compensation from bank ...help

escortg3

A couple of years ago a bank allowed fraudulant signed cheques to be cashed from my account. they have admitted liability by refunding me the money. problem. it was a large amount and it took them two years to refund it. because of this i was off work sick and also as it took them two years i had defaults and interest added to bills tax man etc. i am asking for compensation for loss of earnings, personal damages, interest on the money taken, return of bank charges and all other costs incurred to me as a result. i went to banking ombidsman and it is to much for them to handle so i have to sort it myself. the bank offered a ridiculous amount and said basically if i dont accept then take them to court. if i do does anyone know how i stand. I think it will cost me loads to take it to court.any help please

focae

Confused....you posted this in September last year when it took 4 yrs for the bank to refund you?

opinions4u

escortg3 wrote: »

A couple of years ago a bank allowed fraudulant signed cheques to be cashed from my account. they have admitted liability by refunding me the money.

Have they actually admitted liability for anything? Or have they merely refunded the fraudulent transactions?

There will be issues around how the fraud occurred, were you in any way negligent etc. The bank has also been a victim of a crime by the sounds of it.

problem. it was a large amount and it took them two years to refund it. because of this i was off work sick

Okay, you're in to the realms of "prove it was the actions of the bank that made you sick". What other issues did you have in life at the time? Is it exclusively the bank's fault, or should you be pursuing the fraudsters for compensation too?

and also as it took them two years i had defaults and interest added to bills tax man etc. i am asking for compensation for loss of earnings, personal damages, interest on the money taken, return of bank charges and all other costs incurred to me as a result. i went to banking ombidsman and it is to much for them to handle

I believe there is a £100k limit to the amount the FOS can order a bank to pay (not sure if this has been reviewed upwards more recently). Over and above this they are not able to assist.

so i have to sort it myself. the bank offered a ridiculous amount and said basically if i dont accept then take them to court. if i do does anyone know how i stand. I think it will cost me loads to take it to court.any help please

If you want compensation for anything in life, and there is no arbritration scheme to cover it, then you need to go to court for it.

I'd get good legal advice though. Proving the bank is liable for your loss of earnings when the actions of a fraudster may be the straw that broke the camel's back will not be easy and may pile more stress in to your life over an extended period of time.

escortg3

focae wrote: »

Confused....you posted this in September last year when it took 4 yrs for the bank to refund you?

They have refunded the actual amount that was the cheque value that went out of the account but we have been arguing for ages about costs incurred as a result of the cheques

escortg3

They allowed cheques out of my account that were not signed by me. the person that signed them has admitted that they did sign them, the police were involved but the person played clever or not as the case may be, she told the police that she thought she was allowed to sign the cheques because she didte forge my signature. the police report says she wrote my name in her own handwriting therefore not fraud in the eyes of the law. therefore i believe the bank to be at fault. the signature was nothing like mine.

As a result of insufficiant funds in my account i couldnt get my operators licence for my lorry as you need a said amount in bank. i was under the doctor for stress and depression because of the money. the account has remained overdrawn since the money was stole incurring alot of bank charges and interest payments which they wont refund, the interest on the money that was stole that they wont refund, the fact that i didnt work which they wont pay, costs incurred as unable to pay tax man and vat which they wont refund it goes on and on.

The banking ombudsman says that any costs i incurred as a result of the banks error should be refunded, but the amount is to high for them which is a rubbish as they are on my side

jambosans

In a previous post you state your ex-wife forged your signature, therefore the bank has been a victim of fraud, just as much as you. Refunding a fraudulent cheque is not the bank admitting liability.

escortg3 wrote:

ok i have had trouble with an ex wife who fraudulently signed my names on cheques etc. said bank has refunded the amount for the forged cheques finally thus admitting liability.

I would be taking your ex-wife to court, not the bank. You will need to seek legal advice because this amount of compensation cannot be claimed through small claims courts.

escortg3

Thanks all for your replies, it seems that everyone has the same opinium that its not the banks fault and they have been a victim to.

So why do we have security systems at banks, we produce id, we sign samples of our signature etc, to only then find out it is a waste of time and they can allow someone to take our money without meeting any of the security checks that should be made.

Banks are supposed to be a secure place to put your money. isnt that part of the service they provide. They may as well leave our money on the doorstep as it still wouldnt be there fault, it would be the fault of the person who stole it. i just dont get it:mad:

The financial ombudsman is spot on when he says they have to pay all costs incurred to myself due to there mistakes:T

I will have to rally up the funds and pay whatever it costs to take them to court:eek:

jambosans

escortg3 wrote: »

Thanks all for your replies, it seems that everyone has the same opinium that its not the banks fault and they have been a victim to.

