Money in my account which isn't mine!

System

DizzleUK wrote: »

Why?

The customer would be refunded by the bank and the OP would be repaying the bank. The customer chose the frequency and payment amount, not the bank.

The OP needs to come to an arrangement based on what he can AFFORD to repay.

That is why I said HIGHEST rate

bengal-stripe

Kula_Shaker wrote: »

I’ve recently realised that monthly payments have been going into one of my bank accounts from an unknown creditor.

Reading this forum, this must happen frequently.......but why does it only happen to brand-new posters?

G3VKI

Kula_Shaker wrote: »

I wonder if anyone could advise me. I’ve recently realised that monthly payments have been going into one of my bank accounts from an unknown creditor. This account is not one I use for spending, it’s simply just an account that I transfer money in and out of as and when I need, so I never really bother to check the statements – I either have money in there or I don’t!
As soon as I realised I alerted the bank, and it turns out that the monthly payments are in error from an individual, who set up a standing order online but keyed in 2 incorrect numbers in the account and it just happened to be my account!
Now the bank have told me that this is money I have to pay back. I feel very frustrated as this isn’t my error and now I’ve been put into a position where I owe quite a large chunk of money which I hadn't even realised I had borrowed! Is it definitely my responsibility to pay up?

Yes, if you didn't know the money was there, how and why did you spend it?

dzug1

!!!!!! wrote: »

Insist that the highest rate you will pay it back is at the same rate it was put in.

Why? If it wasn't noticed going in it shouldn't be noticed going out

System

OK all you moralists, how big would a bank error have to be before you started seriously thinking about ditching the UK and starting a new life in South America?

missi76

You do NOT legally have to pay the money back. The banks do not have to even contact the person who has received the money in error, it is at their discretion. I think the only time the bank can make a successful recovery of monies is where the payer is with the same bank as the payee.
I know this as someone asked this question in the legal section of a magazine I bought this week

Fiddlestick

missi76 wrote: »

You do NOT legally have to pay the money back. The banks do not have to even contact the person who has received the money in error, it is at their discretion. I think the only time the bank can make a successful recovery of monies is where the payer is with the same bank as the payee.
I know this as someone asked this question in the legal section of a magazine I bought this week

Wrong.

There are some very narrow and specific circumstances in which you would not need to pay the money back, but in most cases the person spending the money *would* need to pay it back as it was never theirs to begin with.

F_T_Buyer

There was a situation in the news a while back where someone had sent some money to their savings account, and got the acc number wrong. The person sent numerous letters to the bank, but they couldn't disclose who the recipient was because of the data protection act. She couldn't therefore sue the person, as she didn't know who she was. The bank was not in error, so there was no blame there.

The bank only passed on letters to the recipient, but they decided to ignore it. Not sure what the result was - but it looks like she lost her money.

However, I would pay it back. That's the moral thing to do.

MGCP

The principle of unjust enrichment would apply. Briefly:

Have you been enriched?
Was the enrichment at the expense of another?
Was the enrichment unjust?
Do you have a defence?

In your case, yes you were enriched, and yes it was at the expense of whoever the cash was intended to go to. It was unjust because it was paid as a result of a mistake.

Your defence would have to be based on a change of position, on the basis that your position has changed so much as a result of this payment that it would actually be unjust to make you pay it back. If you have money sitting in your account that could cover it this is pretty much a non starter, but I can't really go into all the variables on this point.

The result is that you can be forced to make restitution and pay the money back, so everyone is back to the position they started in before the mistake was made.

MrsManda

You may find this BBC news article useful:
Ombudsman warns there is no such thing as free cash