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
Building society to bank
Ollyisagudun
Posts: 4 Newbie
Hi I have a savings account with halifax which I've had since before it was a bank which (because I was under 18) had my mothers name as well as my own on it. My mother had an account as so did my sister. The Halifax only paid out one lot for my mothers account when it changed to a bank which she did split between us at the time. This never sat right with me always thinking they'd managed to get out of giving me and my sister what we deserved because of the name on the accounts. Just wondering if anyone knows the legality of this situation?
0
Comments
-
You'd need to find out what the exact rules were at the time of the demutualisation, but according to this old thread "you needed to be over 16 in 1996, and have at least £500 in savings" in order to qualify for the free shares, although there was also a comment that "An adult holding an account on behalf of several individuals was seen as one person", which may align with your (very!) long-held grudge.
In terms of the legality of anything they did over twenty years ago, it seems somewhat unlikely that it wouldn't have been challenged robustly at the time if it was questionable, and in any event, even if you had got your hands on the shares, they've lost value substantially since back then.
So, to borrow a phrase from 'Frozen', let it go....0 -
Not quite sure what you're getting at. If you were a minor (and/or your account was somehow linked to your mother's) you may simply not have been entitled to anything. The change happened 20 years ago, in 1997, so you've taken a long time to think about it!
And, if I recall correctly, there was no 'pay-out' when the Halifax converted to a bank, just an offering of shares.
Which (now that they are Lloyds Group shares) have become fairly worthless.0 -
From what I remember in general for such demutualisations...
To be eligible one had to have held at least a minimum amount for a minimum period.
In the case of joint accounts only the first named got some free shares.
In the case of accounts for minors there may have been a cash payment instead of shares.
Payments / shares were issued to those who could be contacted. After a certain date unclaimed shares were sold but the cash could be claimed. After a later date the cash was forfeited.
ETA http://www.unclaimedfinances.co.uk/halifax-and-unclaimed-money.html0 -
Ollyisagudun wrote: ». This never sat right with me always thinking they'd managed to get out of giving me and my sister what we deserved because of the name on the accounts
Deserved? What did you do to deserve free shares? Perhaps the word you were looking for was entitled?0 -
-
Ollyisagudun wrote: »Hi I have a savings account with halifax which I've had since before it was a bank which (because I was under 18) had my mothers name as well as my own on it. My mother had an account as so did my sister. The Halifax only paid out one lot for my mothers account when it changed to a bank which she did split between us at the time. This never sat right with me always thinking they'd managed to get out of giving me and my sister what we deserved because of the name on the accounts. Just wondering if anyone knows the legality of this situation?
Demutualisation happened in 1997. Legally it's over and done with. I'd assume statute of limitations comes into play.
Child accounts were dealt with in two ways. If the account was solely in the name of the child a distribution of reserves, equal to 4% of the balance of the account, was credited to the account. In most cases this 4% was paid on nominal child sized balances worth very little.
In the case of an account held "in re" by an adult for the child, which looks like your situation, the society's rules deemed the account to be held and owned by the adult. Where an adult held multiple accounts the balances were combined to determine the number of Plc shares issued. This was voted on and agreed democratically by the society's members.
As for the bolded bit, you "deserved" the number of shares a child was entitled to hold. Nil. Children can't hold shares. The way the distribution worked meant, if the combined balances were in excess of £1,000, Mum got more shares and more value out of it.
It really is time to let this go. The 2008 collapse of HBOS means that over 90% of the value of the shares has been lost anyway. You're somehow seeking compensation for something you weren't entitled to and is worth very little now in any case, notwithstanding dividends paid.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards