Accidently sent £250 to the wrong account.

w00519772

This happened to me with HSBC as well. However, it was their fault.

At first they said I made a mistake and transferred £50 to the wrong account and it could take a long time to get it back. However, I told them that I took a screenshot of the transaction (which I always do). They agreed to look into it straight away. Two hours later I received a call saying the money was back in my account and they acknowledged it was their fault. I noticed the problem straight away because I was transferring money between my account at HSBC and my account at Tesco bank.

I would call them again and acknowledge that you made a mistake and as a gesture of goodwill ask if they would be prepared to investigate quicker. It may be worth calling late at night or in the early hours (if you are an Advance customer) when they are less busy as they may have more time to investigate.

They told me that they recovered the money quickly as the person on the other side was co-operative.

pmduk

I'm sure the 20 days is a worse case scenario, with many cases being dealt with quicker

robatwork

I always wonder how the bank actually ascertain what's a genuine mistake and what's attempted fraud.

OP let's say you concoct a scheme with 2 friends where you pay money to one - sort code 12-34-56 account 98765432 by "mistake" (which is real, owned by another friend). You then call your bank and tell them it's a mistake, it should have gone to 12-34-56 98765798 (also owned by a friend)

Friend one spends the money then doesn't communicate with their bank.
Friend two backs up your story
Bank refunds from its own funds?

I wonder just far out the two account numbers/sort codes would be before they suspect something dodgy.

I'm sure that's not the case here OP, but looking at it from the bank's perspective.

eskbanker

robatwork wrote: »

Friend one spends the money then doesn't communicate with their bank.
Friend two backs up your story
Bank refunds from its own funds?

I was under the impression that, in this scenario, if friend one doesn't co-operate then friend one's bank tells sender's bank that they were unable to recover the funds (unless there's sufficient evidence for F1's bank to remove the money from F1 without F1's consent, depending on overdraft status) and the sender is left high and dry rather than being refunded from either bank.

Why should either bank refund from its own funds if they're not at fault for a mistake made by a sender?

Chalkius

eskbanker wrote: »

I was under the impression that, in this scenario, if friend one doesn't co-operate then friend one's bank tells sender's bank that they were unable to recover the funds (unless there's sufficient evidence for F1's bank to remove the money from F1 without F1's consent, depending on overdraft status) and the sender is left high and dry rather than being refunded from either bank.

Why should either bank refund from its own funds if they're not at fault for a mistake made by a sender?

That's what I thought would happen. The bank would only consider refunding if there was fraud. If it's customer error, and F1 doesn't want to refund, then that's the end of the matter.

Uxb

I was under the impression that the modifications to section 24 of the original 1968 Theft Act now made it an offense to withhold return of a wrongful credit.
Obviously the offense is by the end receiver not the bank.

But I imagine we will never get to hear the result as this thread like so many before with exactly the same scenario will just peter out with no discernible result.

Mr.Generous

The banks have to be careful because of scenarios like those above, but also someone pays upfront for work, gets the job done then tells the bank payment was in error. That's why they check with recipient. If they say payment was for them for a debt / goods / services or whatever then they get to keep it.

AirlieBird

http://www.fasterpayments.org.uk/consumers/what-happens-if-i-have-sent-payment-wrong-place

lisyloo

I was under the impression that the modifications to section 24 of the original 1968 Theft Act now made it an offense to withhold return of a wrongful credit.

OK, but how do you prove that?
Could be a loan, gift, re-imbursement.
Remember the onus of proof is on the OP, the other party doesn't have to prove it or may even be away on an extended holiday.
Are you going to take a complete stranger to court? (they may or may not have the ability to pay)
Are you even entitled to their details under the data protection act?

Uxb

Well I assume the OP can 'prove' to which account they were intending to transfer and also they know which account it did go to.

In the end if the wrongful recipient wishes to still act stupid and not return the monies the next stage (unless you wish to write off the money) is as follows:
You apply to the courts for what is now called a "Norwich Pharmacal" legal order to be imposed on the Bank(s) concerned.
This compels the bank to provide the information about the end receiver and their details/contacts points etc.
Then you take the end receiver to court and inform the police of the wrongful credit offense under the Theft Act.

This all costs money of course and needs legal advice prior and takes time.

In the event that the bank gets notice that a NP order is being sought from them you can bet your bottom dollar that the matter would be sorted out PDQ like overnight as the bank would end up being required by the courts to attend and provide lots of data and explanations as to what happened and what did they do/not do.
I also suspect the end recipient might suddenly have an "attitude re-adjustment" and become rather more cooperative rather quickly.

Edit: As to what might happen if the receiving account was in debt and the bank took the money to recover some of that debt I've no idea at all.....