WARNING: Bank stole child's money

Uncertain

BarclaysManager wrote: »

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.

So are you saying that a minor can have no assets of his / her own?

What about a 16 year old with a job? Do his wages in fact belong to his parents?

If not, and the wages in fact belong to the minor, then if Mummy gives him £50 for Christmas who does that £50 belong to on Boxing Day? If the answer is not the child then why is the gift different to the wages?

I'm lost!!

willo65

Uncertain at the age of about 7 the account can be in the childs name so hopefully by 16 the child would have own account and wouldn't be a problem.

Extant

Uncertain wrote: »

So are you saying that a minor can have no assets of his / her own?

The law is ambiguous. At the age of 16 you can most certainly live on your own, subject to certain conditions being met - but at the same time you are not legally an adult, and so cannot enter into a contract (and thus could not own a property, for example).

What about a 16 year old with a job? Do his wages in fact belong to his parents?

No, as they can legally work full time at this age.

If not, and the wages in fact belong to the minor, then if Mummy gives him £50 for Christmas who does that £50 belong to on Boxing Day? If the answer is not the child then why is the gift different to the wages?

I'm lost!!

This is a different issue. If the mother gives £50 cash to the kid, it's the kids. If the mother says "I've transferred £50 in to my savings account for you," it's still the mother's.

CLAPTON

BarclaysManager wrote: »

The law is ambiguous. At the age of 16 you can most certainly live on your own, subject to certain conditions being met - but at the same time you are not legally an adult, and so cannot enter into a contract (and thus could not own a property, for example).



No, as they can legally work full time at this age.



This is a different issue. If the mother gives £50 cash to the kid, it's the kids. If the mother says "I've transferred £50 in to my savings account for you," it's still the mother's.

Is there any basis for your assertions?
Perhaps some law references
Or even Bank T&Cs


Children younger than 16 can

-work parttime (with restrictions)
-own money given to them by anyone other than their parents... grandparents, uncles, etc....
-have their own tax allowance
-own property
-etc...

Nomoredebtnow

After you steal and then return it later ,still is theft.

emweaver

Lokolo wrote: »

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.

I can see you dont have children or if you do dont have any savings for them. So far ALL savings accounts I have opened for dd and everyone else I know has opened for their kids the parent HAS TO BE NAMED AS TRUSTEE

opinions4u

squibbs25 wrote: »

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)

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.

As I see things, a trustee account is different to an "in re" account. A trustee account belongs to the beneficial owner (child) whereas an in re account is the parent's. The FSCS also recognises this.

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.

While I appreciate her right to stand her ground, calling branch staff thieves when they have had nothing to do with the removal of the funds, and have also told her where to contact to resolve things is pretty low.

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 think the centralised collections department were a little over zealous and shouldn't have removed it. They were wrong. It's not theft though. It's a mistake. Call the police if you like, but they would never get a conviction. There's more chance of your sister being dragged through the courts for slandering the branch staff.

I know they have put the money back, but they should never have taken it in the first place.

It was a mistake. They got it wrong and put it right. I appreciate this is an emotional subject but it did get sorted. And could have been sorted without calling branch staff thieves.

Is it correct that if you are named on a child's book then the bank can class it as your money?

As I said above, if it is a trustee account it is the child's money. If it is an "in re" account it is the adult's money.

Something seems terribly wrong with this.

No, it is clarified in terms and conditions. Many banks will no longer open in re accounts.

Also she was not notified at any time that they had taken, or were going to take this money.

Do they normally notify her when they collect the direct debit for the loan? Did she notify them when she decided not to pay the loan? Had the account been one in her own name, the terms and conditions of the loan and the savings account would have allowed them to do exactly what they did. In the same way that the terms and conditions of the loan require her to make payments when due. Or the Banking Code requires them to be sympathetic with financial difficulties. I would hazard a guess their sympathy had worn a little thin due to her either not contacting them to discuss the loan arrears or failing to agree to make payments if she had made contact.

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.

No, if she'd gone home and called the people who made the error in the first place, it would have been corrected. All she managed to achieve was calling front line staff names and wasting an hour of their time - forcing them to make a phone call that she could have made for herself and meaning other customers couldn't get served by the staff member who had to take this on for her.

I don't defend the bank's error in any way on this. But I have little sympathy for your sister's way of handling things.

What actions has she taken since to manage her finances better?

Uncertain

opinions4u wrote: »

No, if she'd gone home and called the people who made the error in the first place, it would have been corrected. All she managed to achieve was calling front line staff names and wasting an hour of their time - forcing them to make a phone call that she could have made for herself and meaning other customers couldn't get served by the staff member who had to take this on for her.

I don't defend the bank's error in any way on this. But I have little sympathy for your sister's way of handling things.

Sorry but if, as you seem to accept, the bank had made an error (or perhaps in this case committed a criminal act) why should the OP's sister jump through the offending party's (i.e. the bank's) hoops or follow their procedure to get if put right?

Of course I accept that the front line member of staff was not personaly responsible but they are, at the end of the day, the representative of the guilty party.

You could say why should a customer relations person ever offer an apology, after all they are just sorting out somebody else's mistake.

I'm sorry but as far as I can see on this one "thieves" is a correct description for the bank. Otherwise this would be a bit like the joke of a jury saying "not guilty my lord, as long as he gives it back"!

If this case is legally one of theft (and depending on the exact nature of the account even the bank people on here seem to accept it may be) then why should criminal action not be taken. After all, a van driver can be charged with driving a defective vehicle even though his company are responsible for its repairs. The law would say he should have refused to take it on the road.

opinions4u

Uncertain wrote: »

Sorry but if, as you seem to accept, the bank had made an error (or perhaps in this case committed a criminal act) why should the OP's sister jump through the offending party's (i.e. the bank's) hoops or follow their procedure to get if put right?

Of course I accept that the front line member of staff was not personaly responsible but they are, at the end of the day, the representative of the guilty party.

You could say why should a customer relations person ever offer an apology, after all they are just sorting out somebody else's mistake.

I'm sorry but as far as I can see on this one "thieves" is a correct description for the bank. Otherwise this would be a bit like the joke of a jury saying "not guilty my lord, as long as he gives it back"!

If this case is legally one of theft (and depending on the exact nature of the account even the bank people on here seem to accept it may be) then why should criminal action not be taken. After all, a van driver can be charged with driving a defective vehicle even though his company are responsible for its repairs. The law would say he should have refused to take it on the road.

You take my comment out of the context in which is was made.

I was responding specifically to:

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.

and trying to explain that the outcome would have been the same either way.


I buy most of what you say regarding bank representative's taking responsbility for the customer in front of them. You'd never get a theft conviction against a defence "I made a mistake at work" in the context of this case though. And certainly wouldn't if you used the latest Road Traffic Act as grounds for trying.

Uncertain

opinions4u wrote: »

I buy most of what you say regarding bank representative's taking responsbility for the customer in front of them. You'd never get a theft conviction against a defence "I made a mistake at work" in the context of this case though. And certainly wouldn't if you used the latest Road Traffic Act as grounds for trying.

If your employer asks you to do something which is against the law it is your duty to refuse. If they then sack you you have a cast iron claim at an employment tribunal. If you go ahead and do it anyway, you are breaking the law. "I was only following orders" is known as the Nuremberg defence. It didn't work very well there!!