Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill [HL]

I appreciate that, wherever the word ““customer”” appears, the noble Lord would change it to ““owner””. In responding to the noble Lord, I have to resort to strict legal terms as to why ““customer”” rather than ““owner”” is used. Strictly speaking, the customer does not own the money in the account. The balance on an account is a debt that the bank owes to the customer. In other words, the customer owns a right to enforce the debt, as opposed to owning the asset. That is a strict legal definition and one does not know how much that would affect the position but, as I understand it, that is the main reason why the term ““customer””, as opposed to ““owner””, has been employed in the drafting of the Bill. Of course, heirs can still claim money back if they prove their claim; in those circumstances, they become the customer. However, because of the strict legal position, we think that on balance it is better to leave the term ““customer”” in the Bill rather than change it to ““owner””.