Parents need to check for lost bank account with £2,200 unclaimed cash, says HMRC
These accounts, known as Child Trust Funds, were set up for every child born between September 2002 and January 2011.
1
A staggering £1.4billion belonging to 671,000 young people is waiting to be claimed, but many don't know these accounts exist or that they can access the money.
HMRC said the average savings pot is worth £2,212.
It is now urging parents to check if their children are eligible.
In a post on X, they said: "If your child is between 18 and 22, they can cash in their #ChildTrustFund. The average amount claimed is £2,200."
Parents can check for Child Trust Funds on the HMRC website at gov.uk/child-trust-funds/find-a-child-trust-fund.
You need to be over 16 or a parent to use the service.
To check for your child, you'll need their full name, address, and date of birth.
To check for yourself, you'll need your name, address, date of birth, and National Insurance number.
The tool will tell you which provider holds the Child Trust Fund, but it won't show how much money is in the account.
Once you've filled in the form, HMRC will send you a letter with the details.
If you apply online, you should get this within three weeks.
Postal applications may take a bit longer.
If you don't hear back within six weeks, you should write to HMRC to follow up.
Once you know who the provider is, you can contact them to withdraw or transfer the money.
What are Child Trust Funds?
CHILD Trust Funds are tax-free savings accounts that were set up by the Government for children born between September 2002 and January 2011.
The Government paid £250 into each account, or £500 for children from low-income families.
Another payment was made when the child turned seven, depending on their family's financial situation.
In 2010, payments were reduced to £50 for well-off families and £100 for lower-income households.
The scheme was scrapped in 2011 and replaced by Junior ISAs.
Many parents stopped adding money to the accounts, and they were forgotten.
The funds are held by banks, building societies, and other savings providers - not by the Government.
Young people can take control of their account at 16 but can only withdraw the money when they turn 18.
What can I do with the cash?
Most people transfer the money into a bank account, invest it, or move it into an ISA.
You can ask your Child Trust Fund provider to pay the money directly into your bank account by providing your bank details.
If you'd prefer to invest the money, you can transfer it into an ISA for tax-free savings.
If you transfer money from a Child Trust Fund into an adult ISA when it matures, it won't count towards your £20,000 annual ISA limit for over-18s.
For those under 18, it's often better to move the money into a Junior ISA.
Junior ISAs usually have lower fees and more investment options, according to AJ Bell.
The money will stay locked until you turn 18, but you'll still get the tax-free benefits of an ISA.
You can transfer the full amount from the Child Trust Fund into a Junior ISA and still add up to £9,000 more in the same tax year.
How can I find the best savings rates?
WITH your current savings rates in mind, don't waste time looking at individual banking sites to compare rates - it'll take you an eternity.
Research price comparison websites such as Compare the Market, Go.Compare and MoneySupermarket.
These will help you save you time and show you the best rates available.
They also let you tailor your searches to an account type that suits you.
As a benchmark, you'll want to consider any account that currently pays more interest than the current level of inflation - 3.4%.
It's always wise to have some money stashed inside an easy-access savings account to ensure you have quick access to cash to deal with any emergencies like a boiler repair, for example.
If you're saving for a long-term goal, then consider locking some of your savings inside a fixed bond, as these usually come with the highest savings rates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
24 minutes ago
- BBC News
British Grand Prix: Silverstone boss wants better transport links
The managing director of Silverstone said he was speaking to the government about how it could support the British Grand Prix, including improving transport to the Pringle was at a No.10 Downing Street reception on Wednesday to mark 75 years of Formula 1, along with the Formula One Group CEO Stefano said the race at Silverstone was one of the few on the F1 calendar which does not receive any public funds, but backing for the event was "not just a case of doling out money".At the event, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he wanted to hear "what more we as a government can do to support" Formula 1. The Northamptonshire circuit has a contract to host the British Grand Prix until hosted the first ever Formula 1 World Championship race 75 years ago and has hosted the UK leg exclusively since Pringle told BBC Radio Northampton's Annabel Amos: "We've never received public money to help pay the fee [for hosting the Grand Prix] and that is where most countries use their public money, although some have it put into infrastructure."I think we're going to have a conversation with government [about support]".But he said it was not just about money but rather boosting the motorsport industry and infrastructure around the circuit. Mr Pringle said: "The government recognises that the motorsport industry, the high-performance motorsport engineering sector, is extremely important to the United Kingdom."The contribution to gross domestic product from motorsport is growing and growing."So the sort of things I want to talk about are connectivity, about how we can have better public transport to this part of the country. Rail would be good if we could bring people closer to Silverstone by rail."He also said he want to look at how road journeys could be improved, which was also raised by the F1 CEO earlier in the prime minister said Formula 1 was "really important" to the said at Wednesday's reception he wanted to "talk about the future and to invite [Formula 1] to work with us". Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Just raise tax? No, there's only one way out of this mess
On Wednesday, fears that Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' would further swell America's towering public debt triggered a sharp sell-off in government bonds across the advanced world. As anxiety swept global markets, UK gilts were hit especially hard, with US jitters coinciding with Labour's failed welfare bill. Before reversing on Thursday, government borrowing costs in the UK increased by even more than in the US. You would be hard-pressed today to find a serious investor who believes that Rachel Reeves's fiscal arithmetic adds up. The only question ahead of the autumn Budget now seems to be not whether, but by how much, she will raise taxes to balance the books. This week's cover of the New Statesman captures the view from the Left. It reads 'Just raise tax'. Since our ageing population is adding to the demands on public healthcare systems and welfare, Left-of-centre analysts argue that Britain simply needs to face the facts and increase taxes to finance the necessary spending. The solution put forward by the Right is not to raise tax thresholds but to cut them. Have you not heard of the Laffer curve? They say that the way to increase tax receipts is to reduce tax rates. Both sides are wrong. Putting taxes up would not only be wildly unpopular, but it would further weaken Britain's already mediocre growth rate. Cutting taxes in a major way is also a non-starter – Liz Truss tried that already, and remember what happened. Across the whole spectrum of British politics, policymakers have become prisoners of their own economic ignorance when it comes to the causes and solutions of our present fiscal dilemma. Is this situation hopeless? Not at all. There is, in fact, a way to increase tax yields and hence finance higher public spending without raising tax rates. But the debate needs to refocus on the underlying causes of the fiscal gap and escape the siloed thinking about whether tax rates should go up or down, as if that is the only choice. The Government faces a serious constraint because of its promise not to raise rates on the big three taxes – on income, employee National Insurance and VAT. But this does not mean that policymakers have no options to increase the tax yields in these areas. Britain's persistent tax shortfall is a symptom of a persistent growth shortfall, caused by the excessive weight of misguided rules and regulations that arbitrarily slow and even prohibit all sorts of economic activities that would otherwise take place. Remove the economic straitjacket on our factors of production – land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship – and the fiscal problems will be solved. Needlessly restrictive and complex planning and zoning regulations prevent a much-needed increase in the stock of housing, transport infrastructure, factories and offices. We have left the EU only to discover that our Eurosclerosis is home-grown. The surest way to boost the revenues to the Exchequer from income tax and National Insurance would be to implement pro-employment policies that increase the number of people in jobs. Instead, with the Employment Rights Bill, minimum wage increases and the uplift in employers' National Insurance, Labour has delivered the most anti-employment policies in a generation. The unemployment rate has risen from 4.1pc to 4.6pc during Labour's first year in office and looks likely to rise further. Over the coming years, any rise in employment and incomes will be lower than it could have been. Economists have long known that increasing the ratio of capital to workers is the only way to increase productivity in the long run. But capital, which includes vehicles, machines and computers, needs power. The more cheap power is available, the greater the opportunities for capital to deepen and productivity growth. However, under our dogged decarbonisation push, we have reduced the availability of electricity to the economy by around a fifth since the peak in 2005. This decline has occurred due to the planned decommissioning of electricity production facilities powered by coal, oil, and even nuclear. Ahead of the election, Labour was making all the right noises. But the early promises to focus on growth with a pro-business message seem to have given way to a damaging and self-defeating cycle of growth disappointments and tax increases. Fears over higher taxes encourage saving and lacklustre spending and investment, which lowers tax yields across the board. Chronically fearful consumers are saving more than 10pc of their income, despite average annual real wage gains of nearly 2pc for over two years while businesses sit on near-record cash balances. Taxes, like public services, are a second derivative of the real economy. We depend on the profits and investment of British industry, as well as the incomes and spending of private sector workers, to finance our public sector. The UK does not need to raise taxes; it needs to raise supply. Cutting red tape to promote these activities is the path to fiscal sustainability.
BBC News
39 minutes ago
- BBC News
Fire and asbestos complicate old Norwich shoe factory demolition
Fire damage, asbestos, and the location of a derelict shoe factory have created "significant demolition challenges", experts from more than a dozen stations tackled January's blaze at the former Van-Dal shoe factory on Dibden Road in director of Anglian Demolition Lee Storer said there was "no rule book" about how to dismantle a site like praised local residents for their patience and confirmed the team remained on track to complete the demolition in two weeks' time. Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service said the blaze damaged up to 75% of the building and took between three and four hours to bring under of the site was under way, and Mr Storer said it was a challenging job due to the location being in a tight residential said local residents had been fantastic and appreciated "the complexities of the job". As well as the location, he said the job was challenging due to structural damage caused by the fire and the dangerous building materials used in its City Council said at the time of the fire, the site contained asbestos and it was arranging for tests to be carried out."You have got to try to predict what the building's going to do under those sorts of conditions," Mr Storer said."There is no rule book for it because the damage is quite extensive in the structure of the building."If you're pulling one part of the building down, you have to consider how it affects the next part." Norfolk Police has since dropped its investigation into the attended a blaze at the same location in site is owned by Flagship Homes. Managing director Tony Tann said he wanted to create affordable properties that Norwich "urgently needs"."This is about creating homes, communities and places where people can thrive," he closure of the facility, Norwich's last remaining shoe factory, was announced in 2018. Follow Norfolk news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
