A young worker says she has been cut off from her own money after her bank allegedly froze her account without warning, then advised her to seek help through Centrelink.

Zoe Graham, 26, said Up Bank placed a hold on her funds while it investigates a disputed transaction.

Ms Graham said she sold a rare book online for $90 about four months ago. However, the buyer later claimed the item had not arrived and accused her of being a scammer.

The digital bank told Ms Graham it was unable to offer financial assistance while her account remained under review, but suggested she contact welfare and support services.

The charity worker said she had recently been paid when she discovered she could not access ‘every single cent I own right now’. She said she had been told the Up Bank investigation could take weeks.

‘Approximately a four week wait time. How is this legal?’ she told Daily Mail.

‘Up is the worst, most patronising customer service I’ve ever dealt with. They won’t help me and keep repeating that the investigation is under way.

‘They advise that the only way to dissolve the claim is to contact the buyer … but I cannot after many failed attempts.’

The bank advised Ms Graham to seek emergency support from Centrelink and AskIzzy, a service that helps people find food, accommodation and financial aid. 

‘I am most definitely not eligible for Centrelink or AskIzzy resources,’ Ms Graham said.

‘I work full time…but I certainly still have bills to pay and no way to pay them.’

In messages to Ms Graham, only sent after she realised on Friday she could not use the funds in her account, Up Bank said restrictions had been placed on her account while its team conducted an account review.

‘This means you won’t be able to make purchases or send payments. Your incoming payments will be impacted during this time,’ the bank wrote.

‘These reviews typically take up to 4 weeks to complete. We’ve already escalated your case to our specialist team, who will reach out directly with further information.’

The bank later advised it could not offer financial assistance directly but suggested she seek external support services. 

‘While we aren’t able to provide financial assistance directly, I do want to make sure you have access to some helpful resources who can provide the support you need and deserve,’ the message read.

‘AskIzzy is a great tool to find local organisations that can help with financial assistance, emergency accommodation and access to food and other necessities.

‘Centrelink also provide crisis payments for those in need of extra support.’

Ms Graham said she had supplied the customer’s information and tracking details to the bank to try and resolve the dispute, but remained locked out of her funds.

‘I have provided all the tracking information and her details to show where it went to but Up won’t budge,’ she said.

‘(They) have told me I have to contact her but I cannot. I’m blocked.’

In a follow-up message, the bank said it had an ‘obligation to act on reports received from other institutions’ and that payments to Ms Graham’s account had been flagged by alerts from other banks. 

‘Due to the above, your account is under investigation and we’ve placed restrictions on your account preventing debits and credits until the investigation is complete,’ the message read.

Ms Graham said she had also been advised not to open an account with another bank while the investigation is ongoing. 

Up Bank, Bendigo Bank’s youth-focused digital banking brand, launched as a mobile-only app in 2018 and is headed by Xavier Shay.

Ms Graham is not alone, with several other Up Bank customers leaving one-star reviews claiming they were also frozen out of their accounts. 

‘Had my account cancelled without any prior notice or anything due to breaking their terms and conditions with a transaction that they deemed suspicious when it was just a normal transaction,’ one wrote.

‘Locked my funds behind a ID verification that never gets accepted.’

‘One day, they put my account on hold,’ another added.

‘All my payments/Centrelink were going in there. They said they would need to do an investigation and until then had my funds on hold also said it could take up to six weeks.

‘Gave me some wishy washy story and advice about food banks and getting help from Salvos. No I didn’t need Salvos, or a couch or mattress to sleep on, I wanted access to my own money to buy food, or alcohol or cigarettes if I wanted to.’

Ms Graham said she intended to lodge a complaint with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority.

‘The fact that they’ve done this with no call to me is absolutely disgusting,’ she said.

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, which owns Up Bank, has been contacted for comment.

A bitter struggle for power is unfolding at the highest levels of Iran’s government, where hardline security officials are pressing for a sharper confrontation with the United States. The dispute has also intensified scrutiny over who is truly directing the country while Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei remains out of public view.

A wide-ranging New York Times report published Sunday describes how those tensions spilled into the open after a hardline faction allegedly ordered attacks on three commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz in July. The operation was reportedly carried out without the knowledge of President Masoud Pezeshkian, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Gen. Ahmad Vahidi or Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and helped unravel a U.S.-Iran agreement reached only weeks before.

