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

Supa_z

Yeah i am sure i have read the same thing about them not being able to charge benefits, i have opened a new account now, but it seems to be taking a while to swap everything over, its very stressful, i feel like am living my life constantly watching the bank swallow my money..

Tozer

Supa_z wrote: »

Yeah i am sure i have read the same thing about them not being able to charge benefits, i have opened a new account now, but it seems to be taking a while to swap everything over, its very stressful, i feel like am living my life constantly watching the bank swallow my money..

No that is not correct. It is not possible to "charge or assign" benefits. The term charge is a legal one meaning mortgage or encumber. So you can't say to someone - give me £20 loan now against the security of my benefits.

samsam1985

Ive been charged for going overdrawn by a few pence, but im on benefits and the money that i get is supposed to be what the law states you need to live on.

Is it against the law to take this money from me?

Orford

samsam1985 wrote: »

Ive been charged for going overdrawn by a few pence, but im on benefits and the money that i get is supposed to be what the law states you need to live on.

Is it against the law to take this money from me?

I,m afraid this is a myth

The two Acts of Parliament that govern how benefits are paid are the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Tax Credit's Act 2002. Both of these have clauses which apparently make it unlawful for banks to impose bank charges on benefits.

HOWEVER by 'charges' they DO NOT MEAN BANK CHARGES. What is meant is things like attachment of earnings and charging orders.
Although there is some ambiguity, if you took a case to reclaim bank charges to court based on s187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or s45 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 the court would almost certainly find against you.

No one is saying that the banks have the right to take money from benefits, only that you can't use the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or the Tax Credits Act 2002 to stop them. Money taken from benefits is unlawful - but unlawful by virtue of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 and the common law on penalties in contracts , not under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or Tax Credits Act 2002 (unfortunately).

peter999

See this thread:

Bank taking your Benefit? Quote this -
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=269424

peter999

Francesanne

samsam1985 wrote: »

Ive been charged for going overdrawn by a few pence, but im on benefits and the money that i get is supposed to be what the law states you need to live on.

Is it against the law to take this money from me?

I check my bank statement either by phone or by mini statement on a regular weekly basis because I don't want to get clobbered for bank charges. Don't mean to sound harsh but if everyone kept a better check on their money situation they wouldn't end up paying bank charges for going in the red.

borgbaiter

Francesanne wrote: »

I check my bank statement either by phone or by mini statement on a regular weekly basis because I don't want to get clobbered for bank charges. Don't mean to sound harsh but if everyone kept a better check on their money situation they wouldn't end up paying bank charges for going in the red.

and if we all had enough to live on there would be no bank charges. so you do sound harsh sorry.


Borgbaiter

Tozer

peter999 wrote: »

See this thread:

Bank taking your Benefit? Quote this -
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=269424

peter999

That 'idea' has been universally dismissed.

Tozer

samsam1985 wrote: »

Ive been charged for going overdrawn by a few pence, but im on benefits and the money that i get is supposed to be what the law states you need to live on.

Is it against the law to take this money from me?

Have a look at the post directly above yours....

deary65

Tozer wrote: »

But it defeats the whole notion of the social security system. The reason it hasn't been litigated is that it is a hopeless case.

Title to the benefits is with the Claimant. However, the bank has the right (via contract) to make deductions. Therefore it seizes title.

It is years since I studied trust law - and I have never had the desire to practise it - but if I recall correctly, the constituent elements for a trust are not made out here. It is a social security system and not a trust system that you pay into.

I think I shall have to explain this concept further. The crown is a sole trust corporation, therefore all property held thereby, is held in trust for the benefit of the nation. It has been held since 1368 that when property is 'given' by A to B for the benefit of C there is no contract between B and C, this matters not what agreement there my be between B and C express or implied in contract.


I will be the first to agree that a 'chose in action' can be a difficult thing to define, but, in this instance there is little difficulty; the funds are conveyed with the title ( DWP-i.e it is trust property) and are defined by way of the beneficiary's national insurance number. Both of which the banks know!( benefit implies beneficiary)


However, the difficulty I can see, as with all choses in action, you will have to sue on account, this the banks know, and as people are on benefits, the likelihood of that happening are slim and for those few that do, the pay-out for the banks is small. The answer here is for the government to take action since they are encouraging claimants to have the funds payed direct into bank accounts.