fraud bank of scotland

highlander001

Hi

Not sure where to post this..Last september £1000 was stolen from my bank of scotland account by an employee in one of their call centres. I got the police to investigate this and they got the persons name and confirmed that she had stolen for several accounts along with acomplicis.

The bank have returned the money but havent admitted theft and dont really want to know except give me £100 for any bother I may have had.

Is it worth pursuing this through the courts for compensation due to neglegence and failing to look after my account?

Any advice greatfully received:j

andysstuff_2

£100 = 10%. Can't believe you will do any better than that if you pursue through the courts.

cnoelj

I would suggest you visit the Citizens Advise Centre

The Financial Ombudsman may be interested as well

I am sure that if you explore these avenues you will know whether it is worth pursuing. I would have certainly hoped that the bank would have been more helpful than they appear to have been

If they are not admitting theft I would want to know what internal action they have taken against the employee and what measures they have taken to ensure it doesn't happen again

jonesMUFCforever

I really don't understand the mind set of the OP!

Money was taken from his account - refunded - and £100 compensated.

It is not for the OP to tell BoS how to conduct its business. If the employee had spent the money and could not get it back then BoS has to pay for the fraud. OP has not lost out so what would he sue for.

If he is that worried then he should consider switching banks. (Of course no bank can give any guarantees that it won't happen again)

cnoelj

ejones999 wrote: »

I really don't understand the mind set of the OP!

Money was taken from his account - refunded - and £100 compensated.

It is not for the OP to tell BoS how to conduct its business. If the employee had spent the money and could not get it back then BoS has to pay for the fraud. OP has not lost out so what would he sue for.

If he is that worried then he should consider switching banks. (Of course no bank can give any guarantees that it won't happen again)

I understand your point. I would be more concerned however that the bank is not admitting it was theft. I would want know that a proper internal investigation had gone on and that the business was not going to be swept under the carpet

ThankYouAndEnjoy!

cnoelj wrote: »

I understand your point. I would be more concerned however that the bank is not admitting it was theft. I would want know that a proper internal investigation had gone on and that the business was not going to be swept under the carpet

Sorry,

Somewhat confused...if the customer is saying the monies were taken out of the account, then surely it is theft irrespective of whom took it out and by what means?? It appears that the Police and BOS have undertaken a successful investigation (both internally and externally - the police have confimed they have a suspect and BOS have provided all required information) and hopefully this person will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the English Law. The customer has been refunded along with compensation. The OP is lucky to be given any compensation at all and should now leave this to the Police + BOS to conclude.

Ian_W

highlander001 wrote:

Is it worth pursuing this through the courts for compensation due to neglegence and failing to look after my account?

Compensation usually puts you back in the position you would have been had the "negligence" - which you have to prove - not taken place. As BoS have already done that what would you seek it for?
"Following a breach by defendant, the most common approach taken by the judge is to award the sum which would restore the injured party to the economic position that he or she expected from performance of the promise or promises"

Exemplary damages can be awarded as well but that is generally to punish a defendant in some way:
"In England and Wales, exemplary damages are limited to the circumstances set out by Lord Patrick Devlin in the leading case of Rookes v. Barnard. They are:
1. Oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional actions by the servants of government.
2. Where the defendant's conduct was 'calculated' to make a profit for himself.
3. Where a statute expressly authorises the same"
Both from Wiky - HERE.

I'm no expert but would wonder what you think you should be compensated for - over and above your money back and a monetary sum for inconvenience?

Bean_Counter

highlander001 wrote: »

Is it worth pursuing this through the courts for compensation due to neglegence and failing to look after my account?

You can't sue for negligence as you have not had a loss.

dmg24

Why would the bank admit to theft? It was not them that stole your money. It appears that they have acknowledged that the theft was actually by one of their staff, and they have passed this information to the police.

Eyesparky

dmg24 wrote: »

Why would the bank admit to theft? It was not them that stole your money. It appears that they have acknowledged that the theft was actually by one of their staff, and they have passed this information to the police.

Is this not Vicarious Liability i.e. the bank did steal the money as one of it's agents acting for them stole it. Have to agree that the matter seems to have been dealt with. I am sure that the employee will have been disciplined severely and will find a career in the financial services impossible to pursue in future.

I think the OP feels that a little more communication from the bank concerning the outcome of any disciplinary action would have been appropriate.

dmg24

I would say it is not vicarious liability because the employer was acting outside of the course of his duties, however the employer could be found to be vicariously liable if they were found to be negligent.