Bank withdrawal Q?

helpimcrap · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:04

Hi, I might have already asked this but I can't find a thread.

I won't go into details but in the absence of a bank to ask if anyone works in one and knows an answer please advise. Nothing will be done but I'm just curious to know if I was correct.

Basically one person has a single user bank account and cannot be trusted. They have money going in and that goes on some very bad things. They don't want to but it happens and I know that.

So my question is:
Can that account be turned into an account where it requires 2 people to withdraw money? Not a joint but a single account where it requires an extra level of authorisation because that person knows what is happening. I appreciate this probably goes against human rights but they can do one because the person is killing themselves by having access to money. They do need money for bills etc but the money isn't there to go onto bills.

I'm sure this is easier than going through the courts, police etc by just having a second named user on the account and both have to be present to take it out so neither one will get ripped off.

Hades · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:08

helpimcrap said:
Hi, I might have already asked this but I can't find a thread.

I won't go into details but in the absence of a bank to ask if anyone works in one and knows an answer please advise. Nothing will be done but I'm just curious to know if I was correct.

Basically one person has a single user bank account and cannot be trusted. They have money going in and that goes on some very bad things. They don't want to but it happens and I know that.

So my question is:
Can that account be turned into an account where it requires 2 people to withdraw money? Not a joint but a single account where it requires an extra level of authorisation because that person knows what is happening. I appreciate this probably goes against human rights but they can do one because the person is killing themselves by having access to money. They do need money for bills etc but the money isn't there to go onto bills.

I'm sure this is easier than going through the courts, police etc by just having a second named user on the account and both have to be present to take it out so neither one will get ripped off.

This is going back a bit, but when I managed my fathers will we had joint signatures on cheques. I can't see how a dual control can be placed on internet banking or on a debit card however. So I think the answer is probably no. I'm not an expert however. Just my thoughts.

helpimcrap · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:14

Hades said:
This is going back a bit, but when I managed my fathers will we had joint signatures on cheques. I can't see how a dual control can be placed on internet banking or on a debit card however. So I think the answer is probably no. I'm not an expert however. Just my thoughts.

The card could be kept by another person or could be kept by the bank so only bank withdrawals were allowed. Internet banking they do not have and I think that has to be authorised by the bank which I'm assuming could just be blocked?

Hades · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:18

helpimcrap said:
The card could be kept by another person or could be kept by the bank so only bank withdrawals were allowed. Internet banking they do not have and I think that has to be authorised by the bank which I'm assuming could just be blocked?

The bank won't hold the card for you. Clearly a second person can keep the card away from the first person if the first person agrees to it. But if they don't then they will just report the card as lost/stolen and ask the bank to send a replacement.

EDIT: If the first person agrees then you might be able to get a second person added to the account so that changes to the account need joint signatures. This may help prevent a change of address, closing the account, etc.. But wouldn't help prevent payments.

FurryLemon · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:25

Unless you have legal permission to do this, I wouldn't think so.

helpimcrap · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:26

Hades said:
The bank won't hold the card for you. Clearly a second person can keep the card away from the first person if the first person agrees to it. But if they don't then they will just report the card as lost/stolen and ask the bank to send a replacement.

EDIT: If the first person agrees then you might be able to get a second person added to the account so that changes to the account need joint signatures. This may help prevent a change of address, closing the account, etc.. But wouldn't help prevent payments.

payments is fine as it will be bills that need to be paid.

It's just the withdrawals side of things. I'm convinced the bank manager, once the situation is explained, could implement something similar to what I've suggested in line with the banking code (which I can't find but I'm assuming there are ethical procedures they must follow to protect the client?) and responsibility etc.

Efour · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:27

But I'm curious how a bank would be able to decide they can't access their own money without some kind of court order. The owner would have to agree to a 2nd named person too surely.

Interesting stuff

helpimcrap · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:27

FurryLemon said:
Unless you have legal permission to do this, I wouldn't think so.

It would all be legal and the manager would know etc. It's a lot better than illegal things they do with the money.

FurryLemon · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:30

helpimcrap said:
It would all be legal and the manager would know etc. It's a lot better than illegal things they do with the money.

Legal as in power of attorney.

bsoltan · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:30

Does the person that owns the account want to do this?

helpimcrap · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:31

Efour said:
Banks are open on Saturday I would ring someone asap.
But I'm curious how a bank would be able to decide they can't access their own money without some kind of court order. The owner would have to agree to a 2nd named person too surely.

Interesting stuff

They're only open until 12 and I would walk in rather than ring as I want to explain it properly.

I'm wondering whether a court order would be needed because it is not denying access to money, it is merely controlling it in the presence of an authorised body i.e. bank manager.

