How can an account be protected

2tosign

I need to protect the funds of someone with a head injury from themselves as they are vulnerable and easily confused but not so bad they shouldn't have any say over their money.

I set up 2 accounts with 2 to sign /all to sign. One was a saver account with most funds, one was a current account. Both were accessed by the relative on their own. My relative was taken to the bank by a builder and tens of thousands withdrawn. Bank said it was set up incorrectly. They then said they had set it up correctly. Relative then accepted a bank card the bank handed out and went on huge spending spree and the funds from the saver account were transferred to this account for spending. Spent tens of thousands. Now account is overdrawn, an 8200 loan is due to this bank and no funds are left. Relative has limited income and is unable to pay loan. Loan is unable to be refinanced due to lack of income.

As one of the signatories on the account I and another relative are now held responsible for the overdraft (but not the loan).

I rang the bank today to find a way of protecting the accounts for the future. They advised a multiple signature mandate. I said I had used one and it hadn't worked. They passed me on to another department for advice. I was given the same advice. Again I explained it hadn't worked. I am now waiting for the area manager to contact.

Financial ombudsman said the bank can't stop a bank card being issued on a 2 to sign/all to sign account - but they didn't even let everyone know let alone ask them if it was OK. Is this right?

xylophone

Where an account was set up on a two (or more ) required to sign basis, I am surprised that a bank card can have been issued.

On a family trust current account I know of, two signatures (solicitor and family member) are required and no ATM card has been issued.

A similar case existed with a church charity account on which I used to be a signatory.

Are you sure that you explained to the bank that you were dealing with a vulnerable adult?

If you knew that you were dealing with a vulnerable adult, why did you not set up Trust Accounts which only you and another Trustee controlled?

You could then have released money to the vulnerable person's bank account (or better to a savings account with ATM card) for his personal use.

It would have been better to open building society accounts with no internet access and passbooks which required two signatures for withdrawals - you could have kept the passbook.

If you can prove that the builder exploited a vulnerable person it may be worth reporting the matter to the police?

2tosign

We were told that no internet banking or cards would be allowed. The bank allowed cash withdrawals at the desk without 2 trustees, handed out a card (that was meant to be a special trust card that required 2 authorizations - but it wasn't) and allowed internet banking by a sole user.

We have tried to notify the bank that they are dealing with a vulnerable adult. They (RBS) say they don't record such information.

We are pursuing the builder through a solicitor - the police were not interested. We have a contract for them to finish the work. It is an extremely expensive process that the trust now has no money to pursue. There is no guarantee that he will not just disappear into the ether when pressed for money.

The money belonged to the vulnerable adult and the solicitor said he hasn't lost capacity so the aim wasn't to cut him out of the process and decision making but to prevent him acting on wild impulse. We didn't think we (as trustees) would end up with a debt due to this.

2tosign

Also, there is only one bank in town and no building societies so due to 2 people having to go into the bank to sort most transactions we wanted somewhere within short travelling distance. Vulnerable adult and me are the only trustees around on a regular basis. My teenage child has turned 18 now so we have had a quote to remove VA from the trust and add the teenager - estimated cost of £450. We didn't have this option when the problem arose and I would have been wary of adding a teenager.

2tosign

One last bit of info - the bank card was not handed out because VA asked for one. It was forced onto VA by the bank tellers because the bank tellers said they couldn't deal with any inquiries about the accounts without one (after around the 4th visit to the bank to see what they had done to address the problem of no access to the accounts). They announced they had solved the problem of having no access on a 2 to sign account by them applying for this card.

xylophone

We were told that no internet banking or cards would be allowed. The bank allowed cash withdrawals at the desk without 2 trustees, handed out a card (that was meant to be a special trust card that required 2 authorizations - but it wasn't) and allowed internet banking by a sole user.

You could consider making a formal complaint to the bank - ultimately you can take your case to the FOS.

2tosign

I complained. They acknowledged that the account had been accessed by an individual on a 2 to sign account. They apologized and said take it to the FOS. FOS said they can't stop customers having bank cards for their own accounts even with 2 to sign.

PeacefulWaters

Challenge the FOS decision.

2tosign

I will do. Are they wrong?

xylophone

I complained. They acknowledged that the account had been accessed by an individual on a 2 to sign account. They apologized and said take it to the FOS. FOS said they can't stop customers having bank cards for their own accounts even with 2 to sign.

You were told that no card would be issued.

2tosign

There is no proof of what was said, only that the 2 to sign mandate still holds on all accounts (they have shown me their records which are not correct but do have 2 to sign or all to sign on all accounts (they should be the same) and I have a paper copy of one mandate change from 2014 still not fully implemented on their system by 2018). Are the 2 mutually incompatible? Does acceptance of a bank card (issued with false information but again not provable) override the 2 to sign mandate? Online banking was set up in the same way and used to take money without controls. Is that indefensible or OK once a card has been accepted? They allowed online access to the saver account too. Again, is this indefensible or OK once the principle of online banking has been accepted? Is it OK for them to say they don't record vulnerable adult status.