my bank froze my accounts leaving me no income

Show_me_the_money_3

sheri1972 wrote: »

recently i had finacial problems which left me with lots of bank chargers that i was unable to pay off. the situation has now left me very over drawn, last thursday after a visit to the halifax they have froze my other bank account which is in credit. they are refusing to allow me to withdrawn any monies which are my child benefits and child tax credits and csa payments money that is given to support my 7 children. i currently have no money to even feed my children or pay my essential bills. when i relaid this situation to halifax head office they still refuse to release my money even though i have had legal advise that it is illegal for the bank to retain money that is given by the government to provide for my children

CSA payments probably mean her partner/ex is no longer on the scene.


Hi BALLADEER and Kimitatsu, I wish the social security administration act was more commonly known to be honest. It would like help so many people out there who, as you said are very vulnerable. I learnt about it from a friend who works for CAB, it just came out in conversation whilst we were talking about the bank charges rollercoaster. I was quite shocked to be honest but hey, if more people know about it, all the better.

Atleast there are a few more people on here now aware of it so that cant be a bad thing. I'm sure if it comes up again then someone will be able to point that person in the right direction.

Hailey

PBA

I think you're misreading the meaning of the act. My take is that the benefit can't be assigned to anyone else, ie the bank or anyone else can't claim it on your behalf. However once you've received the benefit it's only money, the same as any other. If the meaning really is that benefit money can't be used to repay debt then that would give carte blanche to anyone claiming benefits to run up debts and legally get out of paying them back.

Incidentally if the money is intended for the benefit of the children, arguably it should have been paid in to a children's account. There certainly is no way a bank can take money from a child's account to pay off their parent's debt.

stiffnuts69

PBA wrote: »

I think you're misreading the meaning of the act. My take is that the benefit can't be assigned to anyone else, ie the bank or anyone else can't claim it on your behalf. However once you've received the benefit it's only money, the same as any other.

This makes no sense whatsoever. You say the benefit is only money once its received. Well of course its going to be money it has to be tangible. Trustees or banks are not going to take the "benefit" because it does not mean anything. Benefit converts into money, and its that money which trustees or the banks would want to get their hands on.

Benefit = Money

And why should child benefit go into a child's account. In the days of giros and books you wouldn't send your child to collect the benefit you would go and get it.

PBA

Sorry, maybe I didn't explain myself too clearly. I meant that my reading of the act is that your benefits can only be claimed by you, that you can't let someone else claim them on your behalf (so you can't, for example, agree to let the bank claim your benefits in exchange for them writing off your debt.

I stand by my main point though, there is only 1 type of money and I find it totally implausible that banks are bound to treat money received from benefits differently from earned money. Also, of course, the bank isn't really taking the money, effectively the OP spent it. She just spent it before actually receiving it. If she spent it intending to not pay it back then she was arguably attempting to defraud the bank, which I'd imagine is a more serious crime than using benefit money to repay an unauthorised overdraft.

There isn't any reason why child benefit has to be paid into an account in the child's name. However, children's accounts generally attract a higher interest rate, children are less likely to be taxpayers than their parents so the interest is more likely to be paid gross, and it stops the bank from using the child's money to repay their parents' debt.

smithja

Google, Govan Law Centre, they have a section on this and they are staffed by solicitors. It is unlawful and might even be a criminal offence for anyone including a bank to get between you and your legal entitlement to benefit. It is a bit like a money lender holding the old "order books" and taking you to the post office to cash them so they can be paid. I am sure both are actually criminal not civil matters, getting in the way of the administration of Social Security benefit is a very serious matter. James

smithja

If a creditor arrests your bank account and your account income is derived mostly or wholly from social security benefits or tax credits, then this income may be protected against arrestment in law.This may be in terms of Scots common law, section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 and section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.That is from their site, but as you can see the common law in this case is only in Scotland but the other two Acts cover the UK. James

stiffnuts69

I think I remember this same debate coming up some time ago on this forum. I think the title was something like "is the bank taking your benefits"

gt94sss2

PBA wrote: »

I think you're misreading the meaning of the act. My take is that the benefit can't be assigned to anyone else, ie the bank or anyone else can't claim it on your behalf. However once you've received the benefit it's only money, the same as any other. If the meaning really is that benefit money can't be used to repay debt then that would give carte blanche to anyone claiming benefits to run up debts and legally get out of paying them back.

As someone who used to be responsible for some Statutory Instruments (government legislation) in the past and had to look into something similar for another government department,I can say that you are correct.

The act does not say that bank charges (i.e. overdraft/bounced payments) can't be applied to people claiming benefits.

Instead it stops lenders using your benefits as 'security' for a loan or insisting the benefits are paid to them directly instead of the benefit claimant.

Regards
Sunil