Bank Charges, Child Benefit and SMP

Twinkly

26 hours and 16 minutes later no response. **twiddles thumbs**

moogyboobles

My tax credits are being swallowed up by charges...I mistakenly trusted the cash machine when it told me my available balance. I had nothing pending at all, not DDs, hadn't used the card in 2 weeks. It said I had more money than I really did.
So I went overdrawn, got charged. Charges made me overdrawn so I got charges for the charges. They don't send me the notification of the charges until it's too late so I can't even allow for them. Vicious circle. Still the cash machines lie about my balance. I now go into the branch and check my balance to be doubly sure.
I feel the cash machines are tricking me into getting the bank more charges. :mad:

exil

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:

Since I have never insulted you, I fail to see why you should descend to personal attacks. Elsewhere you claim not to have the energy to read through other threads to find information - but you have enough energy to make gratuitous attacks on others.

The legislation has been quoted by tozer several times. It states that a bank (or anyone else) is not allowed to attach benefit income. That is, to intercept it and prevent it reaching the recipient. This is my interpretation - which is why I advised you to look in other threads, other people have different opinions - and until there is a test case opinions are all that can be offered.

Tozer

Twinkly wrote: »

26 hours and 16 minutes later no response. **twiddles thumbs**

Crumbs Twinkly! I'm not your retained lawyer - I was enjoying my weekend for crying out loud!!!

I've told you what the legislation is - Social Security Administration Act 1992. As you are an incredibly doubting Thomas, here is a link to the primary legislation. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920005_en_1

What you have to is point your cursor (using the mouse) and click the left button on the mouse...

Really don't think there is any need for the insults and stroppiness demonstrated. It is incredibly gracious just to admit you are wrong.

Twinkly

exil wrote: »

Since I have never insulted you, I fail to see why you should descend to personal attacks. Elsewhere you claim not to have the energy to read through other threads to find information - but you have enough energy to make gratuitous attacks on others.

The legislation has been quoted by tozer several times. It states that a bank (or anyone else) is not allowed to attach benefit income. That is, to intercept it and prevent it reaching the recipient. This is my interpretation - which is why I advised you to look in other threads, other people have different opinions - and until there is a test case opinions are all that can be offered.

I wasnt going to mention, but since you have, the answer you gave to a particular question, stated elsewhere aimed at a particular group of claimants, clearly does insult me and was dealt with as such as shown here :

Straight Question: Sarcastic Flippant And Unhelpful Response

Mentioning it in this thread and reference in clear condescension and ridicule of my condition is unacceptable. You should be ashamed of yourself at taking such a sly and low cheap shot.

I do not feel my 'attack' on you was gratuitous and I make no apology for it. The comment about you swinging off Tozers coat tails was that of observation of evidence of same. You may care to observe yourself that it was made in good humour, hence the indicative laughing icon.

Ultimately you have publicly refuted Martins references to the Act stating that he is "100% wrong". I have asked for legal evidence that he is "100% wrong". You failed to provide anything and your statement is hardly credible without it.

Shouting it out and then running off to hide behind Tozer and their assumed legal expertise is as disrespectful to Tozer as it is to Martin and the readers of his articles and forum.

Twinkly

Tozer wrote: »

Crumbs Twinkly! I'm not your retained lawyer - I was enjoying my weekend for crying out loud!!!

I've told you what the legislation is - Social Security Administration Act 1992. As you are an incredibly doubting Thomas, here is a link to the primary legislation. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920005_en_1

What you have to is point your cursor (using the mouse) and click the left button on the mouse...

Really don't think there is any need for the insults and stroppiness demonstrated. It is incredibly gracious just to admit you are wrong.

Tozer if any lawyer I was retaining failed to clairify the advice they were giving me, and simply repeating the same old thing over and over, they would be stapled to their desk until they did.

If it took all weekend to make them speak plain english and provide evidence of prior statements then so be it. As you state, you are not my retained lawyer, and I do hope you enjoyed your weekend.

Just to reiterate slightly,

Tozer wrote: »

...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 requested the source of your information.

I read the Act stated extensively quite a while ago and decline your ridiculous education in how to utilise a web site.

Really don't think there is any need for the sarcasm condescension and evasion demonstrated. It is incredibly gracious just to admit you can not provide a source for the definitive statements you expect others to read, believe and act upon.

Tozer

Twinkly wrote: »

Tozer if any lawyer I was retaining failed to clairify the advice they were giving me, and simply repeating the same old thing over and over, they would be stapled to their desk until they did.

If it took all weekend to make them speak plain english and provide evidence of prior statements then so be it. As you state, you are not my retained lawyer, and I do hope you enjoyed your weekend.

Just to reiterate slightly,



I requested the source of your information.

I read the Act stated extensively quite a while ago and decline your ridiculous education in how to utilise a web site.

