TSB BANK - Can they take money from someone with Dementia... as long as they send a letter annually

Topsy1970

Sorry, but I believe my getting old comment is being taken out of context.     We are all getting old.... Things that were normal 20 years ago, are no longer acceptable.    Did anyone on this forum imagine paying for bags when you bought your shopping?    

As an FYI, the letter from the TSB (which I wish I could share) does not state there is a free account, but states 'This account will continue until it is closed by us or you'.     

In addition since people have highlighted the age thing....why is this a clause in the TSB Gold account ' Now that you're over 80 years old, your travel insurance cover has ended. If you're going to need travel insurance in future, it's a good idea to look for suitable suitable cover. If our records are wrong and you're under 80 years old, please get in touch with us.

Brie made the comment 'major blowup if a bank or any other organisation automatically started treating all 70/80/90 year olds as imbeciles merely because of their age'.     In full agreement.     But why do we then accept that people who are 80+ are excluded from the travel insurance, despite them potentially being in better health than people who are of a younger age.    

Second last comment, one Mantra of Martin Lewis is to never auto-renew you house / car insurance..... it seems on this forum, people believe that is not applicable to banks....despite numerous scandals i.e. PIP etc.

Finally, thanks to all for your comments.     They have really helped my thought process, especially around wording.    I 100% get that we are responsible for using what we pay for (the cost of my gym membership is testimony to that), but I am still of the opinion that we should have rule / laws / legislation to help people who are on their own, with no family or friends to be POA.....  but are struggling with the cost of living.      

Imagine... you could have a neighbour who has not put the heating on this winter, struggled to feed themselves.... but have a gold TSB account costing £180 and don't want to cancel their account because they don't know it would move to a free account.      

Topsy1970

Dear Elsien....... thanks for all your messages and sorry for my age comments.  

I am sorry to hear about your mums 'rogue trader' problems and glad it all worked out well.... although I bet you were stressed.

In Scotland.... assuming the rogue trader can be found, there are numerous prosecutions of this 'scum'.    Trading standard and Police Scotland are all over these.     The article I shared, was about two Dementia sufferers who were scammed.    That person was convicted.

Why then, am I wrong to expect banks to perform a 'duty of care' with their customers and atleast call them.    Hiding behind 'we don't know what you have used' will be, in my opinion, be a big issue in the coming years....not just my example with banks, but the wider WWW.

Surely, given the world of data we live in it is not too much for a bank to know customer A took out travel insurance, customer B took out car breakdown etc....  they don't need to know any personal details, just it was used.   

Going to make a comment based on no facts, but my experience.    I am certain that the TSB know how many people have used the 'products' on the Gold account.      If it was 100%..... TSB will be making sure they make money on it.....

Savvy_Sue

As a younger pensioner, if my bank calls me, I'm going to want to be d*mn sure it IS my bank calling me. It could just become another avenue for fraudsters and scammers - "oh, this is your annual call from the bank, you don't seem to be using the facilities available, let me help you move all your money to a better account ..."

Marcon

Topsy1970 said:

Finally, thanks to all for your comments.     They have really helped my thought process, especially around wording.    I 100% get that we are responsible for using what we pay for (the cost of my gym membership is testimony to that), but I am still of the opinion that we should have rule / laws / legislation to help people who are on their own, with no family or friends to be POA.....  but are struggling with the cost of living.      

Imagine... you could have a neighbour who has not put the heating on this winter, struggled to feed themselves.... but have a gold TSB account costing £180 and don't want to cancel their account because they don't know it would move to a free account.      

You seem to be taking one minor issue out of context and blowing it up to generalise in a massive way. Most people don't have gold TSB accounts or any other 'special' deals, so passing ridiculously convoluted legislation to address what is a total non-problem for the vast majority is plain daft - and will just create new opportunities for fraudsters:

Savvy_Sue said:

As a younger pensioner, if my bank calls me, I'm going to want to be d*mn sure it IS my bank calling me. It could just become another avenue for fraudsters and scammers - "oh, this is your annual call from the bank, you don't seem to be using the facilities available, let me help you move all your money to a better account ..."

