50,000 Pounds in Cash Withdrawn Under 3rd Party Mandate

magpiecottage

FOS Case study 74/1 suggests that the bank might be considered liable although that led to a conviction.

On the other hand, the burden of proof for criminal conviction is beyond all reasonable doubt so it is quite possible for FOs to uphold a complaint when the Police think there is no realistic prospect of a conviction.

Limara

cant offer any advice but I find it amazing that the bank didnt flag up that sort of activity, I have had 2 occasions where spending online in the small hours and only small ammounts ( one was £3.65) and both were via e bay which I use all the time, I have had a stop put on my card because it was " abnormal activity " how on the earth could a bank not notice the amount that was being withdrawn from that account. and as others have said the limit is normally per day limit at the atm machines not per visit?

dunstonh

Limara wrote: »

cant offer any advice but I find it amazing that the bank didnt flag up that sort of activity, I have had 2 occasions where spending online in the small hours and only small ammounts ( one was £3.65) and both were via e bay which I use all the time, I have had a stop put on my card because it was " abnormal activity " how on the earth could a bank not notice the amount that was being withdrawn from that account. and as others have said the limit is normally per day limit at the atm machines not per visit?

A branch of 15 staff would have around 5000 accounts. Do you honestly belief the staff sit in the branch all day looking at transactions?

jamesd

To grant third party access to an account with a £50,000 balance was not prudent. It could have been done with far less risk by setting up a second account funded by a standing order from the first, with the standing order amount set to be sufficient for the intended purpose.

I don't know whether the bank would be expected to recommend this alternative course, nor whether it did and was ignored.

Over_The_Big_Pond

Barclays Bank have made a decision and have stated they are not at fault as the Police are not going to pursue a prosecution with "Rita" (who we have been told, has now moved off the old person's site)

When i questioned the decision all they kept saying was "the Police are not treating it as fraud and are not proceeding with any charges, so the case is closed"

I find it amazing that with todays technology available that the account use was not questioned by Barclays.

jamesd

Whether the police treat it as fraud is not the end of the matter. You should ask Barclays to confirm that their decision is final and inform you of your right to take the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service, then make a complaint to the FOS. The FOS will take a neutral and independent view of what happened and Barclays will be bound by their decision.

My view is that at a minimum given the amount of money in the account and the stated purpose, Barclays should have recommended the use of another account to reduce the risks involved. Events like those that happened here are not rare and banks should be well aware of them and how to mitigate the risk.