to changes to unauthorised overdraft charges;
· to continue to deal with people who are claiming to be in financial difficulty during the waiver period and to filter complaints in order to identify complainants in financial difficulty; and
· to meeting the requirements of the Banking Code in identifying and resolving situations where the customer might be experiencing financial difficulty. (The FSA has also provided additional guidance for firms when dealing with complainants in financial difficulty).
The Government believes that people should have reasonable access to their benefits. If charges become widespread, the Department for Work and Pensions has said that it will need to consider the position of vulnerable customers to ensure that they are still able to obtain the full value of their benefit. We will therefore continue to monitor developments in this area carefully as regards possible impacts, in particular in relation to financial inclusion.
The Government recognises the extra financial and social costs that financial exclusion can have for some of the most vulnerable people in society. The Government is committed to ensuring greater financial inclusion and has committed over £250m to support financial inclusion initiatives since 2005. This funding has helped to achieve a significant expansion in the availability of affordable credit and free, face-to-face money advice, delivered through partners in the not-for-profit sector. Our financial inclusion strategy for 2008-11 was announced in December 2008 in Financial inclusion: an action plan. The strategy includes work to ensure access to banking, credit, advice, saving and insurance so that everyone can manage their money, plan to cope with financial pressures and deal with serious financial difficulties.

[noragchick]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

I am sure you are already aware of this so apologies if this is repetitious but having tried to run these arguments against Nat West, they waded in with their lawyers. We had to issue proceedings and the Defence that came in said, amongst other things, that the arguments under s.187 of the Social Security Admin Act 1992 and the Tax Credits Act 2002 have already been considered in the Cardiff County Court in the case of Rayment v Barclays Bank on 30.10.07. We are told that the judge held that a claim that unauthorised overdraft charges were void by virute of the above acts was "patently incorrect" and threw out the case.

It would be interesting to know if anyone has actually been successful either in court or out of court with these arguments.

I have aksed for a copy of the judgment and will of course up date the site if and when we get it.

I have had four successes on behalf of clients in the space of two months.... once with Lloyds TSB, once with Natwest and twice with the Halifax.

[leclerc]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

I have had four successes on behalf of clients in the space of two months.... once with Lloyds TSB, once with Natwest and twice with the Halifax.

Can I ask you how you argued the case since neither relate to bank charges(if you are able to do so without any breach of confidentiality)?

[spud54]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

Wouldn't enforcement of a judgement made in Qatar be contrary to natural justice

[spud54]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

Hi, Did you know Carers Allowance is not included in "First Right ..........."

[leclerc]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

Hi, Did you know Carers Allowance is not included in "First Right ..........."

Where did you find that info out? AFAIK all benefits are included within FROA.....

[spud54]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

Social Security Administration Act 1992
Miscellaneous
187.—(1) Subject to the provision of this Act, every assignment of or charge on–
(a) benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
]
3
(aa) a jobseeker’s allowance;]
(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.

Nowhere in either of the two acts (Social Security Administration Act 1992) (section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act) can I find any mention of Carer's allowance.

[leclerc]

Re: Are you claiming back charges the bank have taken from your benefits ?

Social Security Administration Act 1992
Miscellaneous
187.—(1) Subject to the provision of this Act, every assignment of or charge on–
(a) benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
]
3
(aa) a jobseeker’s allowance;]
(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.

Nowhere in either of the two acts (Social Security Administration Act 1992) (section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act) can I find any mention of Carer's allowance.

Which does not apply to bank charges. The SSAA does not apply and that has been the case for some time. I would post up a few links to prove the case but it is within the WWW so and is very well known amongst most veterans of the bank charges sites including my good self. Assignment of a debt is not the same thing as a charge for consideration of a payment.