Your ex-wife committed cheque fraud. Even if the signature barely resembled yours, it does not make the bank more liable - both parties have been the victim of fraud.

escortg3 wrote: »

So why do we have security systems at banks, we produce id, we sign samples of our signature etc, to only then find out it is a waste of time and they can allow someone to take our money without meeting any of the security checks that should be made.

If your bank has not followed due process in adequately checking signatures, then perhaps, they could be held accountable for part of any fees incurred. However, I still feel you are going after the wrong party.

escortg3 wrote: »

Banks are supposed to be a secure place to put your money. isnt that part of the service they provide. They may as well leave our money on the doorstep as it still wouldnt be there fault, it would be the fault of the person who stole it. i just dont get it:mad:

Cheque clearing is a manual process, so mistakes are bound to happen. As I've stated, if the bank were negligent then perhaps they can be held to account for some damages. I don't think this situation is as black and white as your example, there was a deliberate attempt on the part of your ex-wife to defraud the bank.

escortg3 wrote: »

The financial ombudsman is spot on when he says they have to pay all costs incurred to myself due to there mistakes:T

I'm assuming this was not an official response? Did you mention your ex-wife had forged your signature on a cheque?

Your ex-wife commits cheque fraud, yet you want to take the bank to court? Seems bizarre logic. If someone has their handbag stolen and is injured in the process, should the victim go after the criminal for theft or the handbag manufacturer for not supplying a pair of handcuffs to attach the bag more securely to the owner?

opinions4u

escortg3 wrote: »

Thanks all for your replies, it seems that everyone has the same opinium that its not the banks fault and they have been a victim to.

Well they have. What you need to prove (on the balance of probability) is that their negligence has caused you the losses that they claim.

So why do we have security systems at banks, we produce id, we sign samples of our signature etc, to only then find out it is a waste of time and they can allow someone to take our money without meeting any of the security checks that should be made.

No system is perfect. Banks have security at their tills, but cashiers still get held-up from time to time.

Banks are supposed to be a secure place to put your money. isnt that part of the service they provide.

Yes. And you got your money back.

The financial ombudsman is spot on when he says they have to pay all costs incurred to myself due to there mistakes

I thought you said the FOS wouldn't deal with it. To quote you in the start of the thread "i went to banking ombidsman and it is to much for them to handle so i have to sort it myself".

I will have to rally up the funds and pay whatever it costs to take them to court

Take good advice before you do.

(1) How sound is your case?
(2) Is there a risk of a bank's legal department drowning your representatives in excessive paperwork that drives up the cost of any action that you take?

Losing and having to pay the costs of BOTH sides is not an outcome that would be good for you.

Sometimes accepting an offer that you consider inadequate and getting on with your life is a better option than dragging something out.

If the truth is that your marriage failed and you cracked up, and you are trying to blame the bank for the damage that did to you, taking them to court would be an extremely expensive mistake.

escortg3

the ex wife according to the police report to myself and the bank states that she didnt forge my signature, she wrote it as she normally does in her own handwriting. yes i dont understand that either but thats the official response.
Yes i have a letter from financial ombudsman stating that the bank should reimburse me any costs that i have incurred as a result of the cheques.

yes i agree she defrauded the bank. the bank has said that they will be going after her for the money after they have made a full and final settlement to me. its just agreeing on the settlement that is the problem. there attitude of take us to court for it, its as if they hope i drop it because i wouldnt be able to afford to go to court

escortg3

opinions4u wrote: »

Well they have. What you need to prove (on the balance of probability) is that their negligence has caused you the losses that they claim.

No system is perfect. Banks have security at their tills, but cashiers still get held-up from time to time.

Yes. And you got your money back.

I thought you said the FOS wouldn't deal with it.

Take good advice before you do.

(1) How sound is your case?
(2) Is there a risk of a bank's legal department drowning your representatives in excessive paperwork that drives up the cost of any action that you take?

Losing and having to pay the costs of BOTH sides is not an outcome that would be good for you.

Sometimes accepting an offer that you consider inadequate and getting on with your life is a better option than dragging something out.

If the truth is that your marriage failed and you cracked up, and you are trying to blame the bank for the damage that did to you, taking them to court would be an extremely expensive mistake.

I originally went to the financial ombudsman as i didnt know there was a limit to what they could deal with.

i was glad to get rid of the ex, and am very happy with my life now.

but when it took years to get the amount of the cheques back and in that time it has cost me thousands in costs, interest, charges etc etc while i was waiting to get my money back.
is so unfair. i work hard for my money and to lose a large amount that was needed to continue trading and not getting it back for so long has cost me dearly.

it was the delay in getting it back that has cost me the most.

and also having the same bank make a reposession order on a JCB which is vital for my work because i couldnt meet the payments on it. and why couldnt i meet the payment. because they gave my money away