Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Paloma
    • By Former MSE Paloma 5th Aug 14, 12:09 PM
    • 526Posts
    • 245Thanks
    Former MSE Paloma
    'Huge anger over HMRC wanting to raid peopleís savings' blog discussion
    • #1
    • 5th Aug 14, 12:09 PM
    'Huge anger over HMRC wanting to raid peopleís savings' blog discussion 5th Aug 14 at 12:09 PM
    This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.





    Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.
Page 1
  • jamesd
    • #2
    • 5th Aug 14, 12:41 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Aug 14, 12:41 PM
    I agree, we now have better law in place than that around when the right of offset was of use. Both it and the corresponding contract-based term used by non-banks should be prohibited.

    I had an interesting experience with First Direct where if I'd overpaid on a flexible offset current account mortgage they would have seized the money in the mortgage account. They couldn't because I knew of this risk and had left the money in the offset savings account. What happened was their security team taking a dislike to me buying currency in the most efficient unit size/amount even though the week earlier their normal customer service had agreed to 60 of those transactions. Until they listened to the call the security team was going to do that seizing, convert my mortgage to a standard mortgage and close the offset current and savings accounts. All for completely legal transactions that didn't breach the account terms.

    Unconventional lenders aren't necessarily better. I had one of the P2P lenders overcharge me interest in two different ways on the same loan, issue incorrect annual statements and so far they are declining to refund the interest for the periods covered by the incorrect annual statements.
    • Paul_Herring
    • By Paul_Herring 5th Aug 14, 1:32 PM
    • 6,852 Posts
    • 3,521 Thanks
    Paul_Herring
    • #3
    • 5th Aug 14, 1:32 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Aug 14, 1:32 PM
    Yet I thought it worth pointing out that while we object to the taxman doing it, we have already given banks the power to do something very similar
    Apples to oranges I'm afraid.

    One is subject to the laws of the land (with various ways round the setting off rules such as don't hold savings with the same institutions you have debt with,) the other is the government who are able (and are) changing those laws on a whim.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
    • MSE Martin
    • By MSE Martin 5th Aug 14, 2:02 PM
    • 8,115 Posts
    • 42,285 Thanks
    MSE Martin
    • #4
    • 5th Aug 14, 2:02 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Aug 14, 2:02 PM
    Apples to oranges I'm afraid.

    One is subject to the laws of the land (with various ways round the setting off rules such as don't hold savings with the same institutions you have debt with,) the other is the government who are able (and are) changing those laws on a whim.
    Originally posted by Paul_Herring

    I think its oranges to satsumas. These are very similar but not identical. Many people are totally unaware of this right from the banks (just read the facebook discussion from the blog) therefore it works in practice the same way.

    The point still stands. Neither should be allowed. We have a court system, its job is to order money to be paid - at that point I accept raiding bank accounts. Not before (unless for tax injunctive risk of unfair money flight)
    Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
    Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.

    Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips.

    Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 000
    • jk0
    • By jk0 5th Aug 14, 2:40 PM
    • 2,981 Posts
    • 26,484 Thanks
    jk0
    • #5
    • 5th Aug 14, 2:40 PM
    • #5
    • 5th Aug 14, 2:40 PM
    That's why it's important not to take a credit card from the same bank as you bank with.

