HSBC close joint a/c without notifying other party any comeback ?

Hintza

I tried to close an account down when we seperated. My OH never signed the papers and it just rolled along as a dead account for a few years. At the time Barclays told me we both needed to sign.

But to be honest OP what is the big deal surely you have your own account and as far as I can see you were expecting your ex to pay money into the joint account, now he will surely just have to pay in to your own personal account.

PaulLuke

semmence73 wrote: »

Once everyone has got off their high horse and actually read the post without giving me a lecture about morals ( mine are fine thanks last time i checked if you father a child the least you should do is support it financially i am a working parent and i do not claim state benefits and i live in my own home just in case you were wondering ) so stop with the petty posts and get a life. but of course if you have something constructive to say please do so.

Oops, did not mean to thank the post although some of the comments are a little heavy handed.

TBH I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the fact you say you took money regardless of your ex's consent (the implication here is that he paid in and you took out). However, given that the funds in a joint account belong jointly to the parties to the account, I won't comment any further on that.

As regards the closure of the account, did the bank have an up to date contact address for you. My guess would be that they may have notified you by post at your ex's address and, if he choose not to pass the letter on, there seems little that they could have done.

A quick search shows that the closure of joint accounts seems somewhat complicated so why not start by asking your bank for their policies on closing joint bank accounts.

Ivory_Tinkler

PaulLuke wrote: »

A quick search shows that the closure of joint accounts seems somewhat complicated so why not start by asking your bank for their policies on closing joint bank accounts.

As I mentioned a couple of times to the OP that checking the terms and conditions of the account may shed some light but then we all got accused of being on high horses so I gave up

Anihilator

In English law, theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)The five elements of the offence are defined sequentially in the Act:

• Section 2 dishonesty;
• Section 3 "appropriation" which occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property. This can be by physical taking, but it will also include many different situations (i.e. a failure to return or omission) in which a person may have lawfully come into possession of the property and then keeps or uses the property in an unauthorised way;
• Section 4 "property" includes all personalty, i.e. land itself cannot be stolen but anything severed from the land (with the exception of wild flowers) can be stolen, as can intangible property such as a chose in action; however it seems that the term does not extend to all intangible property, as information (Oxford v. Moss) and trade secrets (R v. Absolom, The Times, 14 September 1983) have been held not to fall within the Section 4 definition of property.
• Section 5 "belonging to another" requires a distinction to be made between ownership, possession and control:

ownership is where a person is not legally accountable to anyone else for the use of the property:possession is where a person is only because it had been physically removed but there were two issues to be decided:did the car "belong to another"? The garage had a lien i.e. a "proprietary right or interest" in the car as security for the unpaid bill and this gave the garage a better right than the owner to possess the car at the relevant time.what was the relevance of Turner's belief that he could not steal his own property? The defence of mistake of law) only applies if the defendant honestly believes that he has a right in law to act in the given way. Generalised and non-specific beliefs about what the law might permit are not a defence.

• Section 6 "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned. For example, suppose that B, a keen football fan, has bought a ticket for the next home match. T takes the ticket, watches the match and then returns the ticket to B. In this instance, all that T returns is a piece of paper. Its value as a licence to enter the stadium on a particular day has been permanently lost. Hence, T steals the ticket. Similarly, if T takes a valuable antique but later repents and returns the goods, T has committed the actus reus with the mens rea. The fact that T's conscience forces a change of mind is relevant only for sentencing.

I would say the OP is guilty of the above if they withdrew sums they werent authorised to do so that they didnt put into the account.

DVardysShadow

I don't often feel sorry for the banks and less so these days. But I'll make an exception when they get caught in the middle between 2 warring ex's

RobertoMoir

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I don't often feel sorry for the banks and less so these days. But I'll make an exception when they get caught in the middle between 2 warring ex's

Well yeah I've seen posts here before complaining that the bank wont close a joint account and now one complaining that they did. If whatever you do will be wrong then why not just do whatever feels right at the time.

pelirocco

Anihilator wrote: »

In English law, theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)The five elements of the offence are defined sequentially in the Act:

• Section 2 dishonesty;
• Section 3 "appropriation" which occurs when the defendant wrongfully asserts the rights of ownership over the property. This can be by physical taking, but it will also include many different situations (i.e. a failure to return or omission) in which a person may have lawfully come into possession of the property and then keeps or uses the property in an unauthorised way;
• Section 4 "property" includes all personalty, i.e. land itself cannot be stolen but anything severed from the land (with the exception of wild flowers) can be stolen, as can intangible property such as a chose in action; however it seems that the term does not extend to all intangible property, as information (Oxford v. Moss) and trade secrets (R v. Absolom, The Times, 14 September 1983) have been held not to fall within the Section 4 definition of property.
• Section 5 "belonging to another" requires a distinction to be made between ownership, possession and control:

ownership is where a person is not legally accountable to anyone else for the use of the property:possession is where a person is only because it had been physically removed but there were two issues to be decided:did the car "belong to another"? The garage had a lien i.e. a "proprietary right or interest" in the car as security for the unpaid bill and this gave the garage a better right than the owner to possess the car at the relevant time.what was the relevance of Turner's belief that he could not steal his own property? The defence of mistake of law) only applies if the defendant honestly believes that he has a right in law to act in the given way. Generalised and non-specific beliefs about what the law might permit are not a defence.

• Section 6 "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned. For example, suppose that B, a keen football fan, has bought a ticket for the next home match. T takes the ticket, watches the match and then returns the ticket to B. In this instance, all that T returns is a piece of paper. Its value as a licence to enter the stadium on a particular day has been permanently lost. Hence, T steals the ticket. Similarly, if T takes a valuable antique but later repents and returns the goods, T has committed the actus reus with the mens rea. The fact that T's conscience forces a change of mind is relevant only for sentencing.

I would say the OP is guilty of the above if they withdrew sums they werent authorised to do so that they didnt put into the account.

What part of '' joint '' account dont you understand . What and when and even why the OP withdrew money is really none of our business . I am surprised that the bank closed the account on the say so of one of the account holders ( you can bet your life if the account was overdrawn they would be chasing both parties ! )

Anihilator

pelirocco wrote: »

What part of '' joint '' account dont you understand . What and when and even why the OP withdrew money is really none of our business . I am surprised that the bank closed the account on the say so of one of the account holders ( you can bet your life if the account was overdrawn they would be chasing both parties ! )

Its no different to when people have money wrongly paid into their account.

If you take money your not entitled too or authorised too its theft. If the other party didnt put conditions fair enough but in this case it was for a set sum at set intervals hence any amount over this is theft.

MrC_Beds

Anihilator wrote: »

Its no different to when people have money wrongly paid into their account.

If you take money your not entitled too or authorised too its theft. If the other party didnt put conditions fair enough but in this case it was for a set sum at set intervals hence any amount over this is theft.

The OP is a joint account holder - the money is therefore as much hers to take as it is the other account holder.

Why someone would put money in to a joint account that they didn't want taking out by the other party is beyond me - but what private agreement exists between the account holders is irrelevant as either signature would appear to operate (or close) the account - the OP can't steal her own property.

Anihilator

MrC_Beds wrote: »

The OP is a joint account holder - the money is therefore as much hers to take as it is the other account holder.

Why someone would put money in to a joint account that they didn't want taking out by the other party is beyond me - but what private agreement exists between the account holders is irrelevant as either signature would appear to operate (or close) the account - the OP can't steal her own property.

No it isnt.

The joint account is something the bank offers. If the OP agrees seperately the money in the account is maintainance to be withdrawn at set intervals and amounts and doesnt comply with this then it is likely to be theft in the eyes of the law.