According to the report, the incident triggered heated confrontations, resignation threats and mutual allegations of treason inside Tehran’s leadership. It also laid bare a deeper uncertainty over authority: Pezeshkian has reportedly questioned whether messages said to come from Khamenei are genuine. Khamenei has not been seen publicly since he was seriously wounded during the initial U.S.-Israeli strikes in February.

The crisis began when Iranian forces attacked three commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz during the night of July 6-7, including a Qatari liquefied natural gas tanker. At the time, Pezeshkian was in neighboring Iraq for mourning ceremonies for Khamenei’s father and predecessor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the conflict’s opening strikes on February 28.

Furious over the strikes, Pezeshkian called Vahidi and demanded an explanation, the Times reported, citing five Iranian officials and two IRGC members. Vahidi said he had not approved the operation and had no advance knowledge of it, according to the report. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council was likewise unaware of the attack.

The United States launched retaliatory strikes the next morning, prompting fighting to resume and effectively bringing an end to the June memorandum of understanding, which had offered a possible route toward ending the hostilities.

The aftermath produced some of the most intense internal clashes among Iran’s ruling elite since the war began. Two senior generals reportedly threatened to quit as competing camps accused one another of betrayal and treason. The dispute also helped prompt a restructuring of the Supreme National Security Council and the selection of veteran politician and former IRGC commander Gen. Mohsen Rezaei to head it, partly because he was seen as someone able to bridge the factions.

Government and security investigations later concluded that Hossein Taeb, a powerful hardliner with a long career in intelligence, was behind the decision to target the vessels, according to three Iranian officials cited by the report. Taeb had opposed the Washington agreement from the beginning.

“The attack on the ships was orchestrated with the goal to blow up the memorandum of understanding with Trump and to kill the prospects of any future negotiations and deal,” Alireza Namvar Haghighi, an Iranian analyst with contacts inside the regime, told the outlet.

Taeb, who held senior intelligence roles for more than two decades and previously led the IRGC’s intelligence organization, had reportedly told Khamenei that Iran had erred by stopping the fighting and accepting the agreement.

“Negotiations that ignore the rights of our people and concede to the excessive demands of the enemy have no place in Iran’s politics,” Taeb recently told a gathering of military families.

Taeb’s role is particularly significant because of his relationship with Khamenei. After being removed as IRGC intelligence chief by Ali Khamenei in 2022 following a series of security failures, Taeb returned to prominence after the elder Khamenei’s death and reportedly played a central role in securing Mojtaba’s elevation as his successor.

Khamenei subsequently appointed Taeb to command the Basij, the regime’s paramilitary force used to suppress domestic unrest, directing the veteran intelligence chief to strengthen its grassroots intelligence network as Tehran confronts mounting concern that the country’s deteriorating economy could fuel renewed protests.

Yet when Pezeshkian sought to determine who had actually authorized the July attacks, generals privately told him that Khamenei had approved them.

Pezeshkian reportedly demanded proof.

The confrontation strikes at the heart of the uncertainty surrounding Khamenei, who was wounded in the February 28 strikes that killed his father and much of Iran’s senior leadership and has not made an authenticated public appearance or released audio or video since becoming supreme leader.

His absence has become increasingly conspicuous. Khamenei did not attend his father’s elaborate funeral in July even as three of his brothers appeared publicly, and Pezeshkian acknowledged in August that communicating with the supreme leader was “very difficult.”

President Donald Trump later said he believed Khamenei was alive but had been “very seriously wounded,” describing extensive injuries to the left side of his body.

ALSO READ: Council Hires Security Guards in Response to Concerns Over Male Migrants

“I don’t think he’s dead. He was very seriously wounded. The left side of his body, the arm, the leg, the whole thing,” Trump said in an August interview with Glenn Beck.

The recent report goes further, revealing that Iranian officials, including Pezeshkian, have questioned the authenticity of written statements and other communications attributed to Khamenei.

Questions also surround whether the president has actually communicated directly with the supreme leader.

Pezeshkian said in May that he had met with Khamenei, but two Iranian officials and a former senior official described an extraordinary encounter in which the president was transported in an ambulance with tinted windows and connected by secure video to a man who identified himself as an intermediary and purported to relay messages between the two leaders.

