ATM Error - £300 not paid out

grumbler

Meadows wrote: »

:think: - Fraud - A person intending to deceive others.

Is it not you who are trying to deceive people by posting a deliberately shortened definition from an unknown source (was it your head?)?. It's obvious that 'fraud' cannot be 'a person', but I don't call you a fraudster just because of your intention to deceive.

a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

And this was clearly explained by matttye:

matttye wrote: »

Technically it's not. It is making a false representation but there is no dishonest intent. This isn't for financial gain, merely to obtain money that is rightfully theirs.

agrinnall

cyberbird wrote: »

Well to be honest, I don't want power of attorney. I'm the son-in-law and seems to be overkill just for this matter and probably expensive.

It doesn't need to be you that has the LPA (although it would have helped in this situation) but it would make sense for somebody to have it. And it needn't be expensive, the only unavoidable cost is the £130 required to register the LPA with the OPG, as you'll see if you look at the link I provided.

jonesMUFCforever

grumbler wrote: »

Oh no, not DPA again, please....
In this case the bank didn't need to tell the OP anything about the account and it's holder.

......BUT they do need the ACCOUNT holder to tell them that money has been deducted from their account.
The relative can write the letter as long as the customer signs it - the bank will then investigate and refund.

meer53

grumbler wrote: »

How many times does it have to be repeated that they don't need to acknowledge anything in this case?

If this *happens* this doesn't mean that this is correct or not stupid.

If they needed a confirmation, they could have asked. However, they have not asked because they didn't need this.
Did anyone say anything about operating?

How many times do we have to repeat that bank procedures have to be followed, whether you like it or not ?

No amount of bleating on by you will change this, as usual, your posts contribute nothing at all except your hatred of the banking system and it's employees.

grumbler

meer53 wrote: »

How many times do we have to repeat that bank procedures have to be followed, whether you like it or not ?

There is no need to repeat this as I've never said that they don't have to be followed. What I actually said was that some procedures were stupid or, possibly, didn't exist at all and were invented by improvising branch staff.

No amount of bleating on by you will change this, as usual, your posts contribute nothing at all except your hatred of the banking system and it's employees.

Firstly, I don't hate all employees. Only those who repeat 'DPA', 'law' etc. only to disguise the fact that they have no idea about either. Secondly, I don't see what you contributed on the top of what the OP was already told by the branch staff.

meer53

grumbler wrote: »

There is no need to repeat this as I've never said that they don't have to be followed. What I actually said was that some procedures were stupid or, possibly, didn't exist at all and were invented by improvising branch staff.

Firstly, I don't hate all employees. Only those who repeat 'DPA', 'law' etc. only to disguise the fact that they have no idea about either. Secondly, I don't see what you contributed on the top of what the OP was already told by the branch staff.

How can you say that procedures are stupid or possibly invented if you have no experience in dealing with this sort of problem ?

As for my contribution (given using my experience) see post #37.

grumbler

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

......BUT they do need the ACCOUNT holder to tell them that money has been deducted from their account.

No, they can check this themselves if they need to.
And again, as you quoted my reply to 'DPA' excuse, this has nothing to do with DPA

grumbler

meer53 wrote: »

How can you say that procedures are stupid or possibly invented if you have no experience in dealing with this sort of problem ?

I can say "possibly" about anything that I am not sure about.
And I don't have to be a car designer to say that a square wheel is 'stupid', especially if the car can't move because of this.
Have you ever heard of common sense - as long as it doesn't conflict with some laws? That said, there are numerous examples of stupid laws.

As for my contribution (given using my experience) see post #37.

I stand corrected, but, unfortunately, the only real contribution I see hardly can be useful for the OP now (it can in the future).

meer53 wrote: »

....There are procedures available which will allow a third party to operate the account and these should be set up on her account.

jonesMUFCforever

grumbler wrote: »

No, they can check this themselves if they need to.
And again, as you quoted my reply to 'DPA' excuse, this has nothing to do with DPA

Well if the account holder does not tell them a mistake has taken place with the ATM then the bank does not have to do anything at all - because in their eyes there is nothing wrong. Sorry but on this point you are wrong - Grumble as much as you like but OP will get nowhere until the actual customer tells the bank a mistake has taken place.:p

cyberbird

meer53 wrote: »

As someone else has already mentioned, simply acknowledging that the account exists will cause trouble for bank staff. They will only deal with the account holder, this is what happens where i work and i would imagine it's the same for all banks.

Thanks again to everybody who has posted.

meer53, is it not possible for a bank customer or another bank's customer to simply report that they observed a problem with the machine? No need then to discuss or acknowledge anybody's account.

Isn't there then an obligation for the bank to investigate?

It would seem sometimes that procedures are created to benefit the bank. I'm not even sure why other people aren't allowed to use other people's cards when they have permission.