publication
2026-01-15 06:00
update
2026-01-15 06:30
The turn of the old and new year turned out to be extremely unlucky for one of ING's clients. The account subject to the bailiff's seizure received a social grant, and yet the bank transferred the funds exempt from enforcement to the bailiff. The client reported the case to the prosecutor's office and maintains that ING's actions are unlawful. At Bankier.pl we are looking at this case.
The social scholarship went to the bailiff
Mr. Patryk announced the matter in a series of entries on LinkedIn. You can read from them that the client's daughters' social scholarship was transferred to the client's ING accounthowever, the account was seized by bailiffs.
The bank transferred the funds to the bailiff, which, in Mr. Patryk's opinion, was an illegal action. The client refers to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Banking Law, which indicate that scholarships are not subject to enforcement, so ING had no right to send them to the bailiff. The bank commented that the decision to release the funds can only be made by the enforcement authority, and the client, in turn, reported the case to the prosecutor's office, which classified the case as misappropriation. Commentators side with the injured party, but let's check what exactly the law says about exemptions from bailiff seizure.
Social benefits, scholarships and 800+ are not subject to enforcement
Let's take a look at the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically Art. 831 – 833, which indicate funds excluded from enforcement. These include:
- Maintenance,
- family benefits,
- Family and care accessories,
- Social assistance, integration and educational benefits (e.g. 800+),
- Good start benefit (so-called 300+),
- “Active parent” benefit,
- Scholarships and support from the State Treasury.
The bailiff cannot seize popular benefits such as 800+therefore, if such funds are transferred to the account subject to enforcement, he should be informed about it. The Code of Civil Procedure indicates how the seizure of funds on bank accounts takes place (Article 889, paragraph 1):
“In order to carry out enforcement of receivables from a bank account, the bailiff of the general jurisdiction of the debtor:
1) sends to the bank where the debtor has an account a notice of seizure of the debtor's monetary receivable from the bank account up to the amount of the receivable that is the subject of enforcement, together with enforcement costs, and calls on the bank not to make withdrawals from the account without the bailiff's consent up to the amount of the seized receivable or to notify the bailiff within seven days of any obstacle to transferring the seized amount; the notification is also effective if a bank account is not indicated;
2) notifies the debtor about the seizure of his receivables from the bank account, providing him with a copy of the notice addressed to the bank about the prohibition of withdrawals from the bank account.
The key provisions here are that: the bank cannot make withdrawals from the account without the bailiff's consent, but must notify him of any obstacles to the transfer of fundse.g. their origin from sources not subject to enforcement. As Damian Skóra, Court Bailiff at the District Court in Bydgoszcz, points out, the bailiff cannot exclude individual proceeds from seizure because the enforcement applies to the entire balance, so if social benefits are transferred to the account, the bailiff should be informed about the nature of the funds. However, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure indicate that the bank also has room for maneuver here, which has become an axis of contention between the client and ING.
What does banking law say about account enforcement?
In Mr. Patryk's entries we also find a reference to Art. 54a of the Banking Law. This provision indicates funds in accounts free from seizure, which are benefits, allowances and allowances specified in the Code of Civil Procedure and other acts. However, this is where the provision ends – there is no precise indication of whether and what obligations the bank has if it notices that the funds in the account subject to bailiff seizure are not subject to enforcement. The legislator did not indicate how to proceed in this matter, but – according to the ING client – the bank should act automatically and make the funds available to the owner.
The matter seems obvious and banking systems should detect transfers, e.g. from 800+ or other protected benefits. However, the technology can be unreliable and if we also receive other inflows into the account subject to enforcement, the system may fail and not recognize the funds exempt from seizure. After receiving information from the customer, the bank may intervene itself, but on the other hand it is obliged to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is why account owners often wait long weeks for a refund. A solution may be to open a separate social account intended only for receiving social benefits or scholarships, but this does not change the situation of people who have lost access to protected funds.
ING: the bank must transfer the funds to the bailiff
Mr. Patryk is still waiting for the funds to be released. We asked the ING Press Office to comment on the matter. Due to banking secrecy reasons, the bank did not comment on a specific case, but maintains that it cannot release funds from enforcement on its own:
When it comes to an account with seizure, which receives money that is statutorily exempt, e.g. 800 plus, the bank makes it available automatically outside of enforcement. The scholarship is subject to seizure in certain situations. Therefore, at the debtor's request, the enforcement authority may release them. If the bank does not receive consent from the authority, it must transfer the money for seizure. Importantly, the enforcement authority is a public official. The bank cannot replace him in his statutory obligations. – replies Małgorzata Ostrowska from the ING Press Office.
