What can we do if we are on benefits (merged)

natweststaffmember

He can claim charges back, but the OFT test case may mean that he will have to await the outcome of it before being able to claim.

Bella23_2

Last summer I contacted Barclays and obtained my 6 years worth of statements and shamefully found out that I have been charged nearly 3 grand in charges. I was about to try and claim it back, when all cases were put on hold, so I thought I would wait.
However, not long after I was made redundant and I have not found a job since. My question is that although I am on jobseekers allowance and recieve child benefit and child tax credit, can I claim for charges that were given before I started recieving benefits? Articles I have read seem to imply that people shouldn't have to pay charges out of their benefit money.
Since being made redundant I have not incurred any charges. Obviously the money would really help, I have a huge overdraft which I have had since University and that would be cleared with some to spare.
Can anyone help?

TiedInChainsOfDebt

Hi thanks for reading.

I had a TV License payment taken out of my account, and the account went into MINUS £23.

I then had a payment made into my account today (from Tax Credits) of just over £100. The TV License money has come back, but Natwest have taken £38 charge out of my benefit monies.

I've heard they aren't allowed to do this- does anyone know anything on this matter please?

Thank you.

Tozer

Sorry but you are not correct. The law says that it is not possible to assign or charge (in the sense of a charging order, etc) benefits. Once the benefits are paid into an account, they are treated the same way as any other money. The law only applies to the benefits BEFORE they reach the account.

boodledoodle

Thanks Natwest staff member :beer: , I'll make sure he gets right on to it :T

borgbaiter

hi

various opinions on if they can or cant. no idea myself. i would suggest if at all possible getting any benefits paid into an account that does not have a cheque book, debit card or direct debits if at all possible to avoid the problem in future.


Borgbaiter

tee27_2

I am a mother of four children under the age of 10,I put in my claim before the banks went to court but my case was put on hold. the question I wanted to ask was If I am on benefits are the bank still entitled to take 38 pounds out of the money i receive to live on.

chris22_2

Please can somebody advise me on what i can do next ...

I have so far rang and sent letters to hsbc about there charges and requesting a refund of them like many people i have been sent the leter your claim and complaint has been logged and stored ect ect..

I have been really ill for the past year and a bit with neurological illness and have been in receipt of incapacity benefit with not being able to work due to illness. I am struggling each month to get but i recieve £196 every 2 weeks (long term incapacity) to get by on to pay bills and rent and to live on.
I recently looked up about the legality of banks taking charges out of benefits and found that they shouldnt be under section 187 of the social security administration act 1992 which states.....

187:
Certain benefit to be inalienable
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of or charge on—
(a) benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
(b) any income-related benefit; or
(c) child benefit,
and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors.
Here is the letter i sent requesting my money back...

Dear Sir/Madam
Unlawful bank charges following an arrestment of welfare benefits – request for refund for xxxxxxxxxxxx sort code: XXXXXX account number: XXXXXXXX
I write with respect to the application of the following charges to my account:Please see list below.
I am of the view that your charges are irrecoverable in law. As you know the monies in my account derive from Incapacity Benefit. This is confirmed from my bank statements.
Social security benefits are exempt from arrestment in terms of section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. Section 45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 is an identical provision to the said section 187 of the 1992 Act.
It is therefore trite law that tax credits and other such maintenance or social security benefits are exempt from arrestment. The case of Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland 1913 SLT 1 Reports 499 is authority for the proposition that where exempt monies are paid into a bank account, those monies remain exempt from arrestment insofar as such monies can be clearly identified within an account.

Accordingly, you have erred in law in arresting exempt monies in my account. You cannot impose administrative or penalty charges for your legal error. I would therefore ask you to refund said charges to my account within the next 7 days, failing which I will commence an action for payment and wrongful diligence without any further notice.


With a list of all charges since in reciept of benefits and a total amount requested back.

Also i put on the bottom of the letter this..

