Taking bank to court re credit card debt

born_again

You won't get anywhere with the bank. 
Its a civil case against the EX & farther you need to look at.

Dafidol

My main points are:
- bank went against their policy. Ex admitted gross negligence and they still refunded
- bank admitted it's a civil matter but still got involved
- bank supplied wrong info to ombudsman to manipulate outcome
- the amount in question originated in my husband's ISA account, not in ex's account
- ex left it 42 days before she reported the fraud (she knew about the transactions and she told the bank she knew about them for that long) and she had access  to accounts (joint acc and credit card acc) to  take whatever she so believed is hers...it's clear she lied

jimbo26

Dafidol said:

 My husband transferred his money from her savings and ISA account to pay his credit card and other bills so they can split with clean slate. 

In your last post you said the money originated from your husbands ISA, but earlier you said it was from his ex's ISA. I think your logic is that the money in the ex's ISA came from his ISA. It doesn't really work like that, if you put money into someones sole account it becomes theirs unless there is some formal agreement that it is just being held there and will later be returned.

Using your logic my employer could pay his business credit card bill from my bank account because he put my wages there!

Dafidol

I get what you mean jimbo26. The money she was complaining about was £8000 originally...from her ISA ...the amount they returned to her is £5215. This amount originated in my husband's ISA ..the bank states "£5215 has been returned to its original account" so I'm staying that it wasn't her account that it originated from...do you see what I mean?

[Deleted User]

By 'original account' they mean the account from which it was taken without consent.  It wasn't wrongly taken from your husband's ISA - he handed it over. 

If you use your definition of 'original account', you would have to go back decades.

jimbo26

Dafidol said:

do you see what I mean?

I understand your logic but it's flawed logic. The bank does not care how the money came to be in his ex-wife's' ISA and nor will the court. The fact is your husband paid his credit card off with money in his ex's ISA, ie her money.

eddddy

Dafidol said:

My main points are:
- bank went against their policy. Ex admitted gross negligence and they still refunded
- bank admitted it's a civil matter but still got involved
- bank supplied wrong info to ombudsman to manipulate outcome
- the amount in question originated in my husband's ISA account, not in ex's account
- ex left it 42 days before she reported the fraud (she knew about the transactions and she told the bank she knew about them for that long) and she had access  to accounts (joint acc and credit card acc) to  take whatever she so believed is hers...it's clear she lied

Without wanting to sound too harsh - you seem to be agreeing that your husband made an unauthorised transaction on his ex's account. i.e. He committed fraud.

But you seem to suggest that it's OK for him to keep the proceeds of his fraud, because his ex was grossly negligent and/or because she took 42 days to report it.

So that means if I defraud you, or steal money from you, I should be allowed to  keep the money, if you were grossly negligent and/or you took 42 days to report it. That's not how the law works.

I'm guessing that you mean the money was in your husband's ISA account at some point, but he transferred it his ex's ISA account. That's not really relevant. (I had some money in my account which is now in my plumber's account. That doesn't give me the right to access my plumber's account and transfer money out of it.)

Presumably, the bank got involved because a fraudulent transaction had been made. So they reversed the transaction. If somebody made a fraudulent transaction on your bank account, I guess you would expect the bank to reverse it, if they could.

Based on what you say, it's really difficult to understand why you think the bank did something wrong. (Arguably, your husband committed fraud - which is a criminal offence.)


The bottom line seems to be that your husband was shafted by his ex - but that's not the bank's fault.  Your husband needs to resolve that with his ex.

Dafidol

Thanks guys. I know what you all mean. The law is against us. He didn't commit fraud. They were sitting together transferring this money....his money...you can go back just a year to see how much he transferred to her account and from her account...all his money...and always sitting together. But I know what you mean...thanks anyways. I just feel so angry...my husband is a good man...he support d he for 21 years and took her abuse...the bank can see he was an only provider...but clearly law and our feelings and truth are not on the same side

jimbo26

Sadly sometimes life is like that, he isn't the first bloke to be shafted by an ex, and sure won't be the last.

Thrugelmir

Dafidol said:

The law is against us. 

The law's role isn't there to arbitrate between warring ex partners on the basis of who said what or did what at some point in the past. As always there's two sides to the story. While money is important. The one thing I learnt from my own divorce some years ago. Is just let go. Time while you've got it is far more important than stressing over the past.