Abbey's Disgraceful Banking Protocol Failure

Lucy_R

In July 08 I wrote a cheque for £2008 in final payment for a holiday in Florida. The company I paid it to (Travel City Direct) then folded. Although I have an invoice stating all payments were made, ABTA quite rightly want a copy of the cheque. I called Abbey and asked for a copy of that cheque in early September.

After a very long and drawn out battle with Abbey Customer Services trying to fob me off, they have at last admitted that they have no copy of the cheque nor do they have any audit trail of where/when and to whom that money was paid.

They have however agreed to pay the full amount in full plus £150.00 compensation for their tardiness, my expenses and stress - a total of £2158.00

I am happy with that as it means I am not actually out of pocket. What I am concerned about, however, is the complete lack of assistance/advice and support I received from the bank plus their obvious disgraceful banking protocol.

Does anyone know if they have a legal obligation to keep copies of cheques written by their customers and indeed, are they not supposed to have some sort of audit trail??

Lokolo

They're giving you free money and you're still complaining? Sheesh.

opinions4u

They have no legal obligation to retain them, but if they didn't they would have to pay compensation out in cases such as yours. So they do retain them.

Clearly they made a mistake. Given the several million cheques a year that fly through the banking system, it isn't surprising that one or two go missing occasionally.

They've said sorry by giving you £150. And on top of that they've written off £2,158 to ensure you are not out of pocket as a result of the mistake.

I'm no Abbey fan, but they have (eventually) acted fairly in response to a problem raised.

latecomer

I've got to agree with the others. I would very be happy with the fact you have been given all your money back with a little extra on top.

akashi

Nothing says more sorry than a £150 compensation in your case.

chuckley

this OP is havin a laugh right?!

jonesMUFCforever

First time poster...........unlikely scenario..........troll ?

wheelel

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

First time poster...........unlikely scenario..........troll ?

Jeez, you guys, give the girl a break! She's obviously had a really stressful experience and just because she's a first-time poster that makes her a troll?

Surely you should be welcoming new members to the forums, not accusing them of being trolls and telling them they have nothing to complain about.

OK she received compensation, but are you really all telling me that just because she eventually got compensation she has no right to discuss her problems with you on these boards?

Abbey obviously made a mistake here, and it is pretty shocking of them to not have any paper trail associated with the transaction, I'm glad that she has made me aware of this, it's one more reason for me not to trust Abbey.

I know first-hand how frustrating they are to deal with. Read about my problems with Abbey here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1286513

I just think it's so sad that she had to deal with them fobbing her off and messing her around, only to come here and find that none of you want to support her in what was probably a very stressful ordeal. I find that disgraceful.

Just because they eventually managed to put it right, it does not mean that she has no right to be upset about it. Shame on you all.

Extant

They'd be breaking the law if they didn't keep some sort of audit.

I am not sure exactly what the law says around keeping instruments, but I'd be surprised if they could dispose of it that quickly. And if they could physically dispose of it that quickly, I would have thought they would keep a scan of it.

ldavies_3

agree with BM.. There most certainly should be an audit trail somewhere and a scan of the cheque.

I think that the banks need to keep most info for 6 years though t is dependant n what that info is..

PBA

Definite troll. A scan of the cheque would be on file. Even if somehow it couldn't be found, 150 is well above the amount of compo that would be paid unless the customer was out of pocket (which isn't the case here).