We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ATM Error - £300 not paid out
Options
Comments
-
:think: - Fraud - A person intending to deceive others.a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual
And this was clearly explained by matttye: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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
The relative can write the letter as long as the customer signs it - the bank will then investigate and refund.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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 #37.0 -
jonesMUFCforever wrote: »......BUT they do need the ACCOUNT holder to tell them that money has been deducted from their account.
And again, as you quoted my reply to 'DPA' excuse, this has nothing to do with DPA0 -
How can you say that procedures are stupid or possibly invented if you have no experience in dealing with this sort of problem ?
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.....There are procedures available which will allow a third party to operate the account and these should be set up on her account.0 -
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 DPA0 -
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards