logo

U.S. PIRG Consumer Blog

« Passenger rights bill takes off in House | Main | Mattel takes our advice, apologizes to China »

September 21, 2007

Banks freezing Social Security benefits

We joined other leading consumer groups in signing on to testimony by the National Consumer Law Center before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday. The hearing concerned whether banks are failing to protect Social Security recipients from illegal and improper seizure of their exempt benefits. The issue has grown in importance as more and more consumers receive benefits electronically. Excerpt from testimony by Margot Saunders of NCLC:

We estimate that on a monthly basis thousands of low income recipients of Social Security, SSI and other federal payments whose benefits are entirely exempt from claims of judgment creditors are left temporarily destitute when banks allow attachments and garnishments to freeze their only assets. As was illustrated in a recent Wall Street Journal article ("The Debt Collector vs. The Widow -- Viola Sue Kell thought her Social Security benefits were safe in the bank. She was wrong."), when a bank applies an attachment 14 or garnishment order to the exempt funds in a low income recipient's bank account, the consequences are generally devastating. There is no money for food or medicine. Checks written for rent or the mortgage are bounced. People go hungry. They get sick or sicker. They suffer anxiety. They are forced to pay steep bank fees and fees to merchants because the checks they wrote when they had money in the bank now bounce.

The banks (backed by their captive regulators, at least until yesterday's hearing), of course, use the first part of the Bart Simpson defense: "it's not my fault, I wasn't there, I didn't do it." More from our joint NCLC testimony:

We disagree with this assessment as a legal matter and as a policy matter. Legally, the cases have not yet caught up with the technological situation that exempt funds directly deposited in bank accounts presents, but the case law presents no bar to such a requirement. As a policy matter, how can there be any dispute that the funds provided by American taxpayers to keep this nation's elderly and disabled from starvation and destitution should be kept available rather than frozen for the convenience of creditors who have no right to the monies?
The NCLC also pointed out another problem inherent in the growth of direct deposit: it saves the banks' in handling costs, yet also allows them to easily pile on ka-ching fees to dribble money from the beneficiaries' accounts and into heir own coffers. Of course, the banks that are using sophisticated accounting and computer systems to siphon profits out of the pockets of the near-destitute claim that they cannot keep track of whether creditor attachments to those accounts are taking exempt benefits or not. Of course they would say that. What do you expect?

Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at September 21, 2007 06:40 AM


Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?



218 D. Street, SE Washington, DC 20003
Phone (202) 546-9707

E-mail: