WARNING: Bank stole child's money

Uncertain

BarclaysManager wrote: »

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.

Sorry, don't agree

Assuming anything can BELONG to a child (no doubt somebody will tell us) then money given to that child belongs to the child.

If the child kept the money in a box under his bed I doubt even a bank would think it could come round and take it away.

Now, if the bank's rules require a parent to sign on behalf of the child (up to what age?) why does the money suddenly belong to the parent again?

I would suggest the OP contacts the Daily Mail and the police!!

LilacPixie

BarclaysManager wrote: »

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.

See i disagree. My parents and inlaws have both given my children money for special occasions instead of toys THE CTF's are maxed out so the remainder goes into a child saver with our local bank. My kids are both under 3 and we had no option but to put it in a bank with us as 'trustee' but it is not a trust acount as defined by law. I would hate to think if OH or myself lost our jobs and couldn't meet all our financial comitments in the short term that a bank could just take our childrens money especially considering we have not funded it in any way.

DON79

I have had the exact same thing happen to me (wasn't Halifax by any chance was it OP?!) I was really upset but I did fight until I got the whole amount back and did complain through customer relations too. I got an apology and the full refund which is only right.

The money was not mine, it was money accrued since my son was born through presents etc and it had been saved up for him for when we needed things.

Am glad that she got the money back OP but sadly the banks don't seem to learn from their mistakes! Just creating themselves lots of admin work by taking it from these accounts and then being made to credit it back in full. And subsequently the accounts being closed means loss of savings for the bank too which is something they can't afford just now either, nor the bad publicity, which I threatened them with and I had contacted a newspaper group.

richard9991

krisskross wrote: »

Is it then also stealing if people use the banks money without asking first?[/quot

for it to be theft it has to be shown that they tried to permaamently deprive the owner of the money as it was returnd it is not theft [the theft act 1968]

Extant

Uncertain wrote: »

Sorry, don't agree

Assuming anything can BELONG to a child (no doubt somebody will tell us) then money given to that child belongs to the child.

Nope, this is why you have (legal) trusts to hold property until people are 18, etc.

If the child kept the money in a box under his bed I doubt even a bank would think it could come round and take it away.

This is just sensationalist and fairly obviously different.

Now, if the bank's rules require a parent to sign on behalf of the child (up to what age?) why does the money suddenly belong to the parent again?

If it is held in regard of the child, and not in a legal trust, it is always the property of the parent. I realize it is emotive, but the reality is that putting money aside for a child is no different to putting money aside from a car.

Think of it this way: if Fred Goodwin said he was going to give all of his pension to his children, would you suddenly be alright with the situation?

Claiming something is for your kids doesn't remove you of your regular obligations; this is why we have legal mechanisms for when things really are for children.

I would suggest the OP contacts the Daily Mail and the police!!

Waste of police time, don't you think?

krisskross

If the family was to need to claim means tested benefits then any money in accessible accounts would be taken into consideration. Children's accounts as well.

eslick

i bet when the loan was signed there was a condition that they could take money out of any account the customer owned if they defaulted and ask the customer is the named person on the account the bank wouldnt care even if the child has a name on the account.

We took out a mortgage with FD recently and they asked us to sign such a letter its now becoming more of a thing the banks to apparently. But the way around it is if there are ever any ideas that you would default move all of the cash from the accounts with that bank.

Extant

krisskross wrote: »

If the family was to need to claim means tested benefits then any money in accessible accounts would be taken into consideration. Children's accounts as well.

Exactly - this is being viewed with far too much emotion.

willo65

I really do think the thread title needs changing. They didn't steal the money, they took as they are probably entitled to but put it back as a gesture of goodwill. no need to be so dramatic.

Extant

willo65 wrote: »

I really do think the thread title needs changing. They didn't steal the money, they took as they are probably entitled to but put it back as a gesture of goodwill. no need to be so dramatic.

You'd think, right? But I refer you to the once-a-week ATM threads about how the banks steal.