New M&S terms and conditions - hmm!

eskbanker

Bobblehat wrote: »

Similar to this ..... Santander have changed their wording for the "What we'll do if payments are made into your account by mistake". This arrived in an email on 09/10/17 ......

"Payments received in error: We can already return money sent by Faster Payments into your account by mistake and we don’t need your permission to do so. Our terms will be updated so that if a payment is made into your account by mistake, you agree that we may share all relevant information with the sending bank so that the payer can trace the money."

I didn't like the sound of this and was not aware that ...... "We can already return money sent by Faster Payments into your account by mistake and we don’t need your permission to do so". It looked to me like a scammer could buy something off you, on say .... Gumtree ...... pay for it by Faster Payment, receive the goods and then claim that they paid the amount by mistake ..... and Santander "could" pay the buyer's payment back without letting you know they had done so!

I rang Santander up and queried this and they said .... "Yes, that could happen! That would be an issue between you and the Buyer!". They made a much bigger emphasis on answering my query about the "sharing information" bit than the "without your permission" bit. I pushed them on the permission issue and got a run around answer. I then requested that this was raised as an official complaint and pointed out that they could be risking thousands of their customers being open to scamming.

Up to today, I have not had any reply other than an automatic "We are dealing ....." letter. Until I get a satisfactory answer, I will not use Santander for Faster Payments coming in from individuals.

This wording has come up in previous threads, such as when Halifax said they were introducing it three years ago and then TSB last year. I suspect that it'll already be in the Ts & Cs for most banks and so have no reason to doubt Santander's assertion that it's already in theirs....

Carrot007

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I'd be worried about the following sequence of events:

1) Customer flees abusive spouse, hiding new address specifically from abusive spouse.
2) Customer receives £100 out of the blue from abusive spouse.
3) Abusive spouse requests contact details of "mistaken" credited person and receives same to "pursue recovery of the monies".
4) Abusive spouse finds and beats the sh*t out of customer.

Rinse and repeat for any number of other scenarios where keeping someone's address from other people is extremely important. And in case you think the above is far fetched, I just changed the circumstances in the scenario from a FOS case (45/2 in that link) from one where the bank accidentally divulged the customer's address to deliberately doing so, with the force of their own T&Cs behind them.

Personally I think this is an absolutely idiotic change for this reason and an actual danger to M&S' (and by extension the HSBC Group's) own customers.

Would it no go.

1) Customer flees abusive spouse, hiding new address specifically from abusive spouse.
2) Customer receives £100 out of the blue from abusive spouse.
3) Customer asked if transfer was intended for them when abusive spouse say is was an accident.
4) Customer says they can have it back and they therefore do not get the details they were after.

As is they only share the details if you refuse to give the money back.

mt99

So the scenario could be that you advertise your car, someone buys it, pay several thousand to you by bank transfer and then drives the car away. Then claims it was a 'mistake' and your bank refunds him without your permision? I would have though you could sue your bank. If not, because it's in the T&C, then the only safe way is cash?

colsten

cookie365 wrote: »

I actually take care when making direct transfers, and don't really understand why banks should risk helping scammers and domestic abusers in order to cushion people from taking responsibility for their own actions.

Hope you're not getting dizzy up there on your horse. Everybody can make a payment to a wrong payee, or send money to a wrong account. That does not make you a scammer or a domestic abuser. I note though that should it ever happen to you, you wouldn't want to get your money back. You are perfectly entitled to handle the matter like that, just please do not expect others to be as benevolent, and as perfect as you are.

colsten

JuicyJesus wrote: »

1) Customer flees abusive spouse, hiding new address specifically from abusive spouse.
2) Customer receives £100 out of the blue from abusive spouse.
3) Abusive spouse requests contact details of "mistaken" credited person and receives same to "pursue recovery of the monies".
4) Abusive spouse finds and beats the sh*t out of customer.

Simply give the money back after step 2, even if you have not been asked to do so. There is then no need for the sender or the sender's bank to know anything about you.

JuicyJesus

colsten wrote: »

Simply give the money back after step 2, even if you have not been asked to do so. There is then no need for the sender or the sender's bank to know anything about you.

And if you don't know the other person's bank details?

And if the person actually genuinely does owe you money and you've spent it in good faith?

And if you're overdrawn and you can't pay the money back?

And if and if and if?

(Same questions go to Carrot007's reply; not least since in the situation of a relationship breakup there are plenty of legitimate reasons for one party to have sent the other money or be owed money by the other.)

Face it, it's not for the customer to mitigate the chances of their bank revealing their address to a violent ex-partner by instantly sending the money back to where it came from, and the weird victim blaming tone of your post where someone who doesn't do that is somehow at fault is a bit troubling.

All I know is that as soon as this comes into force it'll be a matter of time until we see the first FOS cases come through and they will not be pretty.

Bobblehat

Oh! Dear! Sorry to slightly hijack the OP's thread ...... prompting discussions of issues of honesty and domestic abuse scenarios. I was only trying to point out a similar poor wording to M&S's T&C's in Santander's latest T&C changes, that ....

a) Looked like they would pay back a FP without consulting you first if sender says they made a mistake.
b) Pass on your details to the sender of the FP.

The outcome of my complaint was resolved today when a Santander rep phoned me up.

On point a) the bank have agreed that they need to review the wording as they would NOT pay back a FP which was claimed to have been sent in error without consulting you first and thanked me for pointing out the ambiguity.

On point b) the bank agree that they would not pass on personal information to the payer and would only pass on relevant information which was needed for the payer's BANK to trace the money. Again they will look at the wording to eliminate the ambiguity.

I am happier now than I was when I first read the email and I hope I never need to test this out ... either due to scamming, honesty ...... or even domestic abuse!