Do we expect too much sometimes - Bank behaviour again

Do we expect too much sometimes - Bank behaviour again

Author
Discussion

CobolMan

1,417 posts

206 months

Sunday 8th December 2019
quotequote all
PF62 said:
Things that strike me about this -

- The crap system the banks use for sort codes and account numbers which do not detect 'fat finger' mistakes - why the hell is there not a check digit so you would have to be very unlucky to get a valid combination when making a mistake.
They do use a check digit which is why I'm surprised this happened.

greygoose

8,225 posts

194 months

Monday 9th December 2019
quotequote all
PF62 said:
Things that strike me about this -

- The crap system the banks use for sort codes and account numbers which do not detect 'fat finger' mistakes - why the hell is there not a check digit so you would have to be very unlucky to get a valid combination when making a mistake.

- The absurdly high legal costs.

- Why the hell were the police not involved as soon as it was realised the money went into the wrong account and that account holder refused to return it.
It is a ridiculous system that someone can receive money not intended for them and not have it automatically taken back again. Barclays have not covered themselves in glory in this affair albeit it was the person’s mistake that caused it. Sadly legal fees always cost a fortune which limits access to the legal system to those who can afford it.

cloud_dog

145 posts

53 months

Monday 9th December 2019
quotequote all
borcy said:
It seems a very odd state of affairs, for all the anti money laundering, asking customers what they want their money for there's no check against an account holders name.
For info, the banking industry was set to introduce checks on account names for transfers but it has been deferred until 2020 (TBC).



s m

23,164 posts

202 months

Monday 9th December 2019
quotequote all
R.Sole said:
Is there no law being broken by the recipient?
If the bank made an error and deposited funds into the wrong account could or would they just not retrieve it?
I did wonder if this no longer applied





There was a recent case citing this offence


geeks

9,121 posts

138 months

Monday 9th December 2019
quotequote all
See unfair that the person who refused to return the funds gets to remain anonymous as well, proper council stuff!

wibble cb

Original Poster:

3,586 posts

206 months

Saturday 14th December 2019
quotequote all
I wouldn’t believe his version, Barclays were looking for the money, knew he had it, and refused to take it back, sure, that’s plausible...

Mojooo

12,668 posts

179 months

Saturday 14th December 2019
quotequote all
R.Sole said:
Is there no law being broken by the recipient?
If the bank made an error and deposited funds into the wrong account could or would they just not retrieve it?
https://www.pnld.co.uk/your-legal-questions-answered/dishonestly-retaining-a-wrongful-credit/

Even then, you are assuming the Police would even look at something like this - in these tough times they will have an easy out in saying the bank can deal with it.

PF62

3,575 posts

172 months

Saturday 14th December 2019
quotequote all
wibble cb said:
I wouldn’t believe his version, Barclays were looking for the money, knew he had it, and refused to take it back, sure, that’s plausible...
From the previous link -

Barclays disputes Gray’s version of events. In a statement, the bank said: “We have reviewed our contemporaneous record of the telephone conversation and it does not reflect the claims being made on this case.”

Sheepshanks

32,535 posts

118 months

Saturday 14th December 2019
quotequote all
wibble cb said:
I wouldn’t believe his version, Barclays were looking for the money, knew he had it, and refused to take it back, sure, that’s plausible...
Maybe it was complicated by the fact that ~£35K of it was no longer there as he'd used it to pay off debts.

PF62

3,575 posts

172 months

Sunday 15th December 2019
quotequote all
Sheepshanks said:
wibble cb said:
I wouldn’t believe his version, Barclays were looking for the money, knew he had it, and refused to take it back, sure, that’s plausible...
Maybe it was complicated by the fact that ~£35K of it was no longer there as he'd used it to pay off debts.
Exactly - I somehow suspect that he was offering Barclays the balance back if they forgot about the £35k. After all, not his fault, other people stupid, etc.

wombleh

1,778 posts

121 months

Sunday 15th December 2019
quotequote all
So what happened to the person who refused to return it in full, would seem an easy case for the CPS?

V8covin

7,213 posts

192 months

Monday 16th December 2019
quotequote all
bhstewie said:
Says he bought £150,000 worth of premium bonds.Not in his name he didn't,the limit is £50,000

bad company

18,484 posts

265 months

Monday 16th December 2019
quotequote all
Countdown said:
It was his own mistake, compounded by the fact that it went into the bank account of somebody with no morals. I'm not a fan of Barclays but it wasn't their fault.
I'd say it's the banks fault for taking such a long time to implement a system whereby the name, sort code and account number ALL have to match. That's been on the cards for a very long time but the banks don't seem able to complete the system.