Money refunded twice on credit card.

flutterby_lil

At the end of February my credit card was debited with almost £800 for the automatic renewal of my partners car insurance, however this had already been sorted elsewhere. We ad let the company know we didn't wish to use them but they took it anyway.

I contacted my bank who said they would investigate and had 60 days to give me my money back onto the card. They did it immediately. The insurance company then also refunded payment, about a week later.

I still have the money in my account from my bank. Legally, how long do they have to claim this money back?

Thanks

cdavies1960

Are you saying that your bank refunded the money?

If so... The bank will contact the insurance company and the insurance company will tell the bank that they refunded the money and provide proof. At which point the card company will reverse their credit on the account. So within the next 60 days you will receive a letter stating that a claim has been unsuccessful and that their credit (while it was under investigation) will be returned to you.

If I were you, I would contact your card provider and inform them that the merchant has now refunded the money.

Kind Regards,

bengal-stripe

flutterby_lil wrote: »

I still have the money in my account from my bank. Legally, how long do they have to claim this money back?

Six years! So you are in for a very, very long wait!

Dogger69

flutterby_lil wrote: »

At the end of February my credit card was debited with almost £800 for the automatic renewal of my partners car insurance, however this had already been sorted elsewhere. We ad let the company know we didn't wish to use them but they took it anyway.

I contacted my bank who said they would investigate and had 60 days to give me my money back onto the card. They did it immediately. The insurance company then also refunded payment, about a week later.

I still have the money in my account from my bank. Legally, how long do they have to claim this money back?

Thanks

Pretty shameful that you are even asking the question. Contact the lender and let them redebit the money.

Herbalus

Why not tell the bank that you had a refund? It's not wise to assume that you might get away with keeping it (which is what I understand from your question about legally keeping it).

What will happen is the bank will claim the money from the insurance company who will tell them that they have already given you a refund. Your bank will then want payment from you and ask why you didn't inform them of the refund. Tell them.

jo-bo

What a stupid question, I bet if they took YOUR money illegally you'd be up in arms!! What has this country come to when people ask how legal it is for them to be dishonest?

flutterby_lil

Sorry but I thought this was a money saving site? That is exactly what I am trying to do.

It is not my fault that they have refunded the money. I will wait and see what they say.

I didn't ask about my moral obligation, just my legal one.

The bank gets enough money.

Thanks anyway.

HiToAll

Legally, I think, and someone can correct me that the theft Act 1968 states something along the lines that if you have something that you know is someone elses and decide to keep it, that is theft.

bengal-stripe

flutterby_lil wrote: »

I didn't ask about my moral obligation, just my legal one.......The bank gets enough money.

At least you are refreshingly honest in your dishonesty.

Most posters here, who find too much money in their account, "never notice" until the dosh is spent and the bank wants their money back.

flutterby_lil

The money is still there, I will not be spending it.

matttye

HiToAll wrote: »

Legally, I think, and someone can correct me that the theft Act 1968 states something along the lines that if you have something that you know is someone elses and decide to keep it, that is theft.

That's correct if you dishonestly keep something you know belongs to someone else. If you believe there's no way of tracing/contacting the owner through reasonable it's not considered dishonest.

The Theft Act says this about dishonesty:

"2“Dishonestly”

(1)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property."

OP might have an argument under (1)(a) but it'd be a long shot.

They would have to prove he intended to permanently deprive the bank of the funds too. It seems he's just waiting to see what happens rather than trying to permanently deprive them of it.

I'd say it's not theft, but I'm not a lawyer, so take my opinion with a pinch of salt.