Account credited in error

RuthnJasper

pmduk wrote: »

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

Exactly. I would notice if a single £5 had been credited to my account in error. Plus, I would not want to keep what isn't mine - it would prey on my conscience too much. Unless it's mine to spend, it's just money and paper.

Doesn't matter who was to blame or what happened to the money. It wasn't the OP's and Halifax are right to ask for it back.

Herbalus

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Plus, I would not want to keep what isn't mine - it would prey on my conscience too much.

I, on the other hand, would choose to feel like a king, and revel in deluded self-importance at being so rich (assuming it isn't just a measly fiver like you suggested!), fully enjoying an inflated bank balance under the mistaken fantasy that it enhances my self-worth and *ahem* sexual prowess.

And then sad face when I have to give it back

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

Herbalus wrote: »

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.

I've not seen anything from the OP to suggest they won't pay it back, just worry of the position they've found themselves in.

Of course, refusing to pay the money back is a completely different story. My defence of her is based on the fact that I disagree with the law, not saying that she shouldn't abide by the law as it is.

Archi_Bald

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney wrote: »

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

She is blond, has no money (i.e. is poor), and has been found guilty of a criminal offence (i.e. I feel sorry for the poor thing). Abbreviated into: poor blonde.

How dare you accuse me of sexsim.

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

Herbalus wrote: »

I, on the other hand, would choose to feel like a king, and revel in deluded self-importance at being so rich (assuming it isn't just a measly fiver like you suggested!), fully enjoying an inflated bank balance under the mistaken fantasy that it enhances my self-worth and *ahem* sexual prowess.

And then sad face when I have to give it back

You could choose to do that - I don't believe the OP did so, which is why she gets my sympathy. Had she done what you've suggested (and I've no reason to believe she had) then that sympathy wouldn't be so forthcoming.

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

Archi_Bald wrote: »

She is blond, has no money (i.e. is poor), and has been found guilty of a criminal offence (i.e. I feel sorry for the poor thing). Abbreviated into: poor blonde.

How dare you accuse me of sexsim.

Don't make sexist comments then.
How do you know she’s poor? How do you know she’s blonde? And why is that information relevant at all? If you fail to see why your phrasing was sexist, substitute the term ‘blonde’ for ‘black girl’ (as an example) and then read the sentence back; would you think it was racist? I hope that you would…

Why make the assumption that the money was spent on designer goods? It might have gone towards medical treatment for a loved one.

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

Herbalus wrote: »

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.

I don’t understand why nobody seems to grasp the fact that I am not disputing your second point here.

So is your answer, 'yes', that you’d give it back if they asked for it because you’d have to? In other words, if you noticed but they hadn’t, you’d keep it, yes?

bengal-stripe

Archi_Bald wrote: »

She is blond, has no money (i.e. is poor), and has been found guilty of a criminal offence.....

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney wrote: »

How do you know she’s poor? How do you know she’s blonde?..... Why make the assumption that the money was spent on designer goods? It might have gone towards medical treatment for a loved one.

'Archi Bald' was not referring the OP but he Lichfield woman who was convicted (she is blonde, poor and did spend the dosh on designer goods). If she had spent the money on medical treatment, she would have brought it up in court.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/designer-gear-bought-lichfield-mum-7612626

Herbalus

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney wrote: »

So is your answer, 'yes', that you’d give it back if they asked for it because you’d have to? In other words, if you noticed but they hadn’t, you’d keep it, yes?

You don't get it, do you. Halifax have noticed. Ergo the OP has to give the money back. Not giving it back is a criminal offence. The OP can keep it without consequence until Halifax notice, but then has to give it back.

Be sympathetic all you like, but to feel sorry for somebody for having to quickly raise £5k is to believe they didn't notice it wasn't theirs when they spent it, which takes some imagination!

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

bengal-stripe wrote: »

'Archi Bald' was not referring the OP but he Lichfield woman who was convicted (she is blonde, poor and did spend the dosh on designer goods). If she had spent the money on medical treatment, she would have brought it up in court.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/designer-gear-bought-lichfield-mum-7612626

Thanks for clearing that up, I was confused!
I don't think many people would defend that. Again, I think there's some differences between that case and the scenario the OP detailed.

I maintain that using the phrase 'the poor blonde' in this context was unnecessary, mentioning her appearance isn't really relevant.