Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Do you think that if someone does some work for you your obligation is to pay for the work or just to try to pay for it?
If you have a job and your employer sends your wages to an account that you do not control because your email or accounts have been hacked, do you say to your employer that's ok, you tried to pay, so you owe me nowt?
depends if i included a notice in my invoicing to a CUSTOMER that any amendments to my chosen account will only be via post rather than email etc and those shall include a wax seal and a bloodied thumb print - perhaps a general disclaimer for all emails out that none of my emails should be relied upon since i can't be sure i've been hacked - how far do we need to take it so that i can rely on emails when it suits me but no one else can when it doesn't?If you have a job and your employer sends your wages to an account that you do not control because your email or accounts have been hacked, do you say to your employer that's ok, you tried to pay, so you owe me nowt?
in any case we are of course assuming that OP's brother's account was hacked
Disclaimer etc irrelevant. If the fact is that someone is impersonating the person that you owe money to, and you pay the impersonator, it matters not whether the real person had told you to check changes. There's no question of contributory negligence here. The customer still owes the money. Bad luck for the customer, but crime has victims.
As for assuming that the OP is telling the truth, I prefer that to accusing him or his brother of fraud, but if you like doing that, fill your boots.
As for assuming that the OP is telling the truth, I prefer that to accusing him or his brother of fraud, but if you like doing that, fill your boots.
very harsh...
regardless of who ends up liable, it seems that at least some of the money is recoverable here from TSB, perhaps a decent compromise (given your brother is pretty lax about his email security and its clear the customer has in fact tired to pay) would be for the brother to cut the price down from £16500 to cost price and let the customer make up the difference between whatever is recovered, and cost.
regardless of who ends up liable, it seems that at least some of the money is recoverable here from TSB, perhaps a decent compromise (given your brother is pretty lax about his email security and its clear the customer has in fact tired to pay) would be for the brother to cut the price down from £16500 to cost price and let the customer make up the difference between whatever is recovered, and cost.
Breadvan72 said:
Disclaimer etc irrelevant. If the fact is that someone is impersonating the person that you owe money to, and you pay the impersonator, it matters not whether the real person had told you to check changes. There's no question of contributory negligence here. The customer still owes the money. Bad luck for the customer, but crime has victims.
As for assuming that the OP is telling the truth, I prefer that to accusing him or his brother of fraud, but if you like doing that, fill your boots.
wasn't accusing them at all but thinking out loud regarding any claim since 'we woz hacked' may not be sufficientAs for assuming that the OP is telling the truth, I prefer that to accusing him or his brother of fraud, but if you like doing that, fill your boots.
impersonating via the same method of communication used genuinely, from the same email, with the same appearance so that but for knowing it was hacked the customer would have no reason to doubt it at all - personally i'd check but i'm not entirely convinced merits for OP's Brother are cast iron
Why? In what world does the customer not still owe the money to the builder? Has the builder done the work? We assume yes (no suggestion otherwise). Has the customer paid the builder? No.
Er, that's it. I would bet you actual money that if the builder sues on the debt he will win, and I am not a betting man.
There was either a hack or there wasn't. I see no reason to suppose that there wasn't a hack. If you suggest that there wasn't, then you are in effect suggesting that the builder is up to no good. Matter for you!
Er, that's it. I would bet you actual money that if the builder sues on the debt he will win, and I am not a betting man.
There was either a hack or there wasn't. I see no reason to suppose that there wasn't a hack. If you suggest that there wasn't, then you are in effect suggesting that the builder is up to no good. Matter for you!
Breadvan72 said:
Why? In what world does the customer not still owe the money to the builder? Has the builder done the work? We assume yes (no suggestion otherwise). Has the customer paid the builder? No.
Er, that's it. I would bet you actual money that if the builder sues on the debt he will win, and I am not a betting man.
There was either a hack or there wasn't. I see no reason to suppose that there wasn't a hack. If you suggest that there wasn't, then you are in effect suggesting that the builder is up to no good. Matter for you!
huh, i'm not saying there was no hack, it is a matter for the builder to prove it thoughEr, that's it. I would bet you actual money that if the builder sues on the debt he will win, and I am not a betting man.
There was either a hack or there wasn't. I see no reason to suppose that there wasn't a hack. If you suggest that there wasn't, then you are in effect suggesting that the builder is up to no good. Matter for you!
even if he does i'm not entirely convinced (i'm surprised at your confidence the other way - but hey, what the hell would i know?
) emails both were happy to contract via suddenly become entirely irrelevant because of a hack So, in words, you suspect that the builder has been paid and is working a con. You are being mealy mouthed about it, but that's what you are alleging. It's easy to make glib accusations on the internet. In real life, alleging fraud is something to be done with great care and only on very clear grounds.
PS: your understanding of burden of proof is arse backwards. I recall why I gave up posting here for a while. It's so dull arguing with people who know f
k nothing but think they know it all.
PS: your understanding of burden of proof is arse backwards. I recall why I gave up posting here for a while. It's so dull arguing with people who know f
k nothing but think they know it all. Breadvan72 said:
So, in words, you suspect that the builder has been paid and is working a con. You are being mealy mouthed about it, but that's what you are alleging. It's easy to make glib accusations on the internet. In real life, alleging fraud is something to be done with great care and only on very clear grounds.
PS: your understanding of burden of proof is arse backwards. I recall why I gave up posting here for a while. It's so dull arguing with people who know fk nothing but think they know it all.
behave. I'm not accusing anyone. should customer refuse to pay again, the builder will have to prove the hack if he makes a claim. who has it backwards again? even if he is able to prove it i'm not entirely convinced it's as straight forward as you suggest. as for me knowing fPS: your understanding of burden of proof is arse backwards. I recall why I gave up posting here for a while. It's so dull arguing with people who know f
k nothing but think they know it all. k nothing, we can compare dicks if you want but flexing on the internet is of little interest to me in my early retirement Builder claims customer did not pay. Shows bank records. No payment. Customer claims he paid. Customer has now to prove that he paid the builder, not someone else. Customer can't do this, unless, as you suggest (but pretend you are not suggesting), builder is dishonestly trying to get paid twice.
Anyway, I'm off. If you want to dole out crap legal opinions, that's cool. I won't get in the way.
Anyway, I'm off. If you want to dole out crap legal opinions, that's cool. I won't get in the way.
Breadvan72 said:
Builder claims customer did not pay. Shows bank records. No payment. Customer claims he paid. Customer has now to prove that he paid the builder, not someone else. Customer can't do this, unless, as you suggest (but pretend you are not suggesting), builder is dishonestly trying to get paid twice.
Anyway, I'm off. If you want to dole out crap legal opinions, that's cool. I won't get in the way.
and all the while neither mentions the email hmmmmAnyway, I'm off. If you want to dole out crap legal opinions, that's cool. I won't get in the way.
at times i understand your frustrations on here but the uppity-ness about your ball also grates at times
pork911 said:
and all the while neither mentions the email hmmmm
at times i understand your frustrations on here but the uppity-ness about your ball also grates at times
The email is irrelevant. If your don't accept BV72's opinion on it the how about the Met police?at times i understand your frustrations on here but the uppity-ness about your ball also grates at times
The Met said:
Banks usually only refund money when they are at fault. If a duly authorised transaction is made the loss will remain with the organisation making the payment.
The correct organisation will still have to be paid unless it can be proved that they acted fraudulently.
The correct organisation will still have to be paid unless it can be proved that they acted fraudulently.
plasticpig said:
pork911 said:
and all the while neither mentions the email hmmmm
at times i understand your frustrations on here but the uppity-ness about your ball also grates at times
The email is irrelevant. If your don't accept BV72's opinion on it the how about the Met police?at times i understand your frustrations on here but the uppity-ness about your ball also grates at times
The Met said:
Banks usually only refund money when they are at fault. If a duly authorised transaction is made the loss will remain with the organisation making the payment.
The correct organisation will still have to be paid unless it can be proved that they acted fraudulently.
The correct organisation will still have to be paid unless it can be proved that they acted fraudulently.
i don't accept his advice to anyone would ever be anything at all like 'they say it so that's that then'
i am not ENTIRELY CONVINCED even if hack proved it's then straight forward
as for you saying the email is irrelevant and invoking the Met??? jeez
Breadvan72 said:
I should not bother but whatevs. If the hack is proven, then on what Planet does the customer not still owe the Wong to the brickie?
the same planet on which not everyone is so arrogant and absolute as you (or just cranky) and where these circumstances are not the same as a corrupt employee, someone copying a letterhead or the builder merely failing to lock his officeanyway thanks for the apology for misrepresenting my view on the builder
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff