Money for nothing

[withdeanwombat]

Isn't this theft by finding ?

 

[bomber130]

hope shes not my hairdresser coz I have a feeling the pricess are going up

 

[Seagull over NZ]

- - - Updated - - -

I worked for a letting agent that made a payment out to a landlord and due to an error of 1 digit paid into the wrong account. Unfortunately it was an account number that existed and we had a nightmare trying to get the money back. Our bank couldn't do anything and the recipient bank pleaded "confidentiality" to us whenever we enquired about it. Wasted many of hours trying to get it back. Eventually we complained to the Bank Ombudsman but because our turnover was over a certain size they said they couldn't help us as we were not deemed to be a small business.

What a nightmare, we lost £3k, not the end of the world but they had no right to the money and the "system" couldn't enable us to get it back !!

 

[cloud]

If you're setting it up FROM the receiving account, how can you get the number of that very account wrong? Doesn't make any sense at all.

Exactly. The husband probably did it behind her back. Secret maintenance payments or something. Allegedly.

 

[BLOCK F]

Very strange and I hope more details come out from wherever the story came from in the first place.
To my mind, something doesn't quite ring true, but nevertheless, if the situation is as stated,
it is a bit frightening for any poor buggers who make an online mistake.
There doesn't appear to be much sympathy on NSC,but even if it seems rather odd that people who are not wealthy don't notice a gap of £26k in their finances,I do feel for them.Can't be nice to lose that kind of cash.
I bank online and frequently check on all our household a/c's with monotonous regularity.
A few years ago when we moved house a very large payment from our solicitors did not arrive in our account when it should have done(CHAPS PAYMENT should have arrived pronto).Turned out there was a one figure error typed in on the account number and the bank held it in a suspense account until the matter had been sorted.Phew!

 

[Garage_Doors]

Hmm, Nationwide... I could see there being a problem if this is one of those 'accounts' where a block of customers have the same sort code and account number, with each customer having their own reference number. She gets the account number right, so the money gets into the pot (the account) without problem - but she cocks up the reference number so the money then gets credited to the wrong person.

Still doesn't explain how you could possibly miss a grand each month though!

How is possible that two customers can have exactly the same account no, & sort code?

 

[LE19]

How is possible that two customers can have exactly the same account no, & sort code?

Can't imagine how that wouldn't break all sorts of banking rules.

 

[Poyetry In Motion]

Isn't this theft by finding ?

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Paul Reids Sock]

Moral of the story... don't transfer £26,000 into a stranger's bank account.

I thought the moral of the story was to not marry an idiot?

 

[Curious Orange]

How is possible that two customers can have exactly the same account no, & sort code?

Its how the old building society accounts worked. I used to look after setting up BACS payments to pensioners for a life assurance company, and getting the old dears who wanted us to pay them into their building society accounts to give us all three numbers was a right pain in the wotsit. If you didn't supply the reference number the building society would have no idea who to attribute the monies to.

 

[Arthur]

I bet the bank would have been more demanding had it have been their error that had wrongly credited an account to the tune of £26k which had then been withdrawn.

Does sound a bit suspect though. I transferred some cash to someone a few weeks back and ballsed up his account number and the money was back in my account within minutes. Guess I just got lucky.

 

[BensGrandad]

I would have thought that the account name and number that it was sent to wouldn't match so the payment should have been returned to the original account as not paid

 

[brightonrock]

How is possible that two customers can have exactly the same account no, & sort code?

Because its a building society, not a bank. Many only have 1 account for receipt of payments, and re-route to their customer with the roll/reference number. Others have no BACS capacity so they use a high street bank (barclays/hsbc etc) to forward the monies. If the details entered in error didn't relate to a true account they should (but in practice are usually retained!) be returned to the remitter; however if the details are real the payment won't fail.

A court would consider hardship of the recipient, and whether the monies were still in cash or an intangible asset like paying off a credit card/mortgage. To prove a crime they'd need to prove intent, which is very difficult and very expensive to do.

It's basically my job to look at this sort of thing - and if a bank/building society had made a mistake they will usually repay ASAP out of their own (deep) pockets, and recover the funds from the recipient themselves. But when Joe Regular makes a mistake they're not liable as they were only following instructions, and unless it was a super-sensitive case that might impact their reputation, they'll usually tell the customer to swivel.

On a separate note, is paying your salary from your own business back into a business account not a pretty dodgy move, tax-wise? All a bit fishy to me.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

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!!!

I'm still desperate to know how you do this.

1/4 of £50k is £12500 p.a, meaning on average each person earns £6250 a year.

Thats £520 a month. Divided by 4 thats £130 a week. Thats £3.72 an hour in a 35 hour week.

Are you SURE?