Pezeshkian later told an ally that he was uncertain whether he had actually communicated with Khamenei, according to the report.

Last month, Pezeshkian claimed he received permission for another meeting with Khamenei that lasted roughly seven hours, during which they discussed sanctions, unemployment, the cost of living, national unity, and other issues facing Iran. He offered no details about the circumstances of the purported meeting or what Khamenei told him.

The uncertainty over who is exercising Khamenei’s authority comes as rival factions inside Tehran battle over whether to seek an agreement with Washington or dramatically escalate the conflict in hopes of forcing the United States to end its naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Hardline commanders have pushed a plan to attack American targets, damage U.S. Navy vessels, inflict American casualties, and drive up global oil prices, according to the investigation. The strategy would also call on Iran-aligned groups in Yemen and Iraq to intensify attacks, including against oil infrastructure across the region, in an effort to increase the military and economic costs of the conflict.

Pezeshkian and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf have warned that such a course could drag Iran into an “abyss,” risking further U.S. strikes while worsening the economic conditions already confronting the regime.

Pezeshkian has publicly acknowledged the need for an exit, arguing that “war has to end at some point” and that it would be better to end the conflict “today, while we are in a position of strength and dignity.”

Ghalibaf has issued an even starker warning about Iran’s ability to sustain the confrontation.

“No matter how much military power we have, if people are hungry and we do not have financial circulation and economic growth, we will not endure,” he said.

Trump, meanwhile, said Sunday that Iran “wants to make a deal so bad” and claimed Iranian officials are “calling constantly,” while insisting he would agree only to terms acceptable to Washington.

“They’ve got to make the right deal,” Trump said. “I’m not gonna make a deal that’s no good.”

For now, however, the hardline faction advocating greater confrontation appears to have gained the upper hand, according to the report.

“The war between Iran and the United States has entered the phase of escalation,” Mahdi Mohammadi, a senior adviser to Ghalibaf, said.

Joshua Klein is a reporter for – News. Email him at jklein@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter @JoshuaKlein.

Reform-led Essex County Council has brought in private security guards to patrol three town centres following reports that groups of male migrants had intimidated residents and allegedly wolf-whistled at schoolgirls.

The council said six security “operatives” will begin patrolling the centres of Braintree, Colchester and Chelmsford today as part of an initial three-month trial.

The move comes after the Government announced plans to increase the number of asylum seekers accommodated at the former RAF Wethersfield airfield from 800 to 1,245.

The Home Office has also confirmed that the site will remain operational beyond 2027.

Men staying at the migrant accommodation site, the largest facility of its kind in Britain, are regularly transported by bus to nearby towns to shop and use local services.

Reform said the new patrols, known as Operation Vanguard, were introduced as a “direct response to concerns raised amongst local residents, particularly women and girls, over gatherings of male migrants in town centres”.

Braintree resident Mike Readon, 66, said last month that he had witnessed the impact in his town centre, where migrants are dropped off in busloads during the morning, often carrying smartphones and wearing masks.

He said: “They hang around the bus station and they whistle at the schoolgirls coming off the buses.

“It’s horrendous. Lots of women just avoid the town entirely on a Thursday because it’s a totally different environment.

‘You see them hanging around the cash machines and then going into charity shops, haggling for a shirt that only costs a pound, trying to get it for 50p.

‘My wife and her friends, they wouldn’t come in on a Thursday, certainly not alone anyhow.’

Reform’s Peter Harris, the leader of Essex County Council, said: ‘Today, Operation Vanguard moves from words to action.

‘Six trained security guards, two each in Braintree, Chelmsford and Colchester, will provide a visible and reassuring presence on our streets, particularly for women and children.

‘Our message is simple: the safety of Essex residents comes first.’

New Essex Police Chief Constable Rachel Nolan has said crime linked to the large asylum accommodation in the county was ‘very low’.

‘Certainly, as far as I’ve seen, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to be concerned about criminality associated with migrants from the Wethersfield camp in Essex,’ she told BBC Look East. 

The new patrols will cost around £118,000 plus VAT and will be funded through a drawdown of up to £150,000 from a community improvement fund, the party said. 

The guards will work from 10am to 6pm seven days a week to ‘deter anti-social behaviour’, the council said, and provide ‘reassurance’ to residents and ‘gather evidence’ on whether additional support is needed.