It's similar to pubs refusing to serve someone who is already drunk as it is in their best interest is the best analogy I can compare it to?

Hades · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:32

helpimcrap said:
payments is fine as it will be bills that need to be paid.

It's just the withdrawals side of things. I'm convinced the bank manager, once the situation is explained, could implement something similar to what I've suggested in line with the banking code (which I can't find but I'm assuming there are ethical procedures they must follow to protect the client?) and responsibility etc.

Firstly that wouldn't stop cashpoint withdrawals which simply need a pin number.. But secondly the account is currently in the name of a "responsible adult" (I assume). They have full authority over that account. Why would the bank manager just implement a dual control without that persons agreement (even if it were possible)? I'd assume you would need a court order if you don't have agreement of the account owner.

A bank does have a responsibility to check for fraudulent behaviour and also to ensure that payments in or out of the account do not go to sanctioned persons, organisations or countries (there is a sanctions list of entities which the government instruct payments are not allowable to). But this is not for situations where a random person unrelated to the account decides the account owner shouldn't be spending their money on something.

If the account is being used for illegal purposes then advising the police is the correct action but that won't have the effect you are looking for.

helpimcrap · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:33

bsoltan said:
Does the person that owns the account want to do this?

Trust me they have agreed to a lot worse than this and it's questionable whether they are in the correct frame of mind to have a bank account in the first place.

I'm just curious people so if you say no then i'll leave it there.

Efour · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:42

Are they an adult?
Does anyone have power or attorney over them?
If not then I think short of getting them criminally accused of something and the rozzers investigating.
I don't see why the bank should be able.
If you told them the guy was dodgy they would just ring the rozzers themselves.
I don't see another way here...
Unless the guy goes in himself and begs for help? Possible?

chroniclard · 7 Jan 2017 at 14:51

Get the money put into another account in your(someone elses) control?

Destination · 7 Jan 2017 at 15:24

FurryLemon said:
Legal as in power of attorney.

Indeed, power of attorney is what you would be seeking, gives you rights over the other persons money.

BDEE · 7 Jan 2017 at 20:50

Power of attorney would not achieve what the OP is looking for as the person can still operate their own banking.

If the person has lost mental capacity then a Court of Protection Order would be more suited in this scenario, however that doesn't appear to be the case.

The simple answer is NO, you can't. The only way this would work with the person retaining their name on a bank account would be a joint bank account with no cards, no cheque books and a mandate for both account holders to sign for withdrawals. From the sounds of it, anyone would be mad to want to create a financial association with this person, so it is basically a non-starter.

Sounds to me like a more appropriate course of action would be to encourage this person to seek counselling for their drug / drink / gambling / night worker addiction or whatever it is. If they are compos mentis there is nothing more you can do.

helpimcrap · 7 Jan 2017 at 21:20

BDEE said:
Power of attorney would not achieve what the OP is looking for as the person can still operate their own banking.

If the person has lost mental capacity then a Court of Protection Order would be more suited in this scenario, however that doesn't appear to be the case.

The simple answer is NO, you can't. The only way this would work with the person retaining their name on a bank account would be a joint bank account with no cards, no cheque books and a mandate for both account holders to sign for withdrawals. From the sounds of it, anyone would be mad to want to create a financial association with this person, so it is basically a non-starter.

Sounds to me like a more appropriate course of action would be to encourage this person to seek counselling for their drug / drink / gambling / night worker addiction or whatever it is. If they are compos mentis there is nothing more you can do.

Thank you - simple answer and the reasoning was all I was after. Basically this person uses the money buy drugs instead of looking after their kids and the police are aware but the drug workers etc only ignore the use of drugs to keep the levels of methadone low so it looks good on their reports..... it's all coming to a head very soon but it was just something I was curious on.

To me it just seems simple to do it my way, in the care of people who care, but also with people who have a moral obligation in their business rather than spend 6months going through court as the person might be dead by then.

Thanks all.

Destination · 7 Jan 2017 at 21:29

It is not remotely simple your way.
You are suggesting at your say so, a bank manager should agree to stop giving someone money they are legally entitled to.

This would be such an easy system to abuse, far more so, than your friend topping themselves by buying drugs with their money.

helpimcrap · 7 Jan 2017 at 21:33

Hikari Kisugi said:
It is not remotely simple your way.
You are suggesting at your say so, a bank manager should agree to stop giving someone money they are legally entitled to.

This would be such an easy system to abuse, far more so, than your friend topping themselves by buying drugs with their money.

Obviously it would be done so it was bullet-proof and all above board but when dealing with drugs it is so far from that. It is to protect the person who is incapable of being responsible.

It would be easy to abuse which is why I'd insist on safeguards so everyone is safe and well. Dead people can't spend money.