MPs reply to Hardship cases

krisskross

gbhxu wrote: »

Yes you can claim interest on payments taken. It's 8%. Use this calculator

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/bank-charges#interest

My understanding is that only the courts can award interest so if the claim is settled without the need to go to court then no interest.

MonkeyMad

Twinkly wrote: »

Given that it is mandatory (or so the DSS told me, way back when) to have benefits paid into a bank account it will now prove impossible to protect what little income the government has decided you 'need' to live on.

Personally I prefer to use the money that the government allows me to live on to do precisely that. Live on.

I dont particularly want to pay an inflated charge because some snotty nosed kid with 2 weeks training in customer service cannot operate a direct debit instruction without completely f****** it up and then denying responsibility. I certainly do not want to have to pay it automatically.

A bank charge (reasonable or not) should be on a level with any other debt. It should be prioritised and paid from any excess income after essential living expenses are accounted for.

Perhaps a benefit recipient revolution is now called for and ALL claimants should demand a return to direct receipt of benefits.

It may be mandatory to pay benefits into AN account but don't you choose where it goes? You could /a/ open another basic bank account without overdraft facilites or /b/ get the money paid into someone elses account.

Direct payment is irrelevant. Banks T&C's always state that they have first dibs on any money in your account if you owe them. The only time they would get in line is if you are made bankrupt.

From the circumstances you post, a return to direct payment would pose some problems. If you have a direct debit set up do you expect the bank to pay it whether there are sufficient funds or not? And if they pay it and you incur a charge, when you pay some money in to cover next months DD will you tell the bank that the Government gave it to you and they can't touch it so can stick their charges, and by the way lend us enough to cover next months gas bill?

This has been raked over loads of times but banks are not charity organisations. If you incur a charge it is because you have spent more than you have got. This may well be the fault of accident, design or a tight benefits system. But it isn't the fault of the bank. Their charges are ususally high, but if they are reduced tenfold would you still refuse to pay them?

And yes, I have lived on benefits and know how much money the Government give you/us.

Twinkly

MonkeyMad wrote: »

From the circumstances you post, a return to direct payment would pose some problems. If you have a direct debit set up do you expect the bank to pay it whether there are sufficient funds or not? And if they pay it and you incur a charge, when you pay some money in to cover next months DD will you tell the bank that the Government gave it to you and they can't touch it so can stick their charges, and by the way lend us enough to cover next months gas bill?

This has been raked over loads of times but banks are not charity organisations. If you incur a charge it is because you have spent more than you have got. This may well be the fault of accident, design or a tight benefits system. But it isn't the fault of the bank. Their charges are ususally high, but if they are reduced tenfold would you still refuse to pay them?

And yes, I have lived on benefits and know how much money the Government give you/us.

The circumstances you have posted in the first paragraph have never applied to me unfortunately so I cannot answer the question from any experience. I have incurred charges through the circumstances I posted. That is to say where a direct debit has been activated in error - on a random and incorrect date 6 months after being set up - 3 months after being cancelled in writing and confirmed and without prior notification.

As stated in your second paragraph, I did not spend more than I have got, thank you. It was indeed the banks fault.

I appreciate you may be totally unaware that there are other circumstances where the bank charges than that 'you spent more than you have got' and hope my case has enlightened you a little.

I would not refuse to pay a fair charge for an instance where it incurred through my fault. I was raised with a sense of personal responsibility and only wish others were too. In particular the bank staff member that screwed up my account and expected me to pay up.

Twinkly

krisskross wrote: »

You do not need a bank current account to have benefits paid into. You can have a savings account. You then draw out your cash and use it to pay your living expenses. No DDs, no overdraft. It is almost the same as getting a giro, just safer and less open to fraud. Certainly you won't be getting any bank charges.

I am aware of this and regret taking that option. Foolishly I wanted to pay some bills by direct debit. :rolleyes: I suspect a lot of other people are using a bank account for benefit payment for the same reason.

Its good advice for anyone that didnt know this though and perhaps the claimant revolution could be watered down a bit. Those with bank accounts could just switch payments into a savings account. As for me, I stopped the direct debits. They cant take anything when I dont give them the chance to screw up. Burnt and learnt

MonkeyMad

Twinkly wrote: »

The circumstances you have posted in the first paragraph have never applied to me unfortunately so I cannot answer the question from any experience. I have incurred charges through the circumstances I posted. That is to say where a direct debit has been activated in error - on a random and incorrect date 6 months after being set up - 3 months after being cancelled in writing and confirmed and without prior notification.

As stated in your second paragraph, I did not spend more than I have got, thank you. It was indeed the banks fault.

I appreciate you may be totally unaware that there are other circumstances where the bank charges than that 'you spent more than you have got' and hope my case has enlightened you a little.

I would not refuse to pay a fair charge for an instance where it incurred through my fault. I was raised with a sense of personal responsibility and only wish others were too. In particular the bank staff member that screwed up my account and expected me to pay up.

I actually was making a point about how you seem to think the banks should be clairvoyant and somehow work out how you derive your income before applying any charges, and then should apply the same magic when you pay money in to determine if they should actually offset their charges or not.

If a DD is activated in error then you are covered by the DD guarantee and will be refunded any costs; bit of an effort to get sorted but no problem.