Mr Harris, writing in the Daily Mail last month, described Wethersfield as a ‘holiday camp’, noting luxuries included a fully kitted-out gym, complete with a fitness studio, a full-sized football pitch, indoor sports hall, television room and pool table.

But reports from inside Wethersfield paint a concerning picture, with one 25-year-old migrant, Adnani Mohammed, sentenced to 150 hours of unpaid work earlier this year for ‘violently’ attacking staff in a drunken rage.

Chelmsford resident Kevin Taylor last month described how young men coming from the camp had affected his town.

He told the Daily Mail: ‘The men hang around in gangs. Women and children are intimidated by the courthouse; there are big groups of them there.

‘I feel the UK has lost its way; they should respect our environment. Letting anyone in, mostly men, it’s too many handouts. Everyone is scared. It’s sad, really.’

While there is no known record of any conviction for serious incidents of criminality in the town linked to the camp, there has been a claim of assault on a woman. 

On the other side, angry hard-Right protestors, calling themselves ‘auditors’, hurl abuse at the incoming migrants while local people are caught in the middle of the aggressive maelstrom.

Reform’s patrols have drawn strong criticism from opposing councillors, including Labour’s Lee Scordis, who said the ‘decision is clearly driven by prejudice.’

He said: ‘The council’s own report and the police tell us there is no evidence of any rise in crime from asylum seekers in Colchester.

‘This decision is clearly driven by prejudice. We have no answers over what they will do, the powers they will have and even if the council has consulted the police on this.’

Private security guards have no powers of arrest and any reports of crime will have to be handed to the ocal police. 

A council report titled Launch of Operation Vanguard stated that the Home Office claims ‘there is no evidence of Wethersfield AAA (Airfield Asylum Accommodation) having an impact on crime levels’.

It then says: ‘Regardless of this there is anecdotal evidence – which the Home Office has publicly acknowledged – that the presence of this community of asylum seekers creates a fear and perception of a risk of crime.’

Reports of fears over migrants in the community have stretched back in the area as far as May this year.

One local woman posted a video of migrants in the town waiting to be picked up with a caption saying: ‘Thankfully a friend walked me to the bus stop the other night. It’s extremely intimidating walking past groups of undocumented men in Braintree. Women and children aren’t safe.’

The new guards will primarily work in the areas where the migrants are dropped off in the selected towns but will assist with other security issues where necessary, an Essex County Council spokesman said.

Liberal Democrat councillor Stephen Robinson, leader of Chelmsford City Council, also took issue with the extra use of security guards. 

He said: ‘We need to make sure our communities are safe and cohesive, but stoking fear and stirring up stereotypes about asylum seekers, which is what Reform UK is doing, will not achieve that.

‘We need effective policing, wherever crime and anti-social behaviour occurs, and investment in projects that really make a difference like Liberal Democrat-led Chelmsford City Council’s Women’s Safety Charter… not ineffective, private security.

‘The asylum system is in a mess because certain Reform politicians, who used to be Conservative ministers, let the system spiral out of control.

‘This has resulted in the taxpayer forking out for hotels and temporary asylum accommodation.’

A Home Office spokesperson said: ‘Public safety remains our first priority and we expect any criminality to be taken seriously. We work with local police to ensure the safety and security of local communities around the site, the staff who work there and those accommodated.

‘The concerns of communities are central to our immigration reforms. We are working to fairly house asylum seekers across the country, close every asylum hotel and move asylum seekers into alternative accommodation including former military sites.’

Elsewhere, in the Oxfordshire village of Piddington, its 350 or so residents have cast a vote in a ‘referendum’ on leaving the UK.  

The stunt is the latest stage in the community’s fight to stop a former Ministry of Defence site on the edge of the village being repurposed as a hub for undocumented male immigrants for up to ten years.

It comes after 133 women in the village – who would be outnumbered nearly ten to one by the new arrivals – issued an open letter to every female MP last week to share their concerns. An accompanying online video was viewed more than 2 million times.

There is no legal mechanism allowing them to declare independence so the Piddington referendum at the village hall will not be binding.

Ian Senior and wife Paula retired to the village three years ago in the hope of living out their years in peace and quiet.

Mrs Senior, 61, is now suffering sleepless nights worrying about the camp which sits just 650 yards from their garden.

