WARNING: Bank stole child's money

richard9991

opinions4u wrote: »

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 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.

the empasis is on pernamently deprive

Definition of “theft”

1. Basic definition of theft.
— (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit. Quote:

Lokolo

But if the OP already owes the money then its not theft, its getting back what is rightfully theres.... hence going back to the situation of what sort of account it is. Hence the 2 distinctions.

Uncertain

Lokolo wrote: »

But if the OP already owes the money then its not theft, its getting back what is rightfully theres.... hence going back to the situation of what sort of account it is. Hence the 2 distinctions.

But we have been told by the OP that it is a trustee account!

Like any thread on here, we can only assume that the OP has given the correct information.

So, if this is the case, the bank has no more right to take the child's money than yours or mine!!

BruceyBonus

Uncertain wrote: »

But we have been told by the OP that it is a trustee account!

Like any thread on here, we can only assume that the OP has given the correct information.

So, if this is the case, the bank has no more right to take the child's money than yours or mine!!

But regardless, it is still not theft - just an administrative error.

Uncertain

richard9991 wrote: »

the empasis is on pernamently deprive

Exactly. What else were they going to do?

The bank were hardly going to take it for a week then put it back without being asked!!

oxenryd

My opinion on this is that it's a bit like the "fixed rate bond " issue.

Before you go "!!!!!!?" read on....

I think your bank is calling this savings account a "trustee account" to make it sound like a trust when actually it's not.

What you are referring to is a trust which is completely different and (I think) you have to go to a solicitors or some of kind of official body to set them up properly. All you have is a savings account RE: Child. And I believe this is why the bank took your money. Yes I said your money, as if you were to close this "trustee" account you could easily pay the money into your bank account, there's nothing that LEGALLY says that this money HAS TO go to the child. Whereas in a proper trust, this would be legally binding.
But I'm not doubting the bank call it trustee account.

I mentionned the "fixed rate bond" due to the fact they are not bonds but deposits, even though the banks to call them so. Don't give up Dunstoh !!!

As others have said, keep your savings away from your "debt" bank

Pagan98

We have accounts for my daughter which are Mother TEE Daughter. My understanding is that these are trustee accounts and I would be extremely upset if this money was attached by the bank to settle our debts.

With a trustee account it is NOT the trustee's money and the bank has NO right of offset regardless of the rights and wrongs of the debtor's failure to pay the loan installments due.

opinions4u

oxenryd wrote: »

My opinion on this is that it's a bit like the "fixed rate bond " issue.

Before you go "!!!!!!?" read on....

I think your bank is calling this savings account a "trustee account" to make it sound like a trust when actually it's not.

What you are referring to is a trust which is completely different and (I think) you have to go to a solicitors or some of kind of official body to set them up properly. All you have is a savings account RE: Child. And I believe this is why the bank took your money. Yes I said your money, as if you were to close this "trustee" account you could easily pay the money into your bank account, there's nothing that LEGALLY says that this money HAS TO go to the child. Whereas in a proper trust, this would be legally binding.
But I'm not doubting the bank call it trustee account.

I mentionned the "fixed rate bond" due to the fact they are not bonds but deposits, even though the banks to call them so. Don't give up Dunstoh !!!

As others have said, keep your savings away from your "debt" bank

The legal status of the trust is set up by opening a trustee account. There is no need for a solicitor or a trust deed in this simple act.

If you want to set up a trust and clarify the terms of reference, take appropriate professional advice.

The bank is wrong to take the funds from a trust account as the right of set off does not apply. They would be within their rights to take funds from an "in re" account which would, in this case, be the parent's money.

That said, to take the funds in either case is poor form. But as it won't be policy, this is in no way theft. It's a !!!! up.

Mikeyorks

Banks set up 'custodian' accounts for children using either 'Re' or 'Trustee'. They use the terms as mutually inclusive ... and very few of the latter will ever refer to legally established Trusts. Even the most simple of bare trusts needs more structure than, for example, this wording off the Halifax site in respect of their Children's Regular Saver (my bold) :

you can only open 1 account for one child. However, other people can also open an account for the child too e.g. relatives, friends. Accounts can only be held by 1 or 2 trustees jointly on trust for a child. Only 1 account per trustee per child

If - as postured by some of the allegedly learned banking people on here - the money is freely available for the Banks to set-off against any debt owed by the person primarily named on the account? Then why :

• does the Bank annotate the account with 'RE' or 'Ttee' - if it has no meaning and no status?
• does the Bank require ID for the child when establishing the account? If the child is inconsequential to ownership of the funds?
• does HMRC allow an R85 to be filed against the account to allow gross interest .. when the primary name may be that of a taxpayer?
• does the Bank lapse that R85 when the child attains 16? And then deduct Savings tax at 20% if the child doesn't file one of their own?
• does the Bank insist the account is converted to the childs name at age 16 (or 18 on some T&Cs)?

I've an account which is 'myname / Exor of deceased name'. The money is wholly in my jurisdiction .... but it belongs to the Estate of 'deceased name'. And no Bank would sensibly attempt to vire that money to any debt in 'myname'.
There is no material difference with a children's account held as 'Re' or 'Ttee'. The money is in the jurisdiction of the parent / guardian or whatever ... but it is accepted as being owned by the child. That's what all the processes and structure I have bulleted signifies.

willo65

could OP clarify if this is actually a trust account or if it is just a "trust" account by name??