I don't need any enlightenment - I am aware of lots of ways to have charges against an account and have had most of them at one time or another, but have always been able to get them reversed since it is usually easy to prove if it is your fault or not. Your's is the easiest of all to get out of.

Twinkly

MonkeyMad wrote: »

I actually was making a point about how you seem to think the banks should be clairvoyant and somehow work out how you derive your income before applying any charges, and then should apply the same magic when you pay money in to determine if they should actually offset their charges or not.

I did not post stating that I think the banks should be clairvoyant. I agree that back in the day when benefit was paid by giro that the bank would have no idea where the income came from. However direct payment does indeed change the principle. I concede that I do not know if any other benefit is marked as easily distinguishable from non benefit payments into accounts and I have not enquired prior to replying to your post.

However, for me personally, it is clearly stated as such on bank statements that my income originates directly, with no intervention or reroute, from the DWP. Each deposit has a little DWP - IB right next to it. How hard can it be to decipher, really ? It is possible I suppose that they may assume that I am employed by the DWP and the amount received per fortnight is in respect of wages. In which case they probably pity me for working for so little.

MonkeyMad wrote: »

If a DD is activated in error then you are covered by the DD guarantee and will be refunded any costs; bit of an effort to get sorted but no problem.

Hmm. I refer you to personal email received from a member of staff at the Halifax. I quote:
'Your comments regarding the direct debit guarantee (DDG) are noted, but are incorrect. The DDG entitles you to a full refund of the amount of a direct debit should this have debited your account in error. The DDG does not entitle you to a refund of any bank charge(s) caused as the result of any such incident, and the decision to reverse these is discretionary in these instances':Unquote.

It may prove to be a lengthy battle if you cannot prove beyond the tiniest shadow of a doubt that the banks staff are at fault.

MonkeyMad wrote: »

I don't need any enlightenment - I am aware of lots of ways to have charges against an account and have had most of them at one time or another, but have always been able to get them reversed since it is usually easy to prove if it is your fault or not. Your's is the easiest of all to get out of.

Then I assume you will rescind the statement that 'If you incur a charge it is because you have spent more than you have got.' Regardless, clearly it was incorrect and unfair to state. Your perception of ease is relative.

Though in possession of full documented proof that this charge was not my fault it took a while to prove. Attempts were made to question my honesty and then to refute receipt of such documentation despite proof of posting, and despite proof of the proof of posting. Even then after all documentation received and irrefutable it took a series of follow-up emails to chase and eventually get a full refund...............and they called it a goodwill gesture. :rolleyes:

It wasnt easy. It should have been but it certainly wasnt. Such is the integrity of (some of) the banks and (certain) personnel. Its pot luck as to how you are dealt with as many, many posts on this forum show.

MonkeyMad

I get a regular BACS transfer from a friend who includes his initials in the payment details so that it look very much like my child benefit direct payment. So now the automated recognition does what exactly?

Twinkly wrote: »

Hmm. I refer you to personal email received from a member of staff at the Halifax. I quote:
'Your comments regarding the direct debit guarantee (DDG) are noted, but are incorrect. The DDG entitles you to a full refund of the amount of a direct debit should this have debited your account in error. The DDG does not entitle you to a refund of any bank charge(s) caused as the result of any such incident, and the decision to reverse these is discretionary in these instances':Unquote.

T.

Therein lies the problem of taking any notice of personal email.
You don't have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. The DD guarantee entitles you to a full refund of any incorrect payment. Depending on where you look it also entitles to a restitution of the position you would have been in had the mistake not been made. Even if your bank held that the guarantee did not state this, they have breached their contract with you by paying the DD, and you are claiming consequential damages. If they accept one, they accept the other, and there is no way out. This is equivalent to them wanting to charge you for breaching your contract by being overdrawn (say).

Twinkly wrote: »

Then I assume you will rescind the statement that 'If you incur a charge it is because you have spent more than you have got.' Regardless, clearly it was incorrect and unfair to state. Your perception of ease is relative.

T.

Statement is factually correct. From the Banks viewpoint this is precisely the way charges are incurred. If you trouble to read, I did say this can happen through no fault of your own. Banks are big automated machines and the days of people personally looking at your account to spot when they should charge you are long gone. As far as the bank is concerned any movements on your account except for charges etc are initiated by you.

Twinkly

MonkeyMad wrote: »

You don't have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I did.

MonkeyMad wrote: »

The DD guarantee entitles you to a full refund of any incorrect payment. Depending on where you look it also entitles to a restitution of the position you would have been in had the mistake not been made.

It doesnt. According to the Halifax , at least.

MonkeyMad wrote: »

Even if your bank held that the guarantee did not state this

They did.

MonkeyMad wrote: »

they have breached their contract with you by paying the DD, and you are claiming consequential damages. If they accept one, they accept the other

They didnt.

Your opinions do not match the reality. Why you continue to refute it I have no idea.

MonkeyMad wrote: »

If you trouble to read, I did say this can happen through no fault of your own.

I did, you didnt, hence my quoting you and reply.

MonkeyMad wrote: »

As far as the bank is concerned any movements on your account except for charges etc are initiated by you.

Which is precisely why they require correction as and when it is their own staff who initiate movements on the account without prior/correct authorisation incurring charges to the account holder.