    If you listened to Osborne's speech when he announced this about HMRC, he let slip that it was the IMF that was making him do it.
    Last edited by jk0; 05-08-2014 at 5:02 PM. Reason: spelling
    • bexhill
    • By bexhill 6th Aug 14, 7:53 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    bexhill
    • #6
    • 6th Aug 14, 7:53 PM
    • #6
    • 6th Aug 14, 7:53 PM
    It was the case that banks had to ask you to sign a letter of set off to give them permission to set off balances of credit account/s against overdrawn accounts. I have not aware that I have ever been advised otherwise and not having given the Bank a mandate to manipulate my accounts I would suggest that an unauthorised set off is illegal.
    The failsafe is as suggested keep your borrowing with a different banking group to that which has any account with a credit balance.
    Similarly take care with direct debits that they don't take money from your account which you need for more urgent purposes.
    • Paul_Herring
    • By Paul_Herring 6th Aug 14, 8:09 PM
    • 6,852 Posts
    • 3,521 Thanks
    Paul_Herring
    • #7
    • 6th Aug 14, 8:09 PM
    • #7
    • 6th Aug 14, 8:09 PM
    It was the case that banks had to ask you to sign a letter of set off to give them permission to set off balances of credit account/s against overdrawn accounts.
    Originally posted by bexhill
    Now it's in your T&C's.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
    • bowlhead99
    • By bowlhead99 10th Aug 14, 9:31 AM
    • 8,827 Posts
    • 16,163 Thanks
    bowlhead99
    • #8
    • 10th Aug 14, 9:31 AM
    • #8
    • 10th Aug 14, 9:31 AM
    The point still stands. Neither should be allowed. We have a court system, its job is to order money to be paid - at that point I accept raiding bank accounts. Not before (unless for tax injunctive risk of unfair money flight)
    Originally posted by MSE Martin
    I'm not sure I agree with this - though I can understand that this is a consumer champion website and so one would expect it to be taking that stance rather than being on the banks' side.

    If I give a pal £1000 for safekeeping and never pay him back that £100 I owe him, I understand that he doesn't want to give me over £900 back. To have him need to take me to small claims court for the £100 would seem OTT. Maybe that's an 'oranges to satsumas' analogy too as he is not a regulated financial services business but it is not in my mind an abuse of power or trust.

    Looking at the blog post, the woman who had not repaid some sort of debt to the bank on time but wanted to splash out on a wedding via her account should have first faced her responsibilities. If the bank 'immediately snaffled' the wedding fund it sounds like we are not just talking about her owing a tenner for overdraft fees.

    Alternatively if she didn't want to face up to those debts, she could have 'hidden' the wedding money at a rival bank ; or had the family member pay it for her direct rather than dump it into her own account en route. Those latter two options are perhaps morally objectionable (if you come from a camp that believes people should pay off their overdue debts before taking the family gift and blowing it on a wedding party), but certainly spinning a sensationalist soundbite like 'bank snaffled my wedding fund' is going to drive more site traffic and garner support for the consumers versus banks crusade.
    • mjm3346
    • By mjm3346 10th Aug 14, 11:10 AM
    • 40,401 Posts
    • 311,898 Thanks
    mjm3346
    • #9
    • 10th Aug 14, 11:10 AM
    • #9
    • 10th Aug 14, 11:10 AM
    Where is this "huge anger"? Certainly isn't huge by numbers, presumably just a "very very small" percentage of the population really really really really angry.
    • Buzby
    • By Buzby 10th Aug 14, 2:51 PM
    • 8,201 Posts
    • 3,011 Thanks
    Buzby
    And still some folk wonder why Scotland has an appetite for independence? At a stroke of a pen (two strokes, actually) we get a chance to give HMRC it's marching orders. There will be a replacement, of course, but one that is expected to be less interested in using bullying tactics.

    Even the recent hounding of Rangers FC (where HMRC have already lost TWO appeals) and are trying again for their third, is testament to many that the opportunity to change should not be wasted.
    • Consumerist
    • By Consumerist 29th Aug 14, 11:44 AM
    • 5,221 Posts
    • 2,606 Thanks
    Consumerist
    There was a time when HMRC could be trusted to get things right but these days they are just incompetent. Should such a dysfunctional government agency be given the right to raid our savings accounts without having to demonstrate their right to do so?
    Warning: In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,720Posts Today

7,915Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @thismorning: As a ban on rip-off bank fees is announced, @MartinSLewis explains if you can reclaim, and how to cut your overdraft costs?

  • RT @justinbones: Just looking at how the bad weather may be impacting business and the economy. Thankfully someone has already looked at th?

  • RT @bbc5live: .@MartinSLewis joins @EmmaBarnett from midday to answer your money saving questions. ???? 08085 909 693 ???? 85058 Or post your q?

  • Follow Martin