Account credited in error

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Those 30%-odd that feel the poor blonde should be allowed to keep her essential designer goods can buy them at auction and give it to her.

Nice bit of sexism to add to the mix too, lovely.

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

mgdavid wrote: »

did you miss post #45? It IS a crime.

The OP is also evasive, as has never answered the questions about the supposed tax rebate which was the excuse for not realising the money wasn't theirs.

So people decide to jump to conclusions instead? Still seems OTT to me.

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

pmduk wrote: »

Well, if you do something illegal, expressly covered by the Theft Act, that does make the offender a criminal.

If/when she's charged and convicted, I'd go along with that.

jackjones01

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney wrote: »

If/when she's charged and convicted, I'd go along with that.

Here is the CPS guidance.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dishonestly_retaining_a_wrongful_credit/

mgdavid

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney wrote: »

If/when she's charged and convicted, I'd go along with that.

aha, so you're of the school that thinks crime is OK as long as you don't get caught?

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

mgdavid wrote: »

aha, so you're of the school that thinks crime is OK as long as you don't get caught?

I'm of the school that you're innocent until proved guilty; last I heard the law did generall operate under the Presumption of innocence in such instances. But some have made their minds up already, based on the fact the OP is a newbie.
I’m no legal expert but if people think that the police will be battering the OP’s door down and they’re going to be put away for 10 years, then they’re the ones who are being a bit naïve here.

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

jackjones01 wrote: »

Here is the CPS guidance.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dishonestly_retaining_a_wrongful_credit/

That's an interesting read. A couple of things stick out; figures of less than £17,500 could lead to up to 21 months imprisonment, so the kind of mistake I’ve been talking about, namely the type the OP mentioned, isn’t the same as someone purposefully stealing over £1 million (which is when figures like 10 years start appearing).
But the most important thing - and I think the part that people are choosing to ignore - is that the example given is talking about someone who actively set out to defraud the other party. This is a completely different matter.

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

Here's a question for those who are either missing my point (or deliberately choosing to read between the lines and think I'm trying to make a different point entirely); is this scenario any worse than finding out a shop has given you £5 worth of change in error? Would you go back once you've realised their mistake, a week later, to return the ill-gotten gains? At a shop like Maplin which charges £40 for items you can pick up in Poundland or Tesco whose ruthless business plan doesn't seem to scream 'ethical'?
The figures are almost irrelevant really, abiding by the law doesn't mean you have to agree that the law is morally right. If you answered yes to the example above then you are truly a saint and I hope you have a great salary which means you can afford to be so magnanimous and right on because there's people out there who acknowledge that sometimes you get a break in life and it's not often, and sometimes these little bits of good fortune just make all the many bits of misfortune and being screwed over and overpaying, seem a bit more bearable.
By the sounds of it, this person who's made the mistake can't be missing the £5k that much for it to have taken so long for them to ask for the money back. Before you say it shouldn't matter even if the person is a billionaire because it's the principle, I don't disagree, but we live in the real world and that would definitely affect how I'd feel about it. I believe the law would also take that into consideration as well.

Herbalus

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney wrote: »

I'm of the school that you're innocent until proved guilty; last I heard the law did generall operate under the Presumption of innocence in such instances. But some have made their minds up already, based on the fact the OP is a newbie.

Lots of people presume innocence until seeing evidence which suggests guilt. Then, they look at the evidence and think guilty. Let's see the evidence:

Did you read the part where the OP said they received the money? It was post 10.

Did you read the part where the OP admits the money was paid to them in error? It was post 5.

Did you read the CPS guidelines on dishonestly retaining wrongful credit? It was post 66.

So we have what the Crown Prosecution Service call a "Financial Crime", specifically "Dishonestly Retaining a Wrongful Credit". There is no doubt it was a wrongful credit, and the OP asks in their first post if there is anything they can do to not pay it back. Considering these words are from the OP themselves, do you still presume them to be innocent?

*Of course, if the OP repays the money, they are not guilty. By trying to keep the money, they are trying to commit an offence.

Herbalus

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney wrote: »

1) is this scenario any worse than finding out a shop has given you £5 worth of change in error?
2) Would you go back once you've realised their mistake, a week later, to return the ill-gotten gains?
3) At a shop like Maplin which charges £40 for items you can pick up in Poundland or Tesco whose ruthless business plan doesn't seem to scream 'ethical'?

I'll bite. I've got nothing else to do.

1) That extra £5 you've got is not yours, as you've been given it in error. If you overpaid by £5, you'd want it back. The contract is the receipt. If it says £40 and you pay £35, you owe them £5 regardless of if they notice or can prove it.

2) The question you should ask is "if the shop realises they gave me too much change and can prove it, do I have to give it back?" The answer is yes. See point 1 for details.

Similarly, if you could prove you overpaid them for goods or services, you could claim that back if you could prove it.

3) That's got nothing to do with it. If you're happy with the product and price, then buy it. If not, go somewhere else. Completely irrelevant.