All the above charges have been taken while in recipet of benefits. All the charges bellow are charges recieved beofre benefits but due to my financial situation being how it is and not having enough money to live on you are requiered by the court waiver to continue with my case.

Under the conditions of the Waiver Banks must:



<DIR><DIR>not take the period during which the Waiver is in place into consideration in any decisions made about limitation periods or time limits for complaints

not make materially adverse changes to the level of charges during the Waiver

do all you can to help account holders avoid incurring these charges in the first place

apply the relevant principle(s) established in the test case when dealing with complaints about charges, and continue to deal with genuine hardship cases during the wavier period.



</DIR></DIR>So by way of the wavier you should still continue with my case without knowing the out come of the test case. Due to the fact i am i reciept of benefits and not having enough money to pay bills and live on. The following charges are those that have been charged from my account before my reciept of benefits started and they are as follows:
followed by a list of charges to my account before benefits..

There reply to this letter was...

Thank you for your letter dated 4th feb 2008
You have mentioned that you are presently in financial difficulties we are sorry to hear that.
Turning to your comments concerning the social secrity act1982. If my understanding of the position is correct you allege the bank has unlawfully deducted charges from your account in contravention of S187 of the social security act 1982. It is your belief that the levying of bank fees amounts to an unlawful 'charger' on the benefits you recieve from the state.
As you will appreicate given the nature of your allegations it has been necessary for the matter to be ruferred to the banks legal advisers. Thier consideredview is that your argument is wrong as a matter of construction of the act.

They state;

"you have confused 'charges' in the sense of fees, to which the act has no relevance and 'charges' in the sense of a proprieatryright attaching to benefits to which the act relates, but which the levying of fees on overdrafts does not create".

I acknowledge that your source of income into the account is derivedfrom state benefits paid to yourself however your account is governed by the banks stipulated terms and conditions and by conducting your account as you have then charges have been deducted from your account.

thats there letter they replyed to me with..
is it just me or are they trying to tell me its not charges its fees they take off me then under that quote they refer to it as charges ??

And i dont understand how they can say its the way i have been conducting my account when it is they who have been charging me so much causing me to go further and further overdrawn so they can charge me over and over again month after month after month leaving me with nothing at all to live on
Hsbc charge me on average of £150 a month, They are quick to bounce some of my direct debits and charge me further more but are quick to take there charges out causing me to go further overdrawn with there ridiculous charges of £150 which then in turn swollows up my benefits leaving me with next to nothing at all to live on and with this happening month after month after month it is a never ending loop hole and i do not know what to do next
Please guys any advise you can give me on where i stand with this or what i can do next will be greatly appreciated. I need help desperately
Thanks Chris

Tozer

Sorry but I disagree. There is no charge on benefits. The charges are on the bank account to which the benefits are paid into.

This is wishful thinking. The law relates to "charges or assignments". This is saying that it is unlawful to charge (mortgage or encumber) or assign (sell) your benefits.

There will be people on here that say the law is not clear. But to lawyers it is crystal clear. It does not help you in this instance. If you had tried to say to someone "give me £20 in advance and I will give you my benefits" then that is what the law is designed to protect against. But your case is different.

In short, I think, on this instance, the bank is exactly, legally, correct.

chris22_2

Tozer wrote: »

Sorry but I disagree. There is no charge on benefits. The charges are on the bank account to which the benefits are paid into.

This is wishful thinking. The law relates to "charges or assignments". This is saying that it is unlawful to charge (mortgage or encumber) or assign (sell) your benefits.

There will be people on here that say the law is not clear. But to lawyers it is crystal clear. It does not help you in this instance. If you had tried to say to someone "give me £20 in advance and I will give you my benefits" then that is what the law is designed to protect against. But your case is different.

In short, I think, on this instance, the bank is exactly, legally, correct.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Under s187 Social Security Administration Act 1992, benefits cannot be assigned. The theory is that benefits should not be subject to ordinary forms of arrestment. The principles underpinning the theory are in the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, in common law and in the case of Woods".[/FONT]