Nat West Bank account closed for putting someone else’s money into it

MalMonroe

Chris_English said:

james72 said:

Chris_English said:

Paying money into someone else's account is not a problem at all. There's no way that the bank would have any idea whose money it is, as money doesn't come with any owner identified, so there must be something more that's gone on here than you've mentioned so far.

Were you given access to the account, or were you allowed to spend money directly from it? Did you perhaps have your wages paid in, and then transferred out, regularly? Any of these could be a breach of the terms and conditions of the account.

No access at all

But it was UC money going in

But UC and accountant said it would be fine 

So it was withdrawn as cash and handed to you that way?

I suppose that it could still breach some banks' T&Cs, but it seems quite harsh. I have money paid into my account for my children from relatives, for their birthdays, and I'd not be happy if the bank tried to be difficult about that.

Where benefits are concerned, certain benefits terms and conditions also have to be met. The problem with this OP is that those Ts&Cs obviously were not explained in full and now there's a bit mess to sort out. Thanks to benefits advice. 

Thrugelmir

Sounds as if your friend lied to you. No decent accountant would have suggested money laundering. Sounds like tax evasion on her part. 

Ed-1

eskbanker said:

HobgoblinBT said:

If any electronic payments were received eg universal credit, the payees name would have been mismatched to the account holder’s name, which could have led to the review that resulted in the account closure.

Are you suggesting that recipients of electronic payments have visibility of the payee name used by the sender?  I don't know if UC payments include the beneficiary's name within the payment reference field, but that's the only way I believe that any such discrepancy would be apparent....

The bank can see the beneficiary name on electronic payments.

Zanderman

Every sympathy with your situation.  And there's some good advice from responses so far. I hope things get sorted out.

I would suggest the key lesson - for you and your friend (not that it helps now, sorry) - is that you should not have simply asked an accountant and UC whether this arrangement would be ok.

The major player in this is the bank - who have specific terms and conditions applicable to the account.

An accountant and the UC people can't over-ride those terms, and I doubt they would even know what they were.  The accountant, and maybe UC, should certainly be being complained to for bad advice. They should have insisted you check with the bank first.  

Daliah

This is the relevant section from the Natwest T&Cs. It doesn't say the transfer has to be in your name, and I don't know whether there is a law or regulation which says so. I somehow doubt there is.

eskbanker

Ed-1 said:

eskbanker said:

HobgoblinBT said:

If any electronic payments were received eg universal credit, the payees name would have been mismatched to the account holder’s name, which could have led to the review that resulted in the account closure.

Are you suggesting that recipients of electronic payments have visibility of the payee name used by the sender?  I don't know if UC payments include the beneficiary's name within the payment reference field, but that's the only way I believe that any such discrepancy would be apparent....

The bank can see the beneficiary name on electronic payments.

'Beneficiary' in the sense of the person entitled to UC or the payee name used for the transfer?  In other words, if DWP are (knowingly) sending a payment intended for Person A to an account in the name of Person B, will the receiving bank have sufficient data to spot that anomaly?

Ed-1

eskbanker said:

Ed-1 said:

eskbanker said:

HobgoblinBT said:

If any electronic payments were received eg universal credit, the payees name would have been mismatched to the account holder’s name, which could have led to the review that resulted in the account closure.

Are you suggesting that recipients of electronic payments have visibility of the payee name used by the sender?  I don't know if UC payments include the beneficiary's name within the payment reference field, but that's the only way I believe that any such discrepancy would be apparent....

The bank can see the beneficiary name on electronic payments.

'Beneficiary' in the sense of the person entitled to UC or the payee name used for the transfer?  In other words, if DWP are (knowingly) sending a payment intended for Person A to an account in the name of Person B, will the receiving bank have sufficient data to spot that anomaly?

The beneficiary in terms of the person claiming universal credit. The bank can see that and see that it doesn't match the account holder's name. That's no problem in itself although the bank may suspect something fraudulent may be going on.

General_Grant

Ed-1 said:

eskbanker said:

Ed-1 said:

eskbanker said:

HobgoblinBT said:

If any electronic payments were received eg universal credit, the payees name would have been mismatched to the account holder’s name, which could have led to the review that resulted in the account closure.

Are you suggesting that recipients of electronic payments have visibility of the payee name used by the sender?  I don't know if UC payments include the beneficiary's name within the payment reference field, but that's the only way I believe that any such discrepancy would be apparent....

The bank can see the beneficiary name on electronic payments.

'Beneficiary' in the sense of the person entitled to UC or the payee name used for the transfer?  In other words, if DWP are (knowingly) sending a payment intended for Person A to an account in the name of Person B, will the receiving bank have sufficient data to spot that anomaly?

The beneficiary in terms of the person claiming universal credit. The bank can see that and see that it doeDosn't match the account holder's name. That's no problem in itself although the bank may suspect something fraudulent may be going on.

I think it more likely that the bank can see the NINo rather than a name if the payment has been properly sent by DWP.
Do you have experience of seeing a name as well as the NINo?

Ed-1

General_Grant said:

Ed-1 said:

eskbanker said:

Ed-1 said:

eskbanker said:

HobgoblinBT said:

If any electronic payments were received eg universal credit, the payees name would have been mismatched to the account holder’s name, which could have led to the review that resulted in the account closure.

Are you suggesting that recipients of electronic payments have visibility of the payee name used by the sender?  I don't know if UC payments include the beneficiary's name within the payment reference field, but that's the only way I believe that any such discrepancy would be apparent....

The bank can see the beneficiary name on electronic payments.

'Beneficiary' in the sense of the person entitled to UC or the payee name used for the transfer?  In other words, if DWP are (knowingly) sending a payment intended for Person A to an account in the name of Person B, will the receiving bank have sufficient data to spot that anomaly?

The beneficiary in terms of the person claiming universal credit. The bank can see that and see that it doeDosn't match the account holder's name. That's no problem in itself although the bank may suspect something fraudulent may be going on.

I think it more likely that the bank can see the NINo rather than a name if the payment has been properly sent by DWP.
Do you have experience of seeing a name as well as the NINo?

The bank can see the name on the payment 'behind the scenes'.

General_Grant

Ed-1 said:

General_Grant said:

Ed-1 said:

eskbanker said:

Ed-1 said:

eskbanker said:

HobgoblinBT said:

If any electronic payments were received eg universal credit, the payees name would have been mismatched to the account holder’s name, which could have led to the review that resulted in the account closure.

Are you suggesting that recipients of electronic payments have visibility of the payee name used by the sender?  I don't know if UC payments include the beneficiary's name within the payment reference field, but that's the only way I believe that any such discrepancy would be apparent....

The bank can see the beneficiary name on electronic payments.

'Beneficiary' in the sense of the person entitled to UC or the payee name used for the transfer?  In other words, if DWP are (knowingly) sending a payment intended for Person A to an account in the name of Person B, will the receiving bank have sufficient data to spot that anomaly?

The beneficiary in terms of the person claiming universal credit. The bank can see that and see that it doeDosn't match the account holder's name. That's no problem in itself although the bank may suspect something fraudulent may be going on.

I think it more likely that the bank can see the NINo rather than a name if the payment has been properly sent by DWP.
Do you have experience of seeing a name as well as the NINo?

The bank can see the name on the payment 'behind the scenes'.

What appears if the DWP knowingly send a payment to Ann Brown's account when the entitled person is Carol Dare?