* Don't mean to be rude re: asking about money. I'm just IMPRESSED.

 

[Southstandfaithful]

Don't understand this story at all... the recipient has committed fraud so why are they not pursuing recompense under legal grounds?..... seems very weird. We have just been discussing this at work and my colleagues are split 50/50 on whether you would keep the money or own up if this happened to you... Most would keep the first payment and see what happens but as soon as the next payment appeared a few consciences kicked in. I would put my hand up and highlight the error but i'm a girly swot.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Because its a building society, not a bank. Many only have 1 account for receipt of payments, and re-route to their customer with the roll/reference number. Others have no BACS capacity so they use a high street bank (barclays/hsbc etc) to forward the monies. If the details entered in error didn't relate to a true account they should (but in practice are usually retained!) be returned to the remitter; however if the details are real the payment won't fail.

A court would consider hardship of the recipient, and whether the monies were still in cash or an intangible asset like paying off a credit card/mortgage. To prove a crime they'd need to prove intent, which is very difficult and very expensive to do.

It's basically my job to look at this sort of thing - and if a bank/building society had made a mistake they will usually repay ASAP out of their own (deep) pockets, and recover the funds from the recipient themselves. But when Joe Regular makes a mistake they're not liable as they were only following instructions, and unless it was a super-sensitive case that might impact their reputation, they'll usually tell the customer to swivel.

On a separate note, is paying your salary from your own business back into a business account not a pretty dodgy move, tax-wise? All a bit fishy to me.

Appreciate you inside insight, but the bit that does not site easy with me is the "To prove a crime they'd need to prove intent,"
so if someone wrongly puts money into your account its leagal to keep it, that's what your saying isn't it?
If you did not take it, but were wrongly given it, its ok?

 

[brightonrock]

Appreciate you inside insight, but the bit that does not site easy with me is the "To prove a crime they'd need to prove intent,"
so if someone wrongly puts money into your account its leagal to keep it, that's what your saying isn't it?
If you did not take it, but were wrongly given it, its ok?

Not exactly what I mean, no - it's not theft because that implies action on the recipient's part to deliberately intercept/redirect the funds. It comes under a principle of common law rather than a specific statute, so it's extremely difficult to define and therefore open to interpretation. Anything with ambiguity in law causes endless debate and filibustering by lawyers in court, hence it's expensive.

For example, imagine you find £20 note in the street. It's not yours but you don't know whose it is. Do you hand it in at the nearest bank? Or spend it? It could be argued that spending it is dishonest but it would be very hard for me to prove, if that turned out to have been my £20 note, that you 'stole' it. You could argue you thought you had dropped it yourself. I would have to go to great lengths to prove you deliberately spent what you knew wasn't yours. It's not the best analogy and obviously the sums involved are higher, but it's the closest I can describe.

The principle of law is that you should repay monies received in error, however it can be difficult to enforce in practice.

 

[The Fifth Column]

There is no need to prove any intent in the offence of 'retaining a wrongful credit' and in fact there are many other crimes where intent is not required.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Not exactly what I mean, no - it's not theft because that implies action on the recipient's part to deliberately intercept/redirect the funds. It comes under a principle of common law rather than a specific statute, so it's extremely difficult to define and therefore open to interpretation. Anything with ambiguity in law causes endless debate and filibustering by lawyers in court, hence it's expensive.

For example, imagine you find £20 note in the street. It's not yours but you don't know whose it is. Do you hand it in at the nearest bank? Or spend it? It could be argued that spending it is dishonest but it would be very hard for me to prove, if that turned out to have been my £20 note, that you 'stole' it. You could argue you thought you had dropped it yourself. I would have to go to great lengths to prove you deliberately spent what you knew wasn't yours. It's not the best analogy and obviously the sums involved are higher, but it's the closest I can describe.

The principle of law is that you should repay monies received in error, however it can be difficult to enforce in practice.

Ok, i get it, if the recipient is earning 200k a year, he could claim he did not notice the 1k extra a month going in, where as if the recipient is on benefits it would be a lot harder to convince that they didn't notice.
On a separate note, can the recipient use "confidentiality" to hide from the payee to escape a law suit being filed for the return of the money?
Or can they go to the court to get a court order for the bank to reveal the identity?

 

[beorhthelm]

Hmm, Nationwide... I could see there being a problem if this is one of those 'accounts' where a block of customers have the same sort code and account number, with each customer having their own reference number. She gets the account number right, so the money gets into the pot (the account) without problem - but she cocks up the reference number so the money then gets credited to the wrong person.

ah, so thats why theres a a/c no and roll no on building society accounts. i always thought having both was a bit redundant.

I'm still desperate to know how you do this.

my guess, as a small mortgage and a different expectation of "exotic".