50,000 Pounds in Cash Withdrawn Under 3rd Party Mandate

Over_The_Big_Pond

Hello Everyone,

In September 2012 my Grandmother passed away. She was 92 Years old and housebound. In late 2010 she was "befriended" by a Women on the Old persons home site that she lived on in Essex. Vera My Grandmother, had been a lifelong Barclays Bank customer and during 2011 her current account had a balance of around 60000 pounds in it. In February 2011 Vera requested her solicitor to change Her will to enable her to include details of a funeral plan and make some financial arrangements. At this time Her Solicitor stated she seemed confused and stated that they were unsure of her state of mind to make any changes and a new Will was refused. In November 2011 Barclays Bank arranged for a 3rd party mandate agreement. This allowed a 3rd party "Rita" an ATM card and assist with Day to Day living expenses etc.

In an 18 week period from December 2011 to April 2012 Rita's ATM card was used to withdraw 48,600 pounds in cash from ATM machines and Vera's account.

Upon visiting England to attend the Funeral Oct 2012 ( I now live in Australia) and take care of other matters i was unable to find any bank statements in Vera's property and went into the local Barclays bank to request copies. The Personal banking expert that assisted me, viewed the account and very quickly informed me that "something was not right" with the account activity and informed me to go to the Police and complain to Barclays directly. I did both and have spent the last 4 months dealing with this situation.

The Police arrested the suspect who admitted removing the money and found an small amount of Cash which she stated my Grandmother wanted her to have. The Police have now stated that there is not enough evidence to obtain a conviction?

Barclays:

I am sure you will not be supprised that they have been slow in dealing with this. They have waited for the Police to make a decision and are now stating that they have done nothing wrong regarding to the Management of the account.

I have written to and contacted the Financial Onbudsman who are looking into the matter.

I would be grateful for any advice on what i see as a blatant mismanangement of my Grandmothers account.

Many thanks In advance

dunstonh

I am sure you will not be supprised that they have been slow in dealing with this. They have waited for the Police to make a decision and are now stating that they have done nothing wrong regarding to the Management of the account.

They have to wait for the police investigation.

I would be grateful for any advice on what i see as a blatant mismanangement of my Grandmothers account.

How was it mismanaged?

The money was withdrawn by someone who was authorised by the account holder to be able to draw money. Were the bank aware of your grandmother's diminished mental state? If they were not and they have no reason to question it, then they have done nothing wrong. If they were aware of it then there is scope under a complaint.

Over_The_Big_Pond

dunstonh wrote: »

They have to wait for the police investigation.

Why should they need to wait. The matter is a civil issue and not a legal one. The decision of any legal matter is not in question.



How was it mismanaged?

The money was withdrawn by someone who was authorised by the account holder to be able to draw money. Were the bank aware of your grandmother's diminished mental state? If they were not and they have no reason to question it, then they have done nothing wrong. If they were aware of it then there is scope under a complaint.

Vera's mental condition is not the only thing in question, why was such activity not flagged? The mandate that was signed was only for essential items only like groceries. During the time the mandate was in effect, only 299 pounds was actually spent in stores for grocery items. 48600 pounds was removed in cash from ATM's. The card limit was 300 pounds per day! My Nan was housebound yet someone visited ATM's at the rate of 3 or 4 times a day, drawing up to 2000 pounds in some days alone.

48600 pounds withdrawn in cash from ATM's in a 18 week period, Is this proper and fair management of an account with no activities of this nature ever?

Wywth

I think we are entering the realms of fantasy here.

dunstonh

why was such activity not flagged?

Because there is no reason to.

The mandate that was signed was only for essential items only like groceries.

The banks dont check spending like that. That may have been the intention but the bank would not put that a signing authority.

During the time the mandate was in effect, only 299 pounds was actually spent in stores for grocery items. 48600 pounds was removed in cash from ATM's.

And the police seem to think there is not enough evidence for prosecution.

My Nan was housebound yet someone visited ATM's at the rate of 3 or 4 times a day, drawing up to 2000 pounds in some days alone.

Which your nan agreed to by letting the person have access to the account.

Is this proper and fair management of an account with no activities of this nature ever?

yes. When you let someone have access to withdraw funds from your account this is one of the consequences.

Over_The_Big_Pond

dunstonh wrote: »

Because there is no reason to.


The banks dont check spending like that. That may have been the intention but the bank would not put that a signing authority.

Reply:

So why does the mandate state living expenses only like groceries?

What about the 300 pound daily ATM limit that was constantly exceded?

Over_The_Big_Pond

Wywth wrote: »

I think we are entering the realms of fantasy here.

Thank you so much for your expert advice. Why spend the time writing that?

Perhaps you could have responded in a more intelligent way.

:T

dunstonh

So why does the mandate state living expenses only like groceries?

What difference does it make if it does?

What about the 300 pound daily ATM limit that was constantly exceded?

What about it?

You have to ask yourself why the police are taking no action. If they can find no wrong doing then why do you think you can?

Over_The_Big_Pond

dunstonh wrote: »

What difference does it make if it does?

Really, is it that cut and dried?

What about it?

You have to ask yourself why the police are taking no action. If they can find no wrong doing then why do you think you can?

Does the Police lack of action for whatever grounds reduce any obligation of the Bank?

A banks obligation on the Mandate set up for groceries or cash withdraws exceeding daily limits.

Has the bank done anything wrong?

Are they hiding behind the Police's lack of conviction, please pardon the pun.

dunstonh

Does the Police lack of action for whatever grounds reduce any obligation of the Bank?

The bank has very little obligation. Looking at it in its simplest form, did the person withdrawing the funds have permission to do so? yes they did. The person doing the withdrawals may not have done what was agreed but they did have the legal authority to draw money.

Are they hiding behind the Police's lack of conviction, please pardon the pun.

Not hiding behind it but it would be part of the decision making on it. Fundamentally, it will come down to whether the person was allowed access. They were. They abused the trust of your grandmother. It is that person that did wrong. Not the bank. However, the bank is required to consider the mental state of individuals. That would apply at the time the authority was given. That is really the only place there is scope on a complaint.

dzug1

Reply:

So why does the mandate state living expenses only like groceries?

I seriously doubt that a mandate to a bank would say such a thing. I can't see a bank accepting it if it did, even if that were its intention.

Your grandmother's friend has a very easy defence to the charge of fraud/theft - your grandmother gave her specific permission to take it as a gift. That may well be untrue, but proving otherwise will be next to impossible