Cheque paid into wrongly named account

kenshaz

djohn2002uk wrote:

But he may be concerned because N.Leicester is still chasing the OP for the money.

Because he still owes the money and N.Leicester expects payment ,it is not his reponsibility .Really cannot see a problem.
We often hear on this site about posters who have had large amounts paid into their account from a source that they know nothing about, and they want to keep it,sorry they must give it back,and the bank must act on behalf of our poster .

Take a small claims action against the bank ,watch them move then

Bossyboots

We could speculate for England on this thread but without the OP clarifying the exact circumstances of the drawing and paying in of this cheque, we won't know the true position. I have read the thread again and it still makes no sense. If it is a banking error then this has nothing to do with the police yet the OP would have us believe the police are investigating. If it is the case that it has been credited to the wrong account then it is for the payee to chase anyway, not the drawer. In those circumstances the payee won't be chasing for the money because they will know they have paid the cheque in. If the cheque has by some bizarre coincidence fallen into the hands of a different N Lester than the payee N Leicester, then it is a police matter as the cheque would be stolen but I (and I suspect the bank) find that a rather far fetched possibility. In this situation though N Leicester would of course still be chasing for payment.

If the OP comes back to this thread and is prepared to give fuller details, then they might be able to get some constructive advice on what to do. Otherwise, he can hardly blame people for being sceptical about what is going on.

johnmoney05

Well, if OP just gave the details like his post to the Police, I am afraid that even the Police hard to help him, nor the bank!

Mikeyorks

Gosh - you're all making hard work of this! You need to watch more Pink Panther films:D

The OP (see previous thread) prematurely (?) made out a cheque to 'Leicester' in respect of work carried out by (2) contractors. Then was advised by the main contractor that 'Leicester' had nothing to do with them, and the money was still outstanding.

In some way he has identified (copy of the paid cheque - whatever) that the cheque has been paid into an account owned by 'Lester'! And erroneously believes that the 'sounds like' error - entitles him to recover the money .... 'cos the Bank has been negligent?

But it won't - and the script won't make a decent film, even if Peter Sellers did come back to do Cloiseau? And the role of the Police? - is there does appear some legitimacy that 'Leicester' .. walked off with money not due to him (despite being freely handed over?).

........mind you, if 'Leicester' turns out to be Chinese .. we might just work a script?;)


Come on back Dave and agree / disagree?? Sympathise with the fact you've been 'conned' - but advice on these threads is best given if the evidence isn't presented covertly!

Paul_Herring

Mikeyorks wrote:

Gosh - you're all making hard work of this! You need to watch more Pink Panther films:D

The OP (see previous thread) prematurely (?) made out a cheque to 'Leicester' in respect of work carried out by (2) contractors. Then was advised by the main contractor that 'Leicester' had nothing to do with them, and the money was still outstanding.

Shame that when we were all making comments, none of us were aware of the existance of the previous thread.

Bossyboots

Even a link to another thread would have been useful if it contained the relevant information.

Mikeyorks

Post #29

MarkyMarkD

Yes, but the OP wasn't after honest information about the situation he asked about, but whether he could exploit a spelling difference to get back money from the bank which HE erroneously paid to the wrong person.

Paul_Herring

Mikeyorks wrote:

Post #29

And it's relevance to posts 1-28 and your apparent reaction to them is what exactly?

Mikeyorks

Paul_Herring wrote:

And it's relevance to posts 1-28 and your apparent reaction to them is what exactly?

It's a response to the post immediately above it (#37) - which implies there is no link posted to the earlier thread ?

Even a link to another thread would have been useful