WARNING: Bank stole child's money

opinions4u

Uncertain wrote: »

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 know as the Nuremberg defence. It didn't work very well there!!

Okay, here's how it is:

If the bank's rule book says "we have right of set off, but shouldn't use it for specific accounts such as trustee ones"

and an employee doesn't apply this, that employee has made a mistake. There's no criminal intent by employer or employee.

This is what has happened here. There is no way that the bank is instructing staff to act illegally.

willo65

As siad numerous times in this post the account will have been in mothers name re the child so the bank had a right to the money and it was therefore not stealing. I would be happy they agreed to give the money back.

opinions4u

willo65 wrote: »

As siad numerous times in this post the account will have been in mothers name re the child so the bank had a right to the money and it was therefore not stealing. I would be happy they agreed to give the money back.

The OP states clearly that it's a trustee account. Not an "in re" account.

Twirlie_2

Im a long time lurker and this thread has me a little concerned and i have registered particularlly to respond.

I 'm named on 4 of my grandchildren's accounts , with me in RE for them, it was money given to the children by other members of family rather than buy the child a birth gift.
I also hold monies for my sister's grandchildren.
Does this mean that if ever i get into financial difficutlies then the monies that i am named to hold for them would be at risk?

Sorry to hijack the thread, but i would just like to clarify this.
Does it make a difference as to whether the child's parent or grandparent is named on the account?

Uncertain

opinions4u wrote: »

The OP states clearly that it's a trustee account. Not an "in re" account.

Quite....

Which, assuming this is correct, means that the bank's actions amount to theft.

Uncertain

Twirlie wrote: »

Im a long time lurker and this thread has me a little concerned and i have registered particularlly to respond.

I 'm named on 4 of my grandchildren's accounts , with me in RE for them, it was money given to the children by other members of family rather than buy the child a birth gift.
I also hold monies for my sister's grandchildren.
Does this mean that if ever i get into financial difficutlies then the monies that i am named to hold for them would be at risk?

Sorry to hijack the thread, but i would just like to clarify this.
Does it make a difference as to whether the child's parent or grandparent is named on the account?

Sadly I think it does, assuming the bank employee's who post here are right (but do check as they have staff issue rose-tinted spectacles!).

One easy answer would be to have the account for the child at a different bank to your own.

opinions4u

Uncertain wrote: »

Quite....

Which, assuming this is correct, means that the bank's actions amount to theft.

I refer you back to post 62 and call you a rude name.

pupsicola

Just when I thought a bank couldn't stoop any lower. Im not an expert but i wouldn't think a bank can take money from a childs account to settle a parents debt.

I think the title of your thread is bang on.

Good for your sister for standing her ground, many people would have been intimidated and just left.

Which bank was it? Probably one thats been bailed out by us tax payers

Rant over, off for a coffee

Sarah

Uncertain

opinions4u wrote: »

I refer you back to post 62 and call you a rude name.

What you mean as in "Sorry Officer, I didn't intend to drive at 50 in a 30 limit it just happened"

"That's quite OK Sir, I'll just charge you with driving with out due care and attention instead"

opinions4u

Uncertain wrote: »

What you mean as in "Sorry Officer, I didn't intend to drive at 50 in a 30 limit it just happened"

"That's quite OK Sir, I'll just charge you with driving with out due care and attention instead"

You really are being a tit over this aren't you.

The Road Traffic Act and the Theft Act are different pieces of legislation.

The bank's instructions will clearly state that employees should NOT apply right of set off where the funds are coming from a trustee account.

If an employee doesn't follow that instruction it is a mistake, not theft. The customer flags the error, the bank reimburses immediately. End of story.