WARNING: Bank stole child's money

Uncertain

simon_templar wrote: »

Im sure the police would be really, really interested :rolleyes:

Sadly I expect you are right.

However, in my view, there are times when the criminal law should be used to curb the behaviour of large institutions. They do need to learn that the same law applies to them as to you and me.

The FOS awarding the Mother, say £50 for D&I if a complaint about this got that far, is neither here nor there. If the person that made this decision was charged with theft and treated like a shoplifter it would have far more effect.

Uncertain

michaels wrote: »

If you have given your kids 2k in pocket money which they have saved but owe the bank 2k it seems to me that it is the banks money not the kids - sorry

So, if you spend that 2K on, say, on furniture you can't afford the bank can help themselves to the furniture shop's money??

Extant

It is unlikely that this money is actually held in a trust.

More likely is that it is held "re:" the children, which is more specifically for tax reasons. In this case, as it is neither a trust or a joint account, the right to set off can still be exercised. Not necessarily the most appropriate thing, though.

Lokolo

BarclaysManager wrote: »

It is unlikely that this money is actually held in a trust.

More likely is that it is held "re:" the children, which is more specifically for tax reasons. In this case, as it is neither a trust or a joint account, the right to set off can still be exercised. Not necessarily the most appropriate thing, though.

Does that mean they were technically allowed to take the money? It's Friday afternoon, I'm tired, but I want to know the right answer lol.

simon_templar_2

Im sure the child is the owner of the account and the parent the trustee who is the signatury on the account. The money is not in a trust but is the property of the child. The parent signs as the child is not old enough to do so.

Extant

Lokolo wrote: »

Does that mean they were technically allowed to take the money? It's Friday afternoon, I'm tired, but I want to know the right answer lol.

Can't say without knowing the specifics. If it wasn't a trust (in the legal sense) and if it wasn't a joint account/account on which the children had rights in their own, then yes, they can technically take the money.

Extant

simon_templar wrote: »

Im sure the child is the owner of the account and the parent the trustee who is the signatury on the account. The money is not in a trust but is the property of the child. The parent signs as the child is not old enough to do so.

Not if it's an account held in regard of the child. This is enough to allow the interest to be paid gross as it is intended for the child, but the money is ultimately the property of the parent and they retain full drawing rights.

LilacPixie

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Can't say without knowing the specifics. If it wasn't a trust (in the legal sense) and if it wasn't a joint account/account on which the children had rights in their own, then yes, they can technically take the money.

That is quite scary.

Uncertain

Bet the tabloid press could put a good spin of this one!!!:rotfl:

Extant

LilacPixie wrote: »

That is quite scary.

Not really. If you think about in a broader sense, it's really just a savings account with a specific person. Yes, that person is saving for their children, but they're still saving their own money. It's really no different to having a regular savings account, it's just another specialized account.