Bank error in my favour?

M_Thomson

LeeSouthEast wrote: »

Actually if I found 19k unexpectedly in my bank account I'd move it to a high interest savings account, then wait for someone to come looking for it. Hopefully I'd earn some nice interest on that in the 2 months of delay tactics I could draw up before giving it back

So what if the bank decides to withdraw the transaction, from the original account, which makes you overdrawn and incurs charges?

LeeSouthEast

Life is about risk. I'd make money or lose money. If I did nothing neither would happen, and the status quo won't make you rich.

Fedz

M_Thomson wrote: »

So what if the bank decides to withdraw the transaction, from the original account, which makes you overdrawn and incurs charges?

They'd have to give reasonable notice of such action so you'd be fully aware of any pending withdrawl

hippey

LeeSouthEast wrote: »

Actually if I found 19k unexpectedly in my bank account I'd move it to a high interest savings account, then wait for someone to come looking for it. Hopefully I'd earn some nice interest on that in the 2 months of delay tactics I could draw up before giving it back

I like your answer, then after moving the money to keep safe (which is a responsibility of yours) you should then call the bank and advise them of the error. Make sure it's logged and hold on to the cash.

If they don't ever reclaim it them so be it, but you are expected to do everything reasonably possible, just define resonable.

Remember it can ONLY EVER be theft if you intend to perminantly deprive them of it.

tizhimi

LOL, sounds like that couple in New Zeland who got a few million accidently put in their account, last I heard INTERPOL were looking for them and they were last spotted in Thailand. Brilliant!

Soubrette

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Whether you ask for it or not does not alter whether or not it is theft - theft is the act of stealing, stealing is to take without permission or legal right and with no intention to return it.

The poster has taken money without legal right (you might like to look up the legal concept of unjust enrichment).

Could you comment on this story in the news?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8251679.stm

I'm puzzled why the banks hands appear to be tied, you would think they would do the same as if they had made a mistake ie broker a deal and if not possible, be the middle man who passes on correspondence including a court summons if necessary.

(There are some parts of the story that puzzle me eg it was someone she paid something to years ago and their details were saved on her account yet she has no idea who it is )

Sou

Lokolo

Soubrette wrote: »

Could you comment on this story in the news?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8251679.stm

I'm puzzled why the banks hands appear to be tied, you would think they would do the same as if they had made a mistake ie broker a deal and if not possible, be the middle man who passes on correspondence including a court summons if necessary.

(There are some parts of the story that puzzle me eg it was someone she paid something to years ago and their details were saved on her account yet she has no idea who it is )

Sou

It has been discussed many times.

The bank are the middle man who can't do anything except ask for the money back.

The person who sent the money has the right to get the money back from the person who recieved the money. But the bank can't demand because its not their money that was sent and therefore demanded back (only the person who sent it can). But the bank can't tell the person who sent, any information about the person that recieved because of the Data Protection Act.

olly300

Lokolo wrote: »

It has been discussed many times.

The bank are the middle man who can't do anything except ask for the money back.

The person who sent the money has the right to get the money back from the person who recieved the money. But the bank can't demand because its not their money that was sent and therefore demanded back (only the person who sent it can). But the bank can't tell the person who sent, any information about the person that recieved because of the Data Protection Act.

I saw the story on Breakfast News and know people who work with the Data Protection Act everyday - two of them in a legal capacity.

The Information Commissioner was contacted about the story and apparently gave a sigh before answering. He pointed out the purpose of the Act is not to allow organisations to hide behind it in cases like this.

Remember the utility companies that allowed old people to freeze to death citing the Data Protection Act as an excuse not to give concerned relatives information about whether they should pay the bill?

Also organisations cannot hide behind the Data Protection Act if a law has been broken. However it's up to you to work out what law(s) have been broken and inform them of that. (I have personal experience of that but I am not allowed to go into it.)

The woman story probably gave up at the first hurdle when instead she should have reported A&L to the Information Commissioner for breaching the Data Protection Act, what other law(s) she thinks have been breached and how the bank with breaking the law. From their response she can complain to the FOS or take legal action under the Data Protection Act. (Most of the time the Information Commissioner simply responds along the lines of we believe x hasn't complied with the Data Protection Act.)

However as the case happened years ago she is out of time for putting in a complaint.

Alliance and Leicester are regularly mentioned on here for their poor customer service so I'm not surprised really about them not reclaiming the money. Someone else on this board did a similar thing but they got the money back simply because they didn't bank with such a poor outfit.

Also if she paid the person years ago I'm surprised there is absolutely nothing in the account information that gives her an idea of who the person was.

Lokolo

olly300 wrote: »

Also if she paid the person years ago I'm surprised there is absolutely nothing in the account information that gives her an idea of who the person was.

Not sure how A&L do it but HSBC shows the name of payee, pay description, account number and sort code. So with that information I think I can find someone out! But as I said, not sure how A&L system works.

I still don't see your point, the bank can't give the customer the other persons details. The person who recieved the money will just sue the bank for giving their information out.

chris_m

Soubrette wrote: »

(There are some parts of the story that puzzle me eg it was someone she paid something to years ago and their details were saved on her account yet she has no idea who it is )

That's the bit that surprises me. Mind you, I do keep pretty good records of everything that comes into or goes out of my accounts, maybe she doesn't - or didn't, maybe she does now.