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

trevormax

It's possible the ex told the bank that he is no longer living with the OP and feared she might intentionally run the account into debt (a debt which he would be jointly liable for perhapse seing as it is a joint account). The bank may have decided that it would be best to close the joint account if that is the case.

OP, you should look at this from another angle. What if you were having your wages paid into the joint account and your ex decided to just take random amounts of money without prior agreement? I can safely bet you would be equally as !!!!ed off as you are now and no doubt would be on MSE complaining that the bank allowed this to happen and it has made your life difficult. And please don't say it was an agreed amount bla bla bla because your opening post says clearly that you just took money out with or without his agreement and there is sod all he could do about it.

MrC_Beds

Anihilator wrote: »

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 If the OP agrees seperately the money in the account is maintainance to be withdrawn at set intervals and amounts and doesnt comply with this then it is likely to be theft in the eyes of the law.

Like I said, the money in an account is the joint property of the account holders.

If you can provide a case (not a cut and paste of the Theft Act) where one account holder has preferred a charge of theft against the other account holder, for theft of funds from a joint account, then I will be quite happy to admit that I am wrong.

Anihilator

MrC_Beds wrote: »

Like I said, the money in an account is the joint property of the account holders.

If you can provide a case (not a cut and paste of the Theft Act) where one account holder has preferred a charge of theft against the other account holder, for theft of funds from a joint account, then I will be quite happy to admit that I am wrong.

Please provide something to back up that simply by placing it in an account it becomes joint property.

The theft act is the law and imo the OP clearly is guilty under it.

MrC_Beds

Anihilator wrote: »

Please provide something to back up that simply by placing it in an account it becomes joint property.

The theft act is the law and imo the OP clearly is guilty under it.

Don't put the onus on me! I'm not the one sounding off all over this forum.

All I can say is that when I withdraw money from my joint account, the cashier doesn't enquire if I am in the middle of a separation and whether I have the other account holder's permission to take the money - s/he knows the money is mine to take.

Anihilator

MrC_Beds wrote: »

Don't put the onus on me! I'm not the one sounding off all over this forum.

All I can say is that when I withdraw money from my joint account, the cashier doesn't enquire if I am in the middle of a separation and whether I have the other account holder's permission to take the money - s/he knows the money is mine to take.

Why would the bank though unless there was reason too

I have already shown you my proof that she has stolen this money. The theft act is the law and she meets every part of it. She has no contractual or legal right to the money in the account and hence by taking money she shouldnt have she commited a criminal act.

You cant hide behind contracts to get out of criminal law.

MrC_Beds

Anihilator wrote: »

Why would the bank though unless there was reason too

I have already shown you my proof that she has stolen this money. The theft act is the law and she meets every part of it. She has no contractual or legal right to the money in the account and hence by taking money she shouldnt have she commited a criminal act.

You cant hide behind contracts to get out of criminal law.

Authority....? Quoting the theft act doesn't cut it.

The bank don't ask because the money is mine, all mine.

Anihilator

MrC_Beds wrote: »

Authority....? Quoting the theft act doesn't cut it.

The bank don't ask because the money is mine, all mine.

Utter crap otherwise the bank wouldnt be able to freeze accounts and close them when their was disputes.

The money in this account be it joint or not was not the OP's. She had agreed implicity its use and if the ex reported this to the police there is no doubt in my mind she would be prosecuted for theft as long as the evidence existed aka comments like on this thread.

MrC_Beds

Anihilator wrote: »

Utter crap otherwise the bank wouldnt be able to freeze accounts and close them when their was disputes.

The money in this account be it joint or not was not the OP's. She had agreed implicity its use and if the ex reported this to the police there is no doubt in my mind she would be prosecuted for theft as long as the evidence existed aka comments like on this thread.

You mean hearsay?

Now now, don't resort to profanities, potty mouth! - give me that authority!

Anihilator

The grounds for prosecution are clearly set out in the theft act. The OP clearly meets the definition of theft hence a theft has occurred whether a joint account or not.

MrC_Beds

Anihilator wrote: »

The grounds for prosecution are clearly set out in the theft act. The OP clearly meets the definition of theft hence a theft has occurred whether a joint account or not.

The Theft Act provides the definition of theft, it doesn't provide the grounds for prosecution, the evidence does.

One person took money out of their joint account, which the other person had put in there - never mind all the he said, she said - it's a joint account, there is no theft. If you don't want the other account holder to withdraw money from an account, then its best not to put it in there.