is this legal ?

bendix

Precisely. They're only kids. If they had the £15 they'd probably spend it on some inane computer game. Or crack cocaine. Or, as I say, burgers. The banks are saving them from obesity.

The bank is doing them a favour.

dunstonh

As a twist of fate goes, I had a client get told today that their cheque had been returned for exactly the same reason. This was drawn on Lloyds and the cheque is fine. There are no errors, the signature is correct and there is only one sig required. The bank has made an error. They are off down Lloyds at the moment giving them a mouthful and to find out the "excuse".

lisyloo

Precisely. They're only kids. If they had the £15 they'd probably spend it on some inane computer game. Or crack cocaine. Or, as I say, burgers. The banks are saving them from obesity.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it's not YOUR decision.
I don't know whether you are on a wind-up but if not then your suggestions that they are into drugs and/or obeise is fairly offensive.

I wouldn't want you looking after my money.
If you are looking after money for someone else you have a responsibility to do the best for them and that should be taken seriously especially if they are unable to fight their own battles.
You cannot be so dismissive with other people's money that they have an entitlement to.
If you feel it's so insignificant then why don't you donate it to these innocent kids?

I would want a reason from the bank (as above) to try to establish who's mistake it is.
If it's the executors then they should cover the cost, if it's the banks then they should refund.

bendix

* sigh *

OK . send me the bank account details. I'll donate it. It's worth the £30 just to stop hearing people whine about how unfair life is, and the banks are evil yadda yadda yadda

nilrem_2

bendix wrote: »

Precisely. They're only kids. If they had the £15 they'd probably spend it on some inane computer game. Or crack cocaine. Or, as I say, burgers. The banks are saving them from obesity.

The bank is doing them a favour.

TBH I think your remarks are totally out of order, unkind and very insulting to the posters children!

Kohoutek

moneypenny_14 wrote: »

Does anyone know anything from similar past experiences ? comments, ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Legally, executors are personally liable for breaches of duty and negligence.

So in this case, if your children have suffered loss from the executors' failure to sign a cheque correctly, you could claim the bank charges from them personally (but not from the deceased's estate).

dunstonh

Feedback on the cheque issue I mentioned in post #13.

Lloyds couldnt say why they returned it for that reason. The clerk was apparently next to useless and very inexperienced and couldn't give a straight reason. He did let slip there have been quite a few having this problem recently as the checking is done centrally now and not at branches. A quite unsatisfactory response. So, it is possible that if the cheques are drawn on lloyds the OP has suffered a bank error rather than the drawer being at fault.

Hungerdunger

nilrem wrote: »

TBH I think your remarks are totally out of order, unkind and very insulting to the posters children!

Bendix likes winding people up - you are only encouraging him.

nilrem_2

Hungerdunger wrote: »

Bendix likes winding people up - you are only encouraging him.

Oh I see, it's my fault that he insults people and he should be allowed to do so entirely unhindered!

A first time poster gets an insulting comment like that and it's ok because they like winding people up? It's hardly likely to encourage new posters is it?

Eco_Miser

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

But you are not in any good 'legal' position as far as I know. They have a legal duty to pay the correct amount to the correct person(s). This I am sure they will do. They have already made an attempt, but made a mistake. But they have no 'duty of care' over your banking arrangments. You are not even in a contractual relationship with them.

But it is not the OP's banking arrangements which have ben affected by the executor's apparent error, but the beneficiaries', ie the OP's children.