On another forum I browse, someone mentioned the possibility of bank charges being against the Social Security Administration Act of 1992 if the account holder is in receipt of certain benefits.
Being a curious individual, and one that was in receipt of ESA for a while (and is, indeed, still on DLA) I decided to look up the specific section of the act, and I found this [source was here]:
If my understanding is correct, then a recipient of a given benefit can not be deprived of that benefit - even on bankruptcy interestingly.
Now obviously that covers the benefit in full, but what if one were to be deprived of a portion of the benefit? It's arguable that the recipient is being deprived of the benefit still.
For the sake of completeness; this is what the Contributions and Benefits Act says about Income Related benefits [source was here]:
However, more interestingly - the section referred to above ([source was here) includes this little tidbit:
Parts II - Parts V contain [source was here]:
Naturally, coming from a 1992 act - certain things have been renamed and so on - but the fact still remains, it's still current legislation according to .gov.uk. (They are in fact pretty good at displaying warnings for incorrect/outdated information; and providing amendments as footnotes)
Can anybody cast some light on this? If I understand correctly, then there is a good chance of overturning any bank charges through the use of this legislation.
[Doh, had to remove sources - as a new user I can't post links!]
Being a curious individual, and one that was in receipt of ESA for a while (and is, indeed, still on DLA) I decided to look up the specific section of the act, and I found this [source was here]:
Quote:
|
Certain benefit to be inalienable (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,and every agreement to assign or charge such benefit shall be void; and, on the bankruptcy of a beneficiary, such benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting on behalf of his creditors. |
Now obviously that covers the benefit in full, but what if one were to be deprived of a portion of the benefit? It's arguable that the recipient is being deprived of the benefit still.
For the sake of completeness; this is what the Contributions and Benefits Act says about Income Related benefits [source was here]:
Quote:
|
Prescribed schemes shall provide for the following benefits (in this Act referred to as income-related benefits) (a)income support; (b)family credit; (c)disability working allowance; (d)housing benefit; and (e)community charge benefits. |
Quote:
|
(a)benefit under Parts II to V of this Act other than Old Cases payments; (b)as respects any period before 1st July 1992 but not before 6th April 1975, benefit under Part II of the 1975 Act; or (c)as respects any period before 6th April 1975, benefit under (d)the [1946 c. 67.] National Insurance Act 1946 or [1965 c. 51.] 1965; or (ii)the [1946 c. 62.] National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946 or [1965 c. 52.] 1965; |
Quote:
|
Part II: Contributory Benefits
Part III: Non-Contributory Benefits
|
Can anybody cast some light on this? If I understand correctly, then there is a good chance of overturning any bank charges through the use of this legislation.
[Doh, had to remove sources - as a new user I can't post links!]