Opening a new bank account for benefits only?

bengal-stripe

Morglin wrote: »

There was legislation to stop banks grabbing benefits for charges (but that may have changed).

There is legislation to stop the assignment of benefits to pay for debts. In the days when people had benefit books, unscrupulous lenders would confiscate the debtor's benefit book. Then the lender would accompany the debtor to the Post Office, hand the book over for the week's giro to be cashed, take their money due and take the benefit book back again, to repeat the same scenario a week later.

This is what the law calls "charges" (pledging your benefits as security) and they are still outlawed (although benefit books have disappeared).

dippy3103

bengal-stripe wrote: »

There is legislation to stop the assignment of benefits to pay for debts. In the days when people had benefit books, unscrupulous lenders would confiscate the debtor's benefit book. Then the lender would accompany the debtor to the Post Office, hand the book over for the week's giro to be cashed, take their money due and take the benefit book back again, to repeat the same scenario a week later.

This is what the law calls "charges" (pledging your benefits as security) and they are still outlawed (although benefit books have disappeared).

Holding someone's benefit book as a security against a debt is a criminal offence- section 182(1) Social Security administration Act 1992. But that is only holding the actual book- known as illegal possession of documents or pledging.

Goldie4711

tomtontom wrote: »

Your question was answered in the first few posts. What further information are you looking for?

It wasn't. Obviously not. That's why we're into the forties in terms of posts so far.
An open debate is always preferable to a quorum (irrespective of the derivation of the word :rotfl:), so I would still be grateful for others' opinions on what I should do...as those who support me (and not the banks) still differ in their advice...and I still don't know the legislation which today supersedes all others that have been in place in the past.
Admittedly, after tonight, I will summarise what I believe I should do following a review of every post...thank you all for contributing so far.:beer:

Goldie4711

wildwestfan wrote: »

Have to say I don't blame the banks though I do blame people who borrowed irresponsibly and are now complaining that it is all someone else's fault.

Your political leanings and support for the banks are well known in this thread already....just give it up, mate, PLEASE....it's getting boring...honestly.. Thanks

tomtontom

Goldie4711 wrote: »

It wasn't. Obviously not. That's why we're into the forties in terms of posts so far.
An open debate is always preferable to a quorum (irrespective of the derivation of the word :rotfl:), so I would still be grateful for others' opinions on what I should do...as those who support me (and not the banks) still differ in their advice...and I still don't know the legislation which today supersedes all others that have been in place in the past.
Admittedly, after tonight, I will summarise what I believe I should do following a review of every post...thank you all for contributing so far.:beer:

It was, but you seem unwilling to accept it. The SSAA is still good law, in this respect it has not been superceded, but it does not help you. You need to look at the first right of appropriation, and how to better manage your debts.

Goldie4711

bengal-stripe wrote: »

There is legislation to stop the assignment of benefits to pay for debts.

Can you tell me what that legislation is, please?

bengal-stripe wrote: »

This is what the law calls "charges" (pledging your benefits as security) and they are still outlawed (although benefit books have disappeared).

So are you saying that the same law applying to "assignments" applies to "charges", because they are the same thing with different names, in essence?
If not, I believe the nature of my problem relates to assignments / appropriations, rather than "charges" (i.e security) in the strict sense...and am interested purely in the legislation relating to assignments / appropriations.
Sorry if I'm complicating things unnecessarily...but I want to get it right when I approach the bank..
Thanks so much..

Goldie4711

tomtontom wrote: »

It was, but you seem unwilling to accept it. The SSAA is still good law, in this respect it has not been superceded, but it does not help you. You need to look at the first right of appropriation, and how to better manage your debts.

Yes, but the advice on the first right of appropriation (re "Legal Beagles" link referred to in the first few posts) was questioned and deemed to be wrong by others contributing to this thread...hence all these further posts since........
PS What does SSAA stand for? Forgive my ignorance but I can't even find it on Wikipedia !!??
PPS At the risk of repetition, I didn't mismanage my debts...I went from an £800 overdraft to £2,000 as a result of the unfair bank charges ONLY when I became suddenly unemployed (yes, the same bank charges that millions of other bank customers were refunded when the banks got scared of new laws coming in..which are now in place)
Whilst you don't have any empathy, as you have not been in my situation, please don't judge me and make assumptions about my lifestyle further..you seem knowledgeable when you stick to the subject of the thread and I thank you for that..please, let's keep it that way. Thanks, again.

dippy3103

SSAA - Social Security Administration Act 1992

BillJones

Goldie4711 wrote: »

PS I have a car worth £1,000 but I'll sell it to you for £5,000 simply because I can get away with it. Is that okay for you , Bill? You want the car for £5,000...is that fair..just because I can "get away with it"?

Of course it is, if I choose to buy it.

It's a bit strange, by the way, you trying to be patronizing when so desperately trying to ignore your situation, and the repeated statements that the law will not help you here.

You've spent money that was not yours, the law is not going to dig you out of the mess that you made.

I'll leave you to the mess you made now.

Ciao.

bengal-stripe

Goldie4711 wrote: »

So are you saying that the same law applying to "assignments" applies to "charges", because they are the same thing with different names, in essence?

In this particular context (SSAA - Social Security Administration Act 1992), "assignment" and "charge" are interchangeable terms.

There are plenty of other uses when the word charge does not mean assignment. If you pay in a shop by Debit Card and two days later the amount gets deducted from your account, then your account gets "charged". When your utility company calls in a Direct Debit, your account gets "charged" again.

Neither of these charges are "assignments". Or do you think as a benefit recipient, those "charges" are also against the law and you deserve to be refunded?