Malthusian

Topsy1970 said:

Brie made the comment 'major blowup if a bank or any other organisation automatically started treating all 70/80/90 year olds as imbeciles merely because of their age'.     In full agreement.     But why do we then accept that people who are 80+ are excluded from the travel insurance, despite them potentially being in better health than people who are of a younger age.    

Insurance is not about "potentially better", it is about real statistical averages. On average over 80s make more claims than under 80s. TSB made a commercial decision that the included travel insurance was only available to under 80s. John and Jean chose to continue paying their monthly fees anyway.

Besides, age 80 was apparently irrelevant because they were disqualified from the cover by pre-existing medical conditions even before 80 - and were still happy to pay the fees.

If the travel insurance had no upper age limit, the account fee would have been higher and they would have spent even more on it.

Second last comment, one Mantra of Martin Lewis is to never auto-renew you house / car insurance..... it seems on this forum, people believe that is not applicable to banks....despite numerous scandals i.e. PIP etc.

Yes it is. The rule is "switch your house / car insurance". Not "insurers should switch your house / car insurance for you because they have a made-up duty to ensure you aren't paying more than you could be". 

Imagine... you could have a neighbour who has not put the heating on this winter, struggled to feed themselves.... but have a gold TSB account costing £180 and don't want to cancel their account because they don't know it would move to a free account.      

I feel very sorry for him but it's not TSB's fault.

sheramber

There are travel insurqances available to over 80's but they come at a cost.

The company used by TSB have made a business decision that on the moeny htye gert for providing cover it is not profitable to  cover over 80's.

My sister's travel insurance connected  to her bank account stopped at 70, depsite her not having seen a doctor for years and not taking any medication at all.

Other companies were happy to cover her.




Presumably, his family did not  feel the need to  became involved with his affairs.

Why should the bank?



Just after my husband died  my bank stopped and questioned payments I made for work I had done to my house.

 Despite being in my 70's I took exception to their perceived need to check how I was spending my money.

I don't want workmen asking when they will get their money because my bank chose to intervene and delay payment.

Fortunately, it seems to have stopped now.

Marcon

sheramber said:

Just after my husband died  my bank stopped and questioned payments I made for work I had done to my house.

 Despite being in my 70's I took exception to their perceived need to check how I was spending my money.

I don't want workmen asking when they will get their money because my bank chose to intervene and delay payment.

Fortunately, it seems to have stopped now.

So the bank activated its 'vulnerable client' system (not least because you were newly bereaved) and you 'took exception' to their attempts to ensure you weren't being scammed...

Poor old banks. They can't win.

Malthusian

They can't win, but they lose less if a customer asks them who do you think you are, than if a vulnerable customer falls for the incredibly common fake tradesman scam, and the bank has to cough up thousands of pounds.

Marcon

Malthusian said:

They can't win, but they lose less if a customer asks them who do you think you are, than if a vulnerable customer falls for the incredibly common fake tradesman scam, and the bank has to cough up thousands of pounds.

... and gets a starring role in the column of some over-zealous journalist shrieking about lack of consumer protection....

sheramber

Marcon said:

sheramber said:

Just after my husband died  my bank stopped and questioned payments I made for work I had done to my house.

 Despite being in my 70's I took exception to their perceived need to check how I was spending my money.

I don't want workmen asking when they will get their money because my bank chose to intervene and delay payment.

Fortunately, it seems to have stopped now.

So the bank activated its 'vulnerable client' system (not least because you were newly bereaved) and you 'took exception' to their attempts to ensure you weren't being scammed...

Poor old banks. They can't win.

I didn’t ask them to treat me as vulnerable. I had dealt with finances during my marriage and was quite capable of carrying on doing sio.

I was paying tradesmen for work already completed to my satisfaction.
I did not , nor do I, pay any money upfront. None of the workmen asked for any money upfront.

The invoices and payment details were handed to me personally by the  workmen but it took me over an hour of repeated same questions  for the bank to accept I was not being scanned. 

This was 18 months and 2 years  after my husband died. 

Yes, I did take exception to it.

Strangely, they did not question my expenditure during the first year after the death.  Seems  I only became vulnerable after 18 months.