£26,000 gone missing!

LardyCake

dalesrider wrote: »

Can't be as the money never hit their account....

My thought was that "Sally " was given the account details of his girlfriend by husband, telling "Sally" that this was their joint account.

If she was dim enough to not miss £1,000 a month for two years, she might equally not check the joint account details for herself.

dalesrider

LardyCake wrote: »

My thought was that "Sally " was given the account details of his girlfriend by husband, telling "Sally" that this was their joint account.

If she was dim enough to not miss £1,000 a month for two years, she might equally not check the joint account details for herself.

Ah get you now. :eek:

It does say she checked the balance, but still never twigged that 1K a month was missing....
You have to wonder if he has any idea on the value of money.

1K to many is their monthly income, yet here we have a couple who claim to be frugal :rotfl:. Yet do not notice 1K a month missing, for over 2 years.... :mad:

caitieface

Yeah, my first thought reading this was I wish I had enough money coming in to not notice that much going missing!

I want to feel bad for her but...really?

richardmk

In month 24 the intended account would have had a cumulative £24,000 shortfall..
The fact that Nationwide accounts have 50% less validation checks by using Modulus 10 and Modulus 11 increased the risk of this error by 10% Action is needed to make account numbers more secure so this risk can be avoided in the future..

dalesrider

richardmk wrote: »

Action is needed to make account numbers more secure so this risk can be avoided in the future..

Which can be completley negated by sending £1 to check the payment arrives at the correct account.
As well as ongoing monitoring of your accounts to ensure payments arrive.

Even with the best checking. It will still be possible to key in a wrong acc and hit a live account.

At the end of the say. Its upto the person keying in the details to check they are correct.

Mara69

opinions4u wrote: »

That £1 test transaction is so important.

Oh yes. I once transferred £4k from my account to an old account held by my husband. This particular account had an outstanding CC and loan debt on it and I thought I'd never get the money back. Thankfully, I did but it took about a two weeks in total and was, without doubt, the most stressful time of my life.

Now I always do the £1 test transaction and still stress. I've recently had cause to transfer money from Santander to Halifax. The £1 test transaction went through smoothly and quickly. The subsequent transaction took 24 hours and even though I knew the details were correct, because I had done the test transaction, I was so really stressed.

magpiecottage

Clearly the woman is stupid but Nationwide is incorrect to say that it cannot release the details of the recipient due to the Data Protection Act.

Section 35(2) of that Act says

"Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—
(a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b)for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights."

adamc260

How do you not notice £26,000 over 2 years going.. how much money must these people have for that to not show up for ages?

innovate

magpiecottage wrote: »

Clearly the woman is stupid but Nationwide is incorrect to say that it cannot release the details of the recipient due to the Data Protection Act.

Section 35(2) of that Act says

"Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—
(a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or
(b)for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights."

Yet more proof, as if more was needed, that the woman is stupid. Anyone in their right mind would by now have, if necessary through their Solicitor, a Court order for the release of the name of the thief. It's not like she can't afford a Solicitor - she's got £1,000 a month more disposable income now, lol!

But who knows, perhaps Sally already knows the details of the person who bagged the money, and therefore doesn't need any legal help to get it.

pmduk

But it's much quicker and easier to go bleating to the press, after all, you might get your photo in the paper.