Bank transfer error

JuicyJesus

pqrdef wrote: »

But it isn't the same. I don't "put money in the bank", I lend it to the bank. The bank is under contract to repay me what I've lent to it, and the account statement is the IOU.

But if money appears on that statement and the bank is informed that I didn't put it there or have anything to do with it being put there, then there's no contract term which obliges the bank to pay me that money, i.e. allow me to withdraw it or spend it.

But the bank will pay me the money it doesn't owe me because the system is broken, it doesn't know what to do about it, and basically it can't be arsed.

You talk so much rubbish it's kind of impressive.

matttye

Archi_Bald wrote: »

How would you prove that they know it's not theirs? What if they say they have been promised it (verbally) and it's only right that they now did receive it?

Because the sender is asking for it back, saying it was a mistake?

It wouldn't make a great deal of sense for the sender to send money that they promised and then ask for it back. That account wouldn't be very believable!

Archi_Bald

The point I am making is that the sender has no proof that they sent the money by mistake. Of course, neither does the recipient have any proof that they have been promised the money.

I would argue though that the recipient could argue that they have been verbally promised the money, and this is why they were sent the money.

If the sender argued they never promised the money but sent it by mistake, their argument would be massively more weak than that of the recipient. You don't just send a sum of money by mistake to a specific sort code and account number that you never previously sent money to.

l_emony

Hi everyone,

Thank you for all the replies. I believe I am going to have to proceed through the small claims court. My ex lodger is refusing all contact. There is no a sufficient amount of correspondence citing the error and as my fiance was not involved in the lodger arrangement I believe we can prove that he would not have been expecting the money in his account with my name as reference. Furthermore, we have politely requested the return of the funds transferred in error so should be able to prove that he was aware of the error. He is then breaking the law (theft) if he does not return. Or so I am led to believe by my lawyer friends.

Thanks again.

Emily

matttye

Archi_Bald wrote: »

The point I am making is that the sender has no proof that they sent the money by mistake. Of course, neither does the recipient have any proof that they have been promised the money.

I would argue though that the recipient could argue that they have been verbally promised the money, and this is why they were sent the money.

If the sender argued they never promised the money but sent it by mistake, their argument would be massively more weak than that of the recipient. You don't just send a sum of money by mistake to a specific sort code and account number that you never previously sent money to.

Did you read the OP?

"Unfortunately, in my stress I copied the details from an email chain (thinking that I had used them before and there were no typos) but I unwittingly gave him my old lodger's bank account details instead."

Her account is entirely believable. If she can provide the e-mail with the bank details, what reason is there to doubt what she's saying?

She has a reason for transferring the money (her fiance was depositing to their wedding fund) and a source from where she got the incorrect bank details.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, it would be difficult to suggest the money was not sent in error.

Archi_Bald

matttye wrote: »

Did you read the OP?

......

Her account is entirely believable.....

Of course I have read the read the OP, and of course it might sound believable.

But so could the account of the ex-lodger who could say the fiance promised him some money, may be returning a loan, or may be some other deal they had.

We don't know - - we have only heard one side of the story. And there are at least three sides to this story.

If the OP has good reason to believe she can win the case, by all means, take it to the Small Claims Court (MCOL) - - that's what I would do if I was certain of my case.

A resolution isn't likely to come about fast - MCOL works at a "sedate" pace, and the defendant obviously does have a right to, well, defend himself. This could drag on for months, and even if the OP wins, if the defendant has no money, she might never see her money again. For all we know, however, the defendant might have a good explanation for why the money should be his.

matttye

The ex-lodger's silence is damning. If he truly thought he was entitled to the money, why not get in touch?

We can only opine on what we know, which is what the OP is telling us. On her version of events, the ex-lodger is a thief, plain and simple.

Archi_Bald

matttye wrote: »

The ex-lodger's silence is damning. If he truly thought he was entitled to the money, why not get in touch?

We can only opine on what we know, which is what the OP is telling us. On her version of events, the ex-lodger is a thief, plain and simple.

It would be a foolish and unworthy judge who drew a conclusion based on the evidence of just one of [at least] three involved parties.

pompeyred

I am not sure theft is the most appropriate position you wish to pursue if taking a legal route.

I believe it would be difficult to successfully argue that the person who received your money had any intent, let alone in permanently keeping your funds. I think you may want to take further insured advice than that offered by your 'legal friends'.

dalesrider

matttye wrote: »

The ex-lodger's silence is damning. If he truly thought he was entitled to the money, why not get in touch?
.

Could be they are on holiday....

We have no timescales as to how long this has been going on.

Is contact just via the bank asking for the return of funds. Or has the Op being trying to contact them?

Perhaps its something that requires a personal visit to the person to resolve.