We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Bank Charges, Child Benefit and SMP
Comments
-
I would argue that in taking money from payment meant for a child they are in gross abuse of their position. The child does not operate the account and is not responsible for the charge. The adult has no automatic right to spend it on whatever they want for themselves and it should never be taken to pay an adults debt.
I'm afraid in most homes the CB just disappears into the general household "pot" and isn't spent specifically on the child
Income meant for a child should be protected as bullet-proof in law and no bank allowed to intepret that law as they see fit. The bank should be restricted to taking only an amount equal to the governments personal allowance for an adult (£45) in any case.
even if the adult is actually wealthy (given that CB is not means tested)
It is to be considered that bank charges are the only method were a debt can be taken forcibly and immediately from a low income family with no consideration of income, family responsibilty and outgoings. Any debt collector would rightly be prosecuted for forcibly entering your home without warning and walking out with your purse. They MUST take you to court if you can not pay because you are on a low income and even then a judge will consider all income and outgoings before issuing payment arrangement or attachment of earnings.
we're not talking about collecting a debt, but adding a charge to an account. Are you going to say that a gas company can't bill someone for gas unless they check out their circumstances first?
And the banks can't attach benefit payments. That is, they can't prevent payments from reaching the account, this is what the relevant legislation says.
It is outrageous that banks are allowed to bypass this simple justice for the lower paid and should be stopped immediately.
There might be a case for a special type of account for benefit payments, which has no overdraft facility and therefore is free of all charges.
Despite what I've said, I do sympathise with people in this plight. However we have to deal with the law as it is, and persuading people that being on benefit means you're forever free of bank charges is just giving people false hope.0 -
-
look at tozer's post about 3 up from this one0
-
I'm afraid in most homes the CB just disappears into the general household "pot" and isn't spent specifically on the child
That wasnt my point. The money is legally allocated specifically for the assumed needs of the child regardless of how it is spent. How is the bank taking this money any different to say the parent spending it on drugs ? Neither is morally acceptable and the latter can certainly be addressed by the law.even if the adult is actually wealthy (given that CB is not means tested)
Yes. Again, child benefit is allocated for the child, not the parent. the question of whether the parents need it or not is irrelevant. The law deems that the child does - to date anyway.we're not talking about collecting a debt, but adding a charge to an account.
The bank is not simply adding a charge it is extracting it.Are you going to say that a gas company can't bill someone for gas unless they check out their circumstances first?
I would ask if you are being deliberately stupid or arguementative here since I havent suggested that at all nor was I going to.
To entertain the question though I will answer it. Bank charges and bills can not be categorised in the same way. A bill is demand for services received at a rate previously clearly stated and agreed. You choose how to pay regardless of how much income you receive or when. You allow the company access to your funds by mutual agreement through Direct Debit. If you can not pay on demand it is classed as a debt and treated as such. How it is paid is further subject to negotiation.
Bank charges are a penalty for a breach of contract, as shown in all EARLIER versions of banks T & C's. They are not a bill for services received. There ends any similairity at all to a gas bill.
I dont consider that your analogy holds.And the banks can't attach benefit payments. That is, they can't prevent payments from reaching the account, this is what the relevant legislation says.
In taking monies supposedly owed for a 'charge' they override any justice or protection in law that would normally be offered to a debtor under any other circumstances. I speculate that any monies supposedly owed should be dealt with under the same rules and regulations as a debt. They arent and that is my point.There might be a case for a special type of account for benefit payments, which has no overdraft facility and therefore is free of all charges.
I hold one and have done for over a year, they arent a new thing. It does however give the option of setting up Direct Debits enhances the banks chances of raking in charges. I dont operate DD's and deny any oppertunity for charges to be applied to my account.Despite what I've said, I do sympathise with people in this plight. However we have to deal with the law as it is, and persuading people that being on benefit means you're forever free of bank charges is just giving people false hope.
I personally have not persuaded anyone of such. I have not seen it stated either. I and others do advise those on benefits to check their situation very carefully with regard to the law. The law is designed to protect as well as prosecute after all and full knowledge of such is vital if you are to protect yourself.0 -
Repeating what tozer posted:-
Law is in Social Security Administration Act 1992:
187.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every assignment of or charge on—- (a) benefit as defined in section 122 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
- (b) any income-related benefit; or
- (c) child benefit,
0 -
I think Exil is absolutely right. Once the money goes into a bank account it is treated like any other money. Exil's point - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that no other service provider (e.g a gas company) would ever be able to impose fees or charges if the law is construed as Twinkyl wants it to be read. Can you imagine how much uncertainty that would create?
Twinkly - check out the legislation if you are still not convinced. Honestly, we aren't making it up!0 -
interesting it does raise another question.
lets say my bank balance is £25.42
O2 want a payment of £28.31
The bank sees fit to bounce that payment, saying not enough money in my account. Then charges me £35 for that fact. why dont they bounce their own payment as there is not enough? What gives them legal right over the funds first? Working from the legal point of view that I work with in my industry, our ombudsmen would be levying a heafty fine on my employers straight away for creating that kind of system.
Though not to stray too far, gonna give it a try anyway and see where i get with it.0 -
I think Exil is absolutely right.
Right in/on/for what in particular ? They havent had the courtesy to respond to my last post in answer to theirs so I am rapidly losing any interest in what they say. Thinking it is right and it being right are entirely different things. Shame on you Tozer you really should know better than to state such things and especially where you critisize me for my own 'thinking.' (Which is incorrect by the way, see below.)Once the money goes into a bank account it is treated like any other money.
Again, how is it that a bank has the right to retain monies paid as benefits, where the SSA Act states no one does ? Where is it written in law and legislation ?Exil's point - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that no other service provider (e.g a gas company) would ever be able to impose fees or charges......
Alrighty I correct you, you are wrong. He said:Are you going to say that a gas company can't bill someone for gas unless they check out their circumstances first?
Nothing about charges or penalties there, just bills, entirely different things as I pointed out....... if the law is construed as Twinkyl wants it to be read.
Twinkly doesnt want it to be read a particular way. Twinkly does think it reads a certain way and wants it clarified for everyone on benefits so they know exactly where they stand legally in using this legislation to refute charges. The SSA is obviously unclear or there would be no confusion whatsoever.
Twinkly does feel however that the banks taking money allocated to children as a basic and poverty level living allowance is about as low as you can get, whether the parents need it or not it isnt allocated for an adult it is allocated for a child. Banks need it or not, and the banks should be damned ashamed of themselves. Morally it is obscene.
Tozer you have stated that "charges on assets and income and assignments refer to it BEFORE it gets to the bank account (e.g. a charging order made on earnings / attachment of earnings orders). Once the money is in the account, it is no longer treated to be benefits." I request the source of your information.Twinkly - check out the legislation if you are still not convinced. Honestly, we aren't making it up!
Well now...I keep asking what legislation you are referring to and you still havent provided a source.
I havent paid an awful lot of attention to Exil frankly since they have nothing new to say and merely hang on your coat-tails repeating YOUR statements parrot fashion.
For you I have a little more respect and did expect a definitive answer since you provide source for your comments if asked, and sometimes when not asked, you being a lawyer and everything. I do not understand your deliberate evasion in this instance.
If I ask nicely and say pretty please will you provide a source for the legislation ? Or will Exil swing off the back of your coat and quote the Act at me again. :rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards