Do we expect too much sometimes - Bank behaviour again

[wibble cb]

Re this sad story
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/dec/07/i-lo...

It’s undoubtedly sad that he sent the funds to the wrong details, but to then blame his bank for the non compliance of its own customer in returning the funds seems harsh, since when were they legally responsible for the actions of their client?

I do also think it’s nuts it cost 46k in legal fees to get the funds returned- that’s crazy.

[Sheepshanks]

I absolutely detest the way organisations mess people around (which is something of an understatement in this case) and then a newspaper contacts then and they they completely capituate.


I had several £K put into my account out of the blue. I asked the bank about it and they said it was an error and took it back, I wasn't asked for permission. I thought that if you didn't return money on request you could be done for stealing it.

[Countdown]

wibble cb said:

Re this sad story
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/dec/07/i-lo...

It’s undoubtedly sad that he sent the funds to the wrong details, but to then blame his bank for the non compliance of its own customer in returning the funds seems harsh, since when were they legally responsible for the actions of their client?

I do also think it’s nuts it cost 46k in legal fees to get the funds returned- that’s crazy.

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.

[wibble cb]

You would think that the t & c’s of the accounts we hold would have clauses that would cover this, but apparently not.

I think for that amount of cash, I would have done a test transfer, but we can’t move to a name/ account number cross check system soon enough.

[chip*]

The very reason I send a test payment for a nominal amount first e.g. did so for my car purchase, solicitors fees. I only transfer the balance once the recipient confirm they have my £100 in their account.

[bitchstewie]

chip* said:

The very reason I send a test payment for a nominal amount first e.g. did so for my car purchase, solicitors fees. I only transfer the balance once the recipient confirm they have my £100 in their account.

Quite.

I just did my first withdrawal from an investment account and even though I know it was my account number and sort code on the screen of the trading platform I use I still transferred £10 first until I was sure it was showing up in my bank account.

In fairness I don't know whether the situation this chap found himself in would have lent itself to that sort of thing.

[borcy]

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.

[BenjiS]

When I read the article, I couldn’t understand how there could be no come back on the person who knowingly refused to surrender £170000 that they knew wasn’t theirs. Surely that’s theft?

[98elise]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It's not the banks fault, however I do think that there should be a name check as well.

I do a test transfer for any large amount, because numbers are so easy to get wrong.

[98elise]

BenjiS said:

When I read the article, I couldn’t understand how there could be no come back on the person who knowingly refused to surrender £170000 that they knew wasn’t theirs. Surely that’s theft?

I'm pretty sure it's a criminal offence, even if the bank can't just take the cash back.

[Kent Border Kenny]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

One problem is that if you send it via faster payment then that’s pretty much the same as posting it to someone.

If you posted money to the wrong address you’d not blame the post office for delivering to exactly where you’d asked them to.

This is a feature, not a bug, although I can see that making the transfers reversible would help in the case of mistakes.

It’d reduce the willingness of people to accept bank transfers when selling, too, as they could not be sure that it’d not be recalled afterwards.

[Last Visit]

If moving large amounts by bank transfer to a new recipient I'll often send £1 first and then check they have received it before paying the remainder. Just in case I've either been given the wrong sort code and account number or I've inputted them incorrectly.

[s m]

Used to be covered under the 1968 Theft Act



Seems to suggest it doesn’t apply in all cases? Also, some banks seem to recover money from accounts without asking

There was a recent case citing this offence

[Glosphil]

A similar thing happened to me. The bank staff copied one digit in the account number incorrectly and when given to me to check I failed to notice. £450,000 sent to wrong account. Receiving bank said they would write to the receiving customer and give them 10 days to return the money. Would not give my bank any details.
I visited the receiving bank and managed to find out that the account number into which the money had been paid did not exist. I informed my bank and they managed to recover the money the next day.

[Countdown]

chip* said:

The very reason I send a test payment for a nominal amount first e.g. did so for my car purchase, solicitors fees. I only transfer the balance once the recipient confirm they have my £100 in their account.

I agree with sending a test amount through first (although it would be far more sensible to send £1 rather than a £100)

[Flooble]

Countdown said:

I agree with sending a test amount through first (although it would be far more sensible to send £1 rather than a £100)

I tend to send an odd amount as it makes it easier to spot. Which could be important if you are dealing with someone who banks with TSB.

[Sheepshanks]

I don't know if other banks do the same, but Barclays have had issues before due to duplicating account numbers. Seems a bizzare thing to do.

[essayer]

A system shouldn’t be so fragile that people can make an easy mistake (getting one of 16 digits incorrect) with no easy recourse. Banks should have sorted this out long ago, or implemented additional checks over a certain amount.

At least recipient name checking is coming in.

[R.Sole]

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?

[PF62]

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.