Really don't think there is any need for the sarcasm condescension and evasion demonstrated. It is incredibly gracious just to admit you can not provide a source for the definitive statements you expect others to read, believe and act upon.

Sorry, finding this argument a bit odd. It is not repeating the same old thing at all. You asked where the legislation was. You've had the particular section posted and a link sent to it but you keep on saying that you haven't seen it. What is your issue? How am I being evasive?

You say you've read the Act but then say that you haven't seen the legislation. I am finding this really very strange!

Tozer

Twinkly wrote: »

Shouting it out and then running off to hide behind Tozer and their assumed legal expertise is as disrespectful to Tozer as it is to Martin and the readers of his articles and forum.

Oh and just for the record, I don't find Exil's comments at all disrespectful.

I really don't like the way this argument is proceeding so, with all due respect, propose not to get involved in it any further. Frankly, I have better things to do. I try and help people as best I can on this board - check out my other posts - but am finding this a little like banging my head against a brick wall with someone who appears to be degenerating this into personal attacks.

Twinkly

moogyboobles wrote: »

My tax credits are being swallowed up by charges...I mistakenly trusted the cash machine when it told me my available balance. I had nothing pending at all, not DDs, hadn't used the card in 2 weeks. It said I had more money than I really did.
So I went overdrawn, got charged. Charges made me overdrawn so I got charges for the charges. They don't send me the notification of the charges until it's too late so I can't even allow for them. Vicious circle. Still the cash machines lie about my balance. I now go into the branch and check my balance to be doubly sure.
I feel the cash machines are tricking me into getting the bank more charges. :mad:

Personally I would make complaint to the Financial Ombudsman at the sloppy practice shown and the charges incurred as a result.

The ATM is supposedly an extension of the banks services to you whether you pay for it or not. If that service is not performed efficiently and costs you money as a result it deserves investigation. Get some ATM printouts and bank statements that clearly show the discrepencies as evidence for your complaint and good luck with it

Twinkly

Tozer wrote: »

Sorry, finding this argument a bit odd. It is not repeating the same old thing at all. You asked where the legislation was. You've had the particular section posted and a link sent to it but you keep on saying that you haven't seen it. What is your issue? How am I being evasive?

You say you've read the Act but then say that you haven't seen the legislation. I am finding this really very strange!

Hm. Finding it odd that you intepret repeated request for specific answer to a relevant and valid question as an 'arguement'.

The questions remains:

Tozer wrote: »

...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 have asked for the source of your information. In reply you have directed me to a 26 page legal document.

I said I had read the Act extensively but I do not state that I havent seen the legislation you are referring to. However I will state that I have not seen any text that matches your statement exactly, nor implies it.

I assumed I had made it clear that I required precise legal reference to the comment stated above, my apologies for the omission, and I amend the request accordingly. You are at liberty to respond appropriately and precisely.

Ah, I see you have posted twice so...

Tozer wrote: »

Oh and just for the record, I don't find Exil's comments at all disrespectful.

Oh well, just for the record, I do. Exil rejects Martins advice 100%, unsubstantiated, and evidently agrees with yours 100%, again unsubstantiated. It is hardly helpful to those that need some precise legal guidance and it is indeed appropriate that such is queried.

I have not 'attacked' anyone and I am perplexed at the melodrama. I laughed at Exil, if that is an 'attack' then I offer the friendly advice that the poor !!!!!! needs to get a thicker skin if they intend to survive an online forum. They would probably do well to treat such 'attacks' in the spirit they are given.

I have experienced stroke and have the condition FMS. I dealt with Exils direct and nasty slur regarding such on me personally with dignity, appropriate response and with laughter.

Regardless, I dismissed Exil and their 'help' way back in the thread and I fail to comprehend your vociferous defence of them in consideration of all circumstances. Lets agree to disagree on that one.

Tozer wrote: »

I really don't like the way this argument is proceeding so with all due respect, propose not to get involved in it any further. Frankly, I have better things to do. I try and help people as best I can on this board - check out my other posts - but am finding this a little like banging my head against a brick wall with someone who appears to be degenerating this into personal attacks.....,

I do not argue. I respond to points raised in discussion. There is a difference and the one outstanding and valid question remains unanswered.

I will concede that most of the time you do help people the best you can. I appreciate on assumption that you are advising people not to rely on this Act in court but to actively discourage them from presenting it in any legal arguement without solid legal grounds for doing so does not help them at all, in my opinion.

You must concede that I have not 'attacked' you personally. It is shown that the Act prohibits charges or assignments on benefits and Martin is 100% right to state the Act may help until he is proven wrong. In the absence of precise legislation stating that banks are particularly exempt from placing charge on benefit income the Act remains as valid legal argument against such practice in court.

To base your evasion of definitive answer to the query of your comments on this issue with claims of degenerative personal attack is spurious (plausible but false).

However I acknowledge your withdrawal from the question entirely and the implication that you will not/can not provide specific source or legal reference to your stated comment.