post office employee tampered with my account

SOOBEE1

masonic wrote: »

You've stated that, but more details are required in order to determine whether it was either illegal or vindictive. It was probably neither unless you have evidence to the contrary.

I'm a bit confused as to what evidence of tampering you require, I have had it confirmed by the financial ombudsmen and my bank. If it wasn't a problem I assume no offer of compensation would be discussed.

masonic

The question I thought you'd ask is "should I accept the £175 compensation awarded by the FOS?"

Several of the questions asked by some of the other posters would help inform a view on this.

masonic

SOOBEE1 wrote: »

I'm a bit confused as to what evidence of tampering you require, I have had it confirmed by the financial ombudsmen and my bank. If it wasn't a problem I assume no offer of compensation would be discussed.

It is not evidence of tampering I am looking for. "Tampering" in and of itself may not be vindictive or illegal. So you need evidence it was malicious or evidence it was illegal.

For example, changing the receiving account number to 55378008 might be evidence of vindictiveness, or changing the receiving account number to the employees own bank account might be evidence the actions were illegal (attempted fraud). Updating the account number with a different number held for the same organisation (that is no longer in use) would be an example of a non-vindictive and non-illegal possibility.

stclair

I personally think your making a mountain out of a molehill.

Bank staff are humans and make mistakes just like any organisation.

I would imagine someone has just amended it in error rather than anything else.

There hasn't been any financial loss to yourself so just take the money you've been offered.

SOOBEE1

stclair wrote: »

I personally think your making a mountain out of a molehill.

Bank staff are humans and make mistakes just like any organisation.

I would imagine someone has just amended it in error rather than anything else.

There hasn't been any financial loss to yourself so just take the money you've been offered.

No they didn't what you imagine is not a fact.

Cornucopia

SOOBEE1 wrote: »

I'm a bit confused as to what evidence of tampering you require, I have had it confirmed by the financial ombudsmen and my bank. If it wasn't a problem I assume no offer of compensation would be discussed.

Did your bank or the Ombudsman actually use the word "tampering"? I find this implausible.

What were their actual findings? This could help us understand what they accept actually happened. (Or do you dispute their findings?)

stclair

SOOBEE1 wrote: »

No they didn't what you imagine is not a fact.

You can't prove anything and if you can get your self a solicitor.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

lippy1923

Unless you can prove it was fraudulent and not just a mistake, then move on.

They are offering you £175 to say sorry for the inconvenience. You have not suffered a loss, just hassle which has been rectified with £175 good will money. Take it. Life's too short.

SOOBEE1

masonic wrote: »

It is not evidence of tampering I am looking for. "Tampering" in and of itself may not be vindictive or illegal. So you need evidence it was malicious or evidence it was illegal.

For example, changing the receiving account number to 55378008 might be evidence of vindictiveness, or changing the receiving account number to the employees own bank account might be evidence the actions were illegal (attempted fraud). Updating the account number with a different number held for the same organisation (that is no longer in use) would be an example of a non-vindictive and non-illegal possibility.

I have evidence it was vindictive, which was sent to the FOS, however I deliberately didn't go into detail as I said at the start of my post- to cut a long story short. I am aware it's not fraud but was asking if what was done had a 'title', if not, it's ok. This was an automatic transfer from one bank to another, no changes should of been made during the changeover process and certainly not without authorisation.

SOOBEE1

lippy1923 wrote: »

Unless you can prove it was fraudulent and not just a mistake, then move on.

They are offering you £175 to say sorry for the inconvenience. You have not suffered a loss, just hassle which has been rectified with £175 good will money. Take it. Life's too short.

I never said it was fraudulent, and this is not an isolated incident, this is why it was reported.