Bank transfer error

matttye

Archi_Bald wrote: »

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.

Ill re assess what I said if and when we have more info. Lawyers offer advice to their clients based on their clients instructions. They can advise clients on the weight of the evidence and whether their account is likely to cause difficulties at a trial, but the clients instructions are paramount.

pompeyred wrote: »

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'.

Ingredients of theft:

"(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"

Dishonestly - not giving back money you know was sent to you in error is dishonest.

Appropriates - the law says "(1)Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner."

Property - money is property.

Belonging to another - it belongs to the OP.

With the intention of permanently depriving them of it - if the recipient has been asked more than once to give it back, but hasn't yet done so or made any form of contact (and a reasonable amount of time had passed), it would be difficult to argue he doesn't intend to permanently deprive.

dalesrider wrote: »

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.

Could be. For the OP to decide he's 'resolutely silent' I'm assuming its been a while. If it hasn't been long, then clearly time should be given to enable him the chance to respond first.

Archi_Bald

We have no information from the "resolutely silent" ex-lodger. We have no information from the fiance. We have an account of what happened from the fiancee, and ex-landlady (aka the OP).

It could all be exactly as the OP told us. But there could be different versions from either, or both, of the other 2 parties (and we don't know whether there might have been yet other parties).

It is not up to us on an anonymous Internet forum to judge who did what and who has been in the wrong. If the OP is sure of her case, she should use the MCOL process to get a proper investigation and judgement.

Any lawyer who publishes a "verdict" based on the account they received from their client should need to re-evaluate their qualification.

matttye

Archi_Bald wrote: »

We have no information from the "resolutely silent" ex-lodger. We have no information from the fiance. We have an account of what happened from the fiancee, and ex-landlady (aka the OP).

It could all be exactly as the OP told us. But there could be different versions from either, or both, of the other 2 parties (and we don't know whether there might have been yet other parties).

It is not up to us on an anonymous Internet forum to judge who did what and who has been in the wrong. If the OP is sure of her case, she should use the MCOL process to get a proper investigation and judgement.

Any lawyer who publishes a "verdict" based on the account they received from their client should need to re-evaluate their qualification.

I'm simply saying that on the OP's version of events it is quite possibly theft (if she has given the recipient adequate time to respond) and she should report it to the police.

Archi_Bald

matttye wrote: »

she should report it to the police.

She can certainly do that. The likelihood she will get her money back that way is close to zero though. The Police are no more in a position than you or I to judge what should happen.

The most promising way, if he is sure of her case, is to pursue the MCOL.

matttye

Archi_Bald wrote: »

She can certainly do that. The likelihood she will get her money back that way is close to zero though. The Police are no more in a position than you or I to judge what should happen.

The most promising way, if he is sure of her case, is to pursue the MCOL.

The police can interview the recipient and, depending on what is said during the interview, can report him to the CPS for a charging decision.

Neither you nor I can do that, so the police are in a slightly more powerful position.

If charged and convicted, the recipient can be ordered to pay back the amount stolen by way of compensation.

The police also have an out of court disposal available to them called 'restorative justice' which, in this case, is where the recipient would simply pay back the money and nothing further will happen.

l_emony

Hi guys,

Thanks for all the advice. I sent a letter and the money was transferred this morning! All solved!

E

Archi_Bald

You sent a letter to whom? Your ex-lodger?

l_emony

Yes, as well as a number of (polite) calls, emails and texts! Did the job!

Archi_Bald

Good result, bet you are mightily relieved.

brewerdave

Very lucky that he/she hadn't blown it on a holiday /car etc