Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Money for nothing



clippedgull

Hotdogs, extra onions
Aug 11, 2003
20,789
Near Ducks, Geese, and Seagulls
A woman who paid £26,000 of wages into the wrong bank account over two years has been left unable to get her missing money back - after the recipient spent it.

Hairdresser Sally Donaldson logged onto the joint Nationwide account that she shares with her husband in May 2010 to arrange for £1,000 to be transferred into it from her HSBC business account each month.

But unbeknown to Mrs Donaldson, although she had entered the correct account name and sort code, she had keyed one digit of the account number incorrectly and the money was sent to the wrong person.

It has proved a costly mistake for Mrs Donaldson - she didn't realise that the money was being paid into the wrong account for more than two years, by which time some £26,650 had gone awry.

Unfortunately for Mrs Donaldson, the recipient of the money had spent it and is refusing to pay it back.

The building society says that there is nothing that it can do to retrieve the funds, and they can't even identify the recipient due to data protection laws.



Although Mrs Donaldson is legally entitled to demand the cash back, retrieving it in practice is a more complicated matter.

She told The Guardian: 'Phone calls to Nationwide that night, many tears and numerous subsequent calls and letters, have left us with just £1,000 returned and a complete blank of information from Nationwide.

'We have been reluctant to tell anyone we know about the error, so have dwelled heavily on it ourselves.

'It leaves a sick feeling in my stomach to think someone has been spending all that hard-earned money and I've been going to work – running my own hairdresser's business – when I could have been enjoying a little more time at home with my two sons.'

Mrs Donaldson did not realise that the cash wasn't reaching her and her husband's Nationwide account - the couple only receive online statements, Mrs Donaldson would only check the balance if she went to a cash machine and her husband sorted out all the bills.

Nationwide says that it has never encountered a case of 'mis-applied credit' that went on for so long.

Although legally Nationwide can take funds wrongly attributed to an account back without the account holder's permission up to six years after the error, the building society was unable to take the money back because it had already been withdrawn.

The building society says that they cannot tell if the funds were transferred to another account - the recipient withdrew the cash from ATMs.

Neither it nor HSBC are willing to reimburse Mrs Donaldson as the mistake was down to customer error and they say that it could encourage fraud if they begin to pay back customers who transfer money to the wrong account.

Her family has been hit particularly hard by the loss of the money - her and her husband, a public sector worker, earn less than £50,000 a year between them and live in a modest semi-detached house.

The couple ended up going overdrawn for a period because they struggled without her income.

Taking her case to the Financial Services Ombudsman, the body which regulates banks and building societies might not help Mrs Donaldson's case either - it can only make a ruling if the bank has made a mistake and has no powers to get the money back from the other account holder.

Although the body says that it receives around 100 complaints about mis-applied credit each year, they are mostly from people who have wrongly been credited extra funds and believe that they should be able to keep the money.

Unfortunately for them, the law does not entitle them to a penny.

A fool and her money easily parted!!!
 






Cheeky Monkey

Well-known member
Jul 17, 2003
23,884
What a blow (dry). The recipient could at least have offered to split (ends) the hard earned money with her!
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,031
two years? :eek: how on earth didnt they notice after two months?
 








EDS

Banned
Nov 11, 2012
2,040
They cannot be that hard up to not notice there balance being down by tens of thousands, not to mention not even realise their balance is not going up by a thousand every month. Something does not ring true here?
Surely they would have redress through the courts or maybe even the police as the recipient obviously knew it was not meant for them, all very fishy to me
 






beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,031
Surely they would have redress through the courts or maybe even the police as the recipient obviously knew it was not meant for them, all very fishy to me

no crime though. no one fraudulantly accessed their account, she put the money to the wrong account number.

though there is one thing odd - going to the receiving account to setup money to go into it. in my and missus banks you can only do it the other way, from the source bank send to the recipient.
 


EDS

Banned
Nov 11, 2012
2,040
no crime though. no one fraudulantly accessed their account, she put the money to the wrong account number.

though there is one thing odd - going to the receiving account to setup money to go into it. in my and missus banks you can only do it the other way, from the source bank send to the recipient.

Are you sure there is no crime though, surely spending money that you absolutely know is not yours is against the law. Even if not a criminal matter then surely it could be pursued through the civil courts?
Either way this all seems a bit dodgy
 


The Wookiee

Back From The Dead
Nov 10, 2003
15,390
Worthing
So they earn less than 50k a year between them but they can afford to transfer 1k a month and not notice it ??

Something doesn't add up

- - - Updated - - -

So they earn less than 50k a year between them but they can afford to transfer 1k a month and not notice it ??

Something doesn't add up
 




HastingsSeagull

Well-known member
Jan 13, 2010
9,434
BGC Manila
ONLY 50k between them? Boohoo....... plenty of us live quite happily on about 1/4 of that and would certainly notice £100 gone let alone 26k / 2 years earnings! Still manage to pay off our mortgages and have an exotic holiday every year, go pub, football and socialise by budgeting and not being a complete Muppet!!!

Even if she didn't notice, didn't her husband spot her spending all his money and wonder where she'd spunked 26k?
 


EDS

Banned
Nov 11, 2012
2,040
ONLY 50k between them? Boohoo....... plenty of us live quite happily on about 1/4 of that and would certainly notice £100 gone let alone 26k / 2 years earnings! Still manage to pay off our mortgages and have an exotic holiday every year, go pub, football and socialise by budgeting and not being a complete Muppet!!!

Even if she didn't notice, didn't her husband spot her spending all his money and wonder where she'd spunked 26k?

I know you said budgeting but I would love to know how someone manages that?
 






jonny.rainbow

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2005
6,848
With online transfers you need to enter a recipient name.

As this I'd unlikely to have matched, then surely the bank do have a case to answer?
 


CheeseRolls

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 27, 2009
6,234
Shoreham Beach
With online transfers you need to enter a recipient name.

As this I'd unlikely to have matched, then surely the bank do have a case to answer?

I am not sure this serves any purpose other than to provide a description. It does not seem to be the same as a name on an account.

Putting aside the sensible precaution of checking, it is a concern for anyone transferring money, there should be some method for validation for money transfers, prior to the actual transfer of cash. If this had been a one off transfer of 26k rather than a monthly transfer, I expect the same issue still applies.
 








cloud

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2011
3,036
Here, there and everywhere
Not only this, she thought she had transferred the funds into her 'business' account - did she not notice when she did her annual accounts? Something fishy .. she probably had 'other income' that she is not talking about.
 


I am not sure this serves any purpose other than to provide a description. It does not seem to be the same as a name on an account.

Putting aside the sensible precaution of checking, it is a concern for anyone transferring money, there should be some method for validation for money transfers, prior to the actual transfer of cash. If this had been a one off transfer of 26k rather than a monthly transfer, I expect the same issue still applies.

A few years ago I had a transfer refused (or rather refunded, as the money had already left my account) automatically by Natwest because I'd entered one digit of the account number wrong, and it'd presumably flagged as not matching the payee name and/or sort code.

I do think it's rather ridiculous that in this case the bank forces you to enter a lot of additional detail and then doesn't bother to actually use any of it!
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here