Virgin money RS - maturity

surreysaver

molerat wrote: »

Both mine & MrsM's show -£43.66. Will have to wait and see where this goes. I suppose they could use set off against other accounts if they wanted to.

I would think they could only offset against other accounts if it was in the terms and conditions, and as savings accounts cannot (or should not!) go overdrawn, then it wouldn't be in the T&Cs.

karlie88

I just send the letter back in a pre-paid envelope to VM HQ with a note stating: 'I will kindly pass on your suggestion. Instead, I advise you to fix this problem in time before your next Reg E-Saver matures.'

They've had 7 opportunities to fix this technical issue ever since this 'glitch' was identified. Over a year in fact....I'm going to miss these reg e-savers.

IanManc

surreysaver wrote: »

I would think they could only offset against other accounts if it was in the terms and conditions, and as savings accounts cannot (or should not!) go overdrawn, then it wouldn't be in the T&Cs.

Checking the Virgin Money "Savings Terms and Conditions" has just taken me a few seconds, and I found this:

"Can my money be used to repay other debts?
In some circumstances we can use the money from any account you have with us to reduce or repay debts you owe us. For example, if you are overdrawn on another account or owe us money, either in your own name or jointly with another person."

surreysaver

IanManc wrote: »

Checking the Virgin Money "Savings Terms and Conditions" has just taken me a few seconds, and I found this:

"Can my money be used to repay other debts?
In some circumstances we can use the money from any account you have with us to reduce or repay debts you owe us. For example, if you are overdrawn on another account or owe us money, either in your own name or jointly with another person."

But can money they've given you be classed as a debt? It is not money you've taken from them. And if the condition says 'in some circumstances', but doesn't actually state those circumstances, how can it be enforced? I would suggest the letters sent out are just fishing exercises hoping to recoup some of the loses from their error.

molerat

Agreed. I think they have carried out this exercise before and those that ignored it heard nothing more.

antrobus

surreysaver wrote: »

But can money they've given you be classed as a debt? It is not money you've taken from them. And if the condition says 'in some circumstances', but doesn't actually state those circumstances, how can it be enforced? I would suggest the letters sent out are just fishing exercises hoping to recoup some of the loses from their error.

Err, no.

It's the right of set-off, described by the FOS as follows;

The basic position is that a firm has a right - but not a duty - to look at a customer's overall position and to "combine" the accounts held by that customer. This is sometimes called a right of "set off" or a right to "combine" accounts. A firm has this as a general right, whether or not it mentions the right in the account terms.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/40/40_setoff.htm

Although, as it happens, most banks make an effort to make their customers aware of this.

surreysaver

antrobus wrote: »

Err, no.

It's the right of set-off, described by the FOS as follows;

The basic position is that a firm has a right - but not a duty - to look at a customer's overall position and to "combine" the accounts held by that customer. This is sometimes called a right of "set off" or a right to "combine" accounts. A firm has this as a general right, whether or not it mentions the right in the account terms.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/40/40_setoff.htm

Although, as it happens, most banks make an effort to make their customers aware of this.

Err, no

From your same link

wrote:

the debt must be due and payable. For example, if a customer misses making a loan payment, then (at least until it calls in the loan) the firm can take only the missed payment - not the balance of the loan.

Its not a debt, its not due, and its not payable

IanManc

surreysaver wrote: »

Its not a debt, its not due, and its not payable

It was paid to you by mistake, you weren't entitled to it under the terms of the account, it isn't your money, and the bank is entitled to have it back.

surreysaver

IanManc wrote: »

It was paid to you by mistake, you weren't entitled to it under the terms of the account, it isn't your money, and the bank is entitled to have it back.

Its no different than if you or I accidentally send some money to the wrong person. They have no right to it back. All they can do is send begging letters. If they were legally entitled to the money back, they would be quoting which law entitles them to do that.
Its not a debt, as there are no credit agreements in place. If they think they are entitled to the money back, they'd have to go through the courts. It wouldn't be cost effective for them to do that for the £30 or £40 they'd get back from each person.
I suppose the only realistic thing they could do is refuse to open any more accounts for anyone who doesn't want to play ball.

IanManc

surreysaver wrote: »

Its no different than if you or I accidentally send some money to the wrong person. They have no right to it back. All they can do is send begging letters. If they were legally entitled to the money back, they would be quoting which law entitles them to do that.
Its not a debt, as there are no credit agreements in place. If they think they are entitled to the money back, they'd have to go through the courts. It wouldn't be cost effective for them to do that for the £30 or £40 they'd get back from each person.
I suppose the only realistic thing they could do is refuse to open any more accounts for anyone who doesn't want to play ball.

The Financial Ombudsman Service states the real position succinctly:

"Put simply, the general legal position is that someone who is given money by mistake should say what has happened and pay it back. But this may not be what consumers hear from friends or on the internet - where the informal advice might wrongly suggest that this is a case of "finders keepers"."

The money is clearly belongs to, and is owed to, the bank; and there is no legal requirement for "credit agreements" to be "in place" for a debt to exist or be enforceable.

Antrobus has already clearly explained the general right of set-off which banks possesses.

I'd also throw in the criminal offence of dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit, contrary to Section 24A Theft Act 1968, which says:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if— (a) a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest; (b) he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and (c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.
(2) References to a credit are to a credit of an amount of money.
(2A) A credit to an account is wrongful to the extent that it derives from— (a) theft; (b) blackmail; (c) fraud (contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006); or (d) stolen goods."

and:

"(8) References to stolen goods include money which is dishonestly withdrawn from an account to which a wrongful credit has been made, but only to the extent that the money derives from the credit."

{Edited by Forum Team}