The former administrator enjoys crafting in her shed but says she’d be too scared to spend time there with 1,250 undocumented men a field-and-a-half away.

‘They say it’s a secure camp but it’s only secure for the people living there’, she said. ‘We’ll be voting on Tuesday. It’s a shame the referendum isn’t binding.

The votes will be counted on Tuesday evening with the result announced at 7am on Wednesday – a day before the consultation into the project closes.

The Government has promised to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers and will use former military sites instead.

Two are already up and running – Wethersfield and Crowborough in East Sussex. 

Andy Burnham has said middle-class areas such as Piddington should ‘play their part’ in housing asylum seekers. 

A bereaved mother has condemned Ryanair as “greedy” and “inhuman” after the airline refused to refund a cancelled holiday, because her teenage son died just 24 hours outside the carrier’s eligibility deadline.

Tina McDermont had been scheduled to travel from Newcastle to Alicante, Spain, with her husband on August 30 for a four-day break.

The couple cancelled the trip following the death of their 18-year-old son, Billy McDermont, in a tragic accident on August 19.

Ms McDermont, 45, said she began changing their travel plans and contacted Ryanair’s customer support team to explain the circumstances and seek a refund.

After submitting a copy of Billy’s death certificate, the mother-of-two said Ryanair told her the booking did not qualify for a refund because his death occurred more than 10 days before the scheduled flight.

Under Ryanair policy, passengers can apply for travel credit when someone included on the booking, or an immediate family member — defined as a partner, parent or child — dies within 10 days of departure.

Tina said she was “disgusted” to discover that she and her husband could not recover the £350 cost of their flights, as Billy died only a day before Ryanair’s bereavement cut-off would have applied.

She had planned to put any refunded money toward the cost of Billy’s funeral.

Ryanair responded by restating its policy, saying Billy’s death fell outside the airline’s bereavement window and that Tina was therefore not entitled to compensation or travel credit.

Tina, who lives in Washington, Tyne and Wear, said: ‘Billy’s death was a massive shock. He’d just turned 18.

‘I could never have travelled and gone abroad. I just wanted to be at home with my family around me. I’m arranging my son’s funeral. There’s no way I could go.

‘I thought when I got in touch with Ryanair there wouldn’t be an issue. I thought we’d get that money back and put it towards Billy’s funeral and then I hit these barriers because of this ten-day policy that I hadn’t been aware of.

‘[After they sent me a link requesting his death certificate] I couldn’t get any further forward because they kept requesting the date of death. It was really starting to agitate me.

‘It was raw emotion all the time. It wouldn’t let me complete the form. I looked at the terms and conditions and thought that doesn’t really make sense.

READ MORE: Wisconsin Rep. Tom Tiffany Swims to Safety After Lake Landing

‘I opened a chat on the app and they told me to ‘no show’ so I could get a letter off them and you can go to your travel insurance and claim off them. I thought that’s passing the [buck].’

Tina added: ‘If he’d died a day later, I would’ve got my money back. It’s disgusting and petty.

‘It was like a slap in the face. It should be done by a case by case basis. It’s a blanket policy, but it isn’t human.

‘I felt very insulted. He wasn’t meant to die. It was a tragic accident, so surely there should be special circumstances.

‘I was devastated. Everybody I’ve dealt with has been compassionate except for them. They’re greedy. I was outraged. Nobody wants to lose their child. It was disbelief in their policies.

‘It’s not about the money. It’s the principle. £350 for a huge company like Ryanair is chicken feed. It’s made the grieving process worse. I’m a mother who’s grieving. It felt very personal and I know the terms and conditions are not.’

The civil servant described the policy as a ‘slap in the face’ and is calling for the airline to review bereavement on a case-by-case basis. 

Tina said: ‘Ryanair needs to change their policies. There needs to be a special circumstances clause for close relatives like children. Have a bit of heart and compassion.

‘I feel so deflated by them. I’ll never fly with them again.’

However, Ryanair stood by its policy and said Tina was not entitled to travel credit under its policy.

A Ryanair spokesperson said: ‘Ryanair’s bereavement policy allows passengers to apply for travel credit where the death of an immediate family member occurs within ten days of their scheduled flight departure.

‘As this bereavement occurred outside of that period, this passenger was not entitled to travel credit.

‘This passenger was provided with the documentation required to submit a claim through their travel insurance provider.’