We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
WARNING: Bank stole child's money
Options
squibbs25
Posts: 1,324 Forumite
I am posting on behalf of my sister, and a bit of a long story so i will keep it as brief as possible.
My sister is named on my neice (6) and nephew's (10) accounts, (ie mrs XXX in TEE for master XXX) as well as holding 2 joint accounts with her husband, anyway, she and hubby have financial problems at the moment and didn't make a full payment on a loan to this particular bank. (all accounts/loans held at the same branch)
She went to town yesterday as my nephew wanted her to get some of his birthday money out.
When she completed the transaction, she looked at the passbook and noticed that on 26th Jan there was 2 internal transfers one for £398.00 and another for just over £200. When she asked what the bl00dy hell was going on, it turns out that the bank has taken the money to repay the rest of the loan payment. They were not willing to discuss any details with her and advised her to phone head office when she got home. She stood her ground and demanded that the money be put back in the account as the money is NOT her's, it is her sons inheritence from a grandparent along with a little bit of birthday and pocket money savings.
She refused to move and called them a bunch of thieves in front of other customers, as the staff were unwilling to help in anyway.
After an hour they eventually put the child's money back into his account.
The reason they gave for taking the money is that as she (his mum/my sister) owes them (the bank) money and is named on the account. She then pointed out that she is only a trustee on the account and she acts on behalf of her child.
She told them to close all her + childrens accounts with immediate effect.
They allowed her to close them but had to wait til today to close her sons account because although it was printed in the book that the money had been put back it still had to go through the system.
I know they have put the money back, but they should never have taken it in the first place.
Is it correct that if you are named on a child's book then the bank can class it as your money?
Something seems terribly wrong with this.
Also she was not notified at any time that they had taken, or were going to take this money.
This is a warning to others, if you owe the bank money and you hold accounts in RE for someone else please check the account.
My sister was succesfull on getting her sons money back as she refused to move from the branch, had she had gone home and called head office as suggested maybe the outcome would have been different.
Squibbs
My sister is named on my neice (6) and nephew's (10) accounts, (ie mrs XXX in TEE for master XXX) as well as holding 2 joint accounts with her husband, anyway, she and hubby have financial problems at the moment and didn't make a full payment on a loan to this particular bank. (all accounts/loans held at the same branch)
She went to town yesterday as my nephew wanted her to get some of his birthday money out.
When she completed the transaction, she looked at the passbook and noticed that on 26th Jan there was 2 internal transfers one for £398.00 and another for just over £200. When she asked what the bl00dy hell was going on, it turns out that the bank has taken the money to repay the rest of the loan payment. They were not willing to discuss any details with her and advised her to phone head office when she got home. She stood her ground and demanded that the money be put back in the account as the money is NOT her's, it is her sons inheritence from a grandparent along with a little bit of birthday and pocket money savings.
She refused to move and called them a bunch of thieves in front of other customers, as the staff were unwilling to help in anyway.
After an hour they eventually put the child's money back into his account.
The reason they gave for taking the money is that as she (his mum/my sister) owes them (the bank) money and is named on the account. She then pointed out that she is only a trustee on the account and she acts on behalf of her child.
She told them to close all her + childrens accounts with immediate effect.
They allowed her to close them but had to wait til today to close her sons account because although it was printed in the book that the money had been put back it still had to go through the system.
I know they have put the money back, but they should never have taken it in the first place.
Is it correct that if you are named on a child's book then the bank can class it as your money?
Something seems terribly wrong with this.
Also she was not notified at any time that they had taken, or were going to take this money.
This is a warning to others, if you owe the bank money and you hold accounts in RE for someone else please check the account.
My sister was succesfull on getting her sons money back as she refused to move from the branch, had she had gone home and called head office as suggested maybe the outcome would have been different.
Squibbs
My beloved dog Molly
27/05/1997-01/04/2008
RIP my wonderful stepdad - miss you loads
:Axxxxxxxxx:A
our new editions
Senna :male: and Dali :female: both JRT
0
Comments
-
The account was also in the parents name, and the bank can take any money from the parents name if they owe the bank money.
Banks not at fault.
They should never have taken it in the first place? Why not?
Its fair enough imo.
I was wrong
0 -
I am really suprised at your comment TBH,
If the money was my sisters then she wouldn't have defaulted on the payment in the first place.
The account was set up when her son was born, are you suggesting that a baby/ young child should be in control of several thousand pounds?
When she opened her sons account, she was automatically put as trustee as it was pointed out that baby cannot sign to take money out.
Is it up to a child to be responsible for a parents debt?
The idea of have parent as trustee is to protect the child's money as they are a minor.My beloved dog Molly27/05/1997-01/04/2008RIP my wonderful stepdad - miss you loads:Axxxxxxxxx:Aour new editionsSenna :male: and Dali :female: both JRT0 -
The account was set up when her son was born, are you suggesting that a baby/ young child should be in control of several thousand pounds?
Yes why not? The baby young child won't know the moneys there. All she had to do was open it in his name, and not tell him/her about it until 18. Wheres the problem with that?
Its the same with joint accounts though, if a couple of joint accounts and they divorce, one gets into financial trouble, the joint account links them, this is exactly the same situation but with your sister and the child.
And no its not upto the child for the parents debt, until they link each other.0 -
I think this is a bit much. Fair enough to take it from another account that the person themselves holds with the bank, but the whole premise of a trustee account is that the money belongs to the child. The parent is only there to authorise transactions. They have no ownership of the money, hence why it is not taxed (as it belongs to the child not the parent).0
-
Yes why not? The baby young child won't know the moneys there. All she had to do was open it in his name, and not tell him/her about it until 18. Wheres the problem with that?
But the children are 6 and 10. So presumably they do know the money is there, and that it is their money. I don't believe in keeping it from them until they are 18, as it's at this age that their parents should be teaching them about handling money - just with the parents there as trustees to make sure they are doing it sensibly.0 -
I think this is a bit much. Fair enough to take it from another account that the person themselves holds with the bank, but the whole premise of a trustee account is that the money belongs to the child. The parent is only there to authorise transactions. They have no ownership of the money, hence why it is not taxed (as it belongs to the child not the parent).
Yeh I agree it is slightly unfair, but then again its the same as my example above. If 2 people have a joint account, split up, one then gets into financial trouble - why should the other one suffer? Lifes a *****, don't trust anyone. I just learn to keep everything to myself, therefore any problems I have are because of me.
Also just a side point, I had one of those booklets with my mum as the person in charge and it made things so complicated. I wasn't allowed to close the account for numerous reasons. And when I went to close it finally, one of the questions asked was - When and where did you open the account? But of course, my mum opened it in my name when I was at some random age so couldn't answer the question and they refused to close the account.0 -
Its the same with joint accounts though, if a couple of joint accounts and they divorce, one gets into financial trouble, the joint account links them, this is exactly the same situation but with your sister and the child.
A trustee account does not link the individuals in the same manner as a joint account.
The bank were wrong.0 -
A trustee account does not link the individuals in the same manner as a joint account.
The bank were wrong.
This is excatly what i thought.
My mum has spoken to cccs and they also say the same thing.
The money is the child's money held in trust by the parent, NOT the parents money.My beloved dog Molly27/05/1997-01/04/2008RIP my wonderful stepdad - miss you loads:Axxxxxxxxx:Aour new editionsSenna :male: and Dali :female: both JRT0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards