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

krisskross

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to open a basic account with another bank for your benefits to go into. Then apply for refund of bank charges with your present bank.

It might be a good idea not to have DDs but to withdraw money and pay bills with cash.
It is a bit of an urban legend that has been given credence on this forum that the banks cannot take charges from benefit payments. It is just cash going in to the banks, they are not interested in where it originates. That bit of the social Security act is meant to stop moneylenders demanding payment books be handed over as security for a loan.Used to happen in the days when a lot of regular benefit payments,such as child benefit, were in the form of payment vouchers cashed each week at the post office

Tozer

chris22 wrote: »

[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]

Thanks but what is your point? My point is that once benefits are paid into an account, it ceases to be benefits for the purposes of the legislation but is money mixed in with other money that is in the account.

What I said is entirely in accord with what you said.

chris22_2

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mike Dailly, solicitor at Govan Law Centre, gave a presentation outlining developments in debt recovery and explaining the law around benefits and bank arrestments.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]With direct payments intended to become almost universal, most people will have their benefit paid directly into a bank account. Bank arrestments are a very common method of debt recovery used by local authorities and government departments in particular.[/FONT]
[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]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The caselaw – Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland
In the case of Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland 1913 SLT 1 Reports 499, a worker got compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (an early form of benefit) and paid it into a bank account. This case held that the benefit itself could not be assigned to another person. If benefit was plainly identified in a bank account, it should also have statutory protection from arrestment. The money did not change character because it was paid into an account.[/FONT]

"The money did not change chracter because it was paid into an account".

The money belongs to the state not to my self.
It is given to me to live off of so surely the attempt to charge such benefit shall be void with it not being my money and being the states do you see what i mean?

Mark7799

Regardless of your opinions and links, this is an action that HSBC have taken. I suggest you re-read krisskross's post and follow the advice they have suggested.

Tozer

chris22 wrote: »

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mike Dailly, solicitor at Govan Law Centre, gave a presentation outlining developments in debt recovery and explaining the law around benefits and bank arrestments.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]With direct payments intended to become almost universal, most people will have their benefit paid directly into a bank account. Bank arrestments are a very common method of debt recovery used by local authorities and government departments in particular.[/FONT]
[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]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The caselaw – Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the case of Woods v Royal Bank of Scotland 1913 SLT 1 Reports 499, a worker got compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1906 (an early form of benefit) and paid it into a bank account. This case held that the benefit itself could not be assigned to another person. If benefit was plainly identified in a bank account, it should also have statutory protection from arrestment. The money did not change character because it was paid into an account.[/FONT]

"The money did not change chracter because it was paid into an account".

The money belongs to the state not to my self.
It is given to me to live off of so surely the attempt to charge such benefit shall be void with it not being my money and being the states do you see what i mean?

Errr. But benefits are not specifically identified. What is being said is pretty old equity and trusts stuff. It is the same principle as in Quistclose trusts. What we are talking about here is making a charge on the account, not an arrestment. "Charge" as in "bank charges" is different from "Charge" in the legal sense which means to mortgage or encumber.

RAJ1976_2

Hi, Does anybody know if bank chrges are illegal if you are unemployed?
I am currently unemployed and was charged £20 for a returned Direct Debit. :mad:

Mark7799

Your employment status makes no difference to bank charges

Tozer

Completely agree. And before you say about the benefits law saying that any assignment or charge of benefits is illegal, this means charge in the legal sense (mortgage, encumber) and not the application of a bank charge.

morgansmummy1809

Hi, i recently wrote to my bank to reclaim bank charges, using the template. I am on benefits, so left in the part stating about the social security administration act.
I recieved a reply from them today and they said;
' you have confused charges in the sense of fees to which the act has no relevance and 'charges' in the sense of a proprietary right attaching to benefits to which the act relates, but which the levying of fees on overdrafts does not create '
They also said something about the terms and conditions.
Firstly i really don't understand what they are on about, and secondly are they right about what they are saying.

I have paid almost 300 pounds in charges since January 2007. I have also only just opened an account with alliance and leicester and they have made several mistakes and told me twice that i had over 1000 in my account when i never did, then charged me, and when i spoke to them they wont give me anything back, they have charged me over 150 in just two weeks.

ssechaud

I got a letter from my bank today. Here is what they had to say.

"You have stated you are concerned that the charges have been deducted from Social Security Benefits. We do not believe the Social Security Administration Act 1992 prevents a bank from applying charges to a customers account when they have insufficient funds to cover a payment they have asked us to make."

Can anyone say for sure if the act states that banks can or cannot take charges from benefits?

Benefits give you the bare minimum you need to live on. If you are having to use that benefit money to pay back debts and then having bank charges taken off on top of that you are left in the situation of having to survive on next to nothing. This is how you end up with people starving and living on the streets begging and stealing to survive. If the law doesn't protect people on benefits then it should.