Money mistakenly tranferred into my account??

callum9999

rogerblack wrote: »

Because debts over 6/5 (england/scotland) years that have not been either paid within that period (which extends the time limit) or court action during that period are 'statute barred'.
They no longer exist as enforceable debts through the courts.

It's not a debt though.

SailorSam wrote: »

They've been talking about money going into the wrong A/c quite a lot recently on R4 Moneybox. Some listeners had almost lost their houses 'cos the banks wouldn't or couldn't give refunds. Last week though they were saying that since the pressure Moneybox had started to put on them, some banks are changing their rules.

While I'm sure they love that their listeners think so, I find it hard to believe pressure from a R4 radio show could possibly force banks into changing their policies!

Steve_xx

rogerblack wrote: »

Because debts over 6/5 (england/scotland) years that have not been either paid within that period (which extends the time limit) or court action during that period are 'statute barred'.
They no longer exist as enforceable debts through the courts.

But this is not a debt. This is money that has mistakenly been put somewhere and it belongs to somebody else. Therefore, when that somebody else realises where their money is and then wants it back, they will be entitled to have it back. If the person who has received the money mistakenly refuses to give back, then that constitutes a theft, ie seeking to permanently deprive the owner of the money they right to have it.

If I deposit money into a bank account and then I forget about it for 20 years it will go into a doormant account state. But, if I can prove that I am the true account holder then the bank will have to give me my money back. No Statute of Limitation allows a bank to hang on to money that's rightfully yours, so why would somebody who has received money mistakenly be rightly entitled to hang onto it if the rightful owner comes forward?

rogerblack

Steve_xx wrote: »

But this is not a debt. This is money that has mistakenly been put somewhere and it belongs to somebody else. Therefore, when that somebody else realises where their money is and then wants it back, they will be entitled to have it back. If the person who has received the money mistakenly refuses to give back, then that constitutes a theft, ie seeking to permanently deprive the owner of the money they right to have it.

If I accidentally pay money into someones account, they are now indebted to me, in exactly the same way as if they had taken out an agreed loan from me.
Money is money - there is no obligation whatsoever to give back the 'same' money as was received.
Once it's transferred - it's simply a debt.

I can in principle take court action to recover this money in exactly the same way as any other debt.
(if that will be effective is another question)

However - once 6/5 years is up, this is not the case.

The banking rules around dormant accounts are not the same.

Steve_xx

rogerblack wrote: »

If I accidentally pay money into someones account, they are now indebted to me, in exactly the same way as if they had taken out an agreed loan from me.
Money is money - there is no obligation whatsoever to give back the 'same' money as was received.
Once it's transferred - it's simply a debt.

I can in principle take court action to recover this money in exactly the same way as any other debt.
(if that will be effective is another question)

However - once 6/5 years is up, this is not the case.

The banking rules around dormant accounts are not the same.

I think you will find that there is an obligation to return the money to the rightful owner. It isn't a debt, it's theft. See here:

http://www.money.co.uk/article/1005023-can-you-keep-money-accidentally-paid-into-your-bank-account.htm

The banking rules around doormant accounts are broadly similar, ie if there is money in an account and you can prove it's yours, then you can reclaim it.

SeanG79

rogerblack wrote: »

If I accidentally pay money into someones account, they are now indebted to me, in exactly the same way as if they had taken out an agreed loan from me.
Money is money - there is no obligation whatsoever to give back the 'same' money as was received.
Once it's transferred - it's simply a debt.

I can in principle take court action to recover this money in exactly the same way as any other debt.
(if that will be effective is another question)

However - once 6/5 years is up, this is not the case.

The banking rules around dormant accounts are not the same.

The clock for the the debt becoming statute barred would only be triggered once the repayment date has past. The demand for payment would only be made once the bank realised its error, so I do not think this could become statute barred 5/6 years after the error was made, but rather once the error was noticed.

Steve_xx

SeanG79 wrote: »

The clock for the the debt becoming statute barred would only be triggered once the repayment date has past. The demand for payment would only be made once the bank realised its error, so I do not think this could become statute barred 5/6 years after the error was made, but rather once the error was noticed.

Yes, but it isn't a "debt".

Eco_Miser

SeanG79 wrote: »

The clock for the the debt becoming statute barred would only be triggered once the repayment date has past. The demand for payment would only be made once the bank realised its error, so I do not think this could become statute barred 5/6 years after the error was made, but rather once the error was noticed.

But the OP has informed the paying bank of the error, so surely if they have not contacted the OP to arrange repayment within 6 years of that notification, the OP is entitled to assume the bank doesn't want its money back?

Steve_xx

Eco_Miser wrote: »

But the OP has informed the paying bank of the error, so surely if they have not contacted the OP to arrange repayment within 6 years of that notification, the OP is entitled to assume the bank doesn't want its money back?

It isn't the banks money in the first place. The six year rule doesn't apply to this.

Armorica

No, ombudsman has case history on this. If you credibly believed it might be yours (low value, or were expecting something similar) the bank can't necessarily pursue. If you know it's not yours, you can't keep it. You know you're not entitled to it; therefore you're not.

Uxb

Steve_xx wrote: »

It isn't the banks money in the first place. The six year rule doesn't apply to this.

Ah but it is complicated by when you place a deposit with a bank the money is also no longer yours as you are in fact making a loan to the bank.