Account credited in error

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney

Herbalus wrote: »

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.

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!

I suppose it's easier to just automatically assume the worst in a complete stranger, it's not really how I like to go about things though.

I certainly get it, I'm fully aware Halifax and/or whoever made the original mistake have noticed and I know the law states that it must be paid back and I've absolutely no reason to believe OP won't do so, even if it means doing so in installments. I still have the right to think that the law should be changed because it's wrong.

Archi_Bald

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney wrote: »

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.

You know, sometimes it pays to actually keep up with the contents of the thread. If you had done so, you would have noticed that I am referring to a very different person, not the OP. As opposed to you, I have made not one single assumption but refer to information in the public domain about a woman who was convicted of a criminal offence. She is blonde and poor.

I strongly resent your repeated accusation that I have made sexist, and now also racist?, remarks.

dr_adidas01

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney wrote: »

I suppose it's easier to just automatically assume the worst in a complete stranger, it's not really how I like to go about things though.

I certainly get it, I'm fully aware Halifax and/or whoever made the original mistake have noticed and I know the law states that it must be paid back and I've absolutely no reason to believe OP won't do so, even if it means doing so in installments. I still have the right to think that the law should be changed because it's wrong.

[/QUOTE]I still have the right to think that the law should be changed because it's wrong.[/QUOTE]

Would you still feel the same if it was your money that had been sent in error and the other person, felt they shouldn't give it back to you?

I'm guessing not, I bet you would be demanding they return it to you and accusing them of illegally keeping it!?!

Archi_Bald

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney wrote: »

I still have the right to think that the law should be changed because it's wrong.

You do indeed have the right to think that - and the rest of us have the right to think that the law is absolutely right. There is no reasonable justification for why anybody should be entitled to keep money that it quite obviously not theirs. Thankfully we live in a country where theft is not considered acceptable.

matttye

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.

Theft requires dishonesty and the OP says they spent the money in good faith as they were expecting a tax rebate at around the same time.

That's NOT a crime.

If the OP is fibbing and knew full well it wasn't their money then it is theft.

David_Aston

OP not been back then!:rotfl:

matttye

antrobus wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to hold that opinion.

However, the Theft Act 1968 specifically created the offence of dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit. You can get 10 years for it.

The credit did not derive from theft, fraud, blackmail or stolen goods. It derives from a mistaken transfer.

The OP was also not dishonest when they spent it because they were expecting a similar payment.

The offence is not complete.

You have to break an offence down and consider each of the points to prove in turn to see whether or not it has been met. It clearly hasn't - on the OP's version of events.

dr_adidas01

matttye wrote: »

Theft requires dishonesty and the OP says they spent the money in good faith as they were expecting a tax rebate at around the same time.

That's NOT a crime.

If the OP is fibbing and knew full well it wasn't their money then it is theft.

Oh i'm sure the OP probably knew the money wasn't theirs or from HMRC. Lets face it wouldn't have said Halifax as the payee if it was from HMRC now would it?

When I got a tax rebate paid into my account the reference number was HMRC then my tax number, that was the give away it was my tax rebate that I had been expecting.

Herbalus

David_Aston wrote: »

OP not been back then!:rotfl:

Whilst I'm not convinced of this myself, it is quite a coincidence that the OP was last active at 1530 on 11 Aug, and WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney vehemently supported them after creating an account on 11 Aug.

Oh, and according to this post in a TV thread:

WhatDoYouDoForMoneyHoney wrote: »

I've been with Sky for twelve years now and because I watch 75-100 movies a month and 2-3 football matches a week, let alone TV shows & other sports on top of that

3 films a day? Something smells fishy.

Archi_Bald

matttye wrote: »

Theft requires dishonesty and the OP says they spent the money in good faith as they were expecting a tax rebate at around the same time.

It would be very hard to convince a judge that you thought Halifax (or whoever paid the money in) would be the source of payment for a tax refund. It would be a massive coincidence if the tax refund would have been for exactly the same amount as the payment that the OP now acknowledges "has been put in as an error".

The evasiveness of the OP is quite mindboggling. So is the report that says the CAB said to get in touch with the FOS. It is, of course, possible that the CAB give out incorrect information, but it does sound most unlikely that the CAB do not know the rules for engaging the FOS.