Banks making active accounts dormant

System

It will be in the account T&Cs rather than legislation, therefore your wife would have agreed to it when she opened the account or by not closing the account when they added it to the T&Cs.

As for stealing it - they are simply moving it from pot A to pot B within their systems, you will get all your money back with relevant interest when you choose to go and get it.

I realise its inconvenient, but banks are not your friends.

simba27 wrote: »

Are you actually reading my wife's mail, or just making an assumption? The first we knew of this was when we received a statement showing that all our money had been transferred out and the account had been closed.

There was a lot of money in the account and they closed it.

The 2008 Act says that after 15 years of inactivity the account can be made dormant, not that they can make it dormant after 1 year and then you have 15 years to reclaim your money.

I am actually astonished that some people seem to think it's OK for a bank to arbitrarily close a persons account and take their money. I personally think it's outrageous.

It's a bit like saying it's OK to steal a person's car if they haven't driven it for a while. Just so long as you promise to return it within a few weeks if they notice it's gone. I can see no legal or moral justification for it.

opinions4u

There are a wide range of definitions of dormancy.

Banks and building socieeties had dormant account procedures long before this new (horrible) regulation regarding forgotten accounts was thought of.

Some may make an account dormant if post is returned undelivered. Some may make an account dormant if it is unused for a period of time. There may be other reasons, often anti-fraud, for placing a dormant indicator on an account.

The rules can vary from bank to bank.

The 15 year concept in these new regulations is a new one. But it is not in any way an instruction to banks that they cannot class an account as dormant until 15 years have passed. That's the trigger for the government to steal/borrow (delete as appropriate) the funds.

The main reason for banks having their own internal procedures for making accounts dormant is to minimise the risk of staff fraud.

simba27 wrote: »

This is nothing short of a scam by the banks to steal people's money.

Why turn a potentially justifiable complaint in to a totally ridiculous accusation? Why undermine what was otherwise a potentially good point.

The dormant bank accounts act says the banks can only declare an account dormant if there is no communcation in 15 YEARS. But the banks are using it as an excuse to close accounts that have only 1 or two transactions in 1 year. Surely this is unlawful?

Show me the specific part of the Act that says that. As far as I'm aware (and I haven't read it) 15 years is the trigger for the Government being passed the cash. Not the trigger for considering an account dormant.