Money sent in error to wrong sort code

DoaM

Getting the person's IP address is worthless ... you'd need to request the details from their ISP of who held that IP address on date/time - and you'd have no lawful reason (or mechanism) to do that.

Manxman_in_exile

DoaM said:

Getting the person's IP address is worthless ... you'd need to request the details from their ISP of who held that IP address on date/time - and you'd have no lawful reason (or mechanism) to do that.

I thought (rather ironically I suppose) that they might give the ISP a fraudulent reason for wanting the identity. 

DoaM

I see the Thanks buttons are back

unforeseen

Manxman_in_exile said:

DoaM said:

Getting the person's IP address is worthless ... you'd need to request the details from their ISP of who held that IP address on date/time - and you'd have no lawful reason (or mechanism) to do that.

I thought (rather ironically I suppose) that they might give the ISP a fraudulent reason for wanting the identity. 

Wishful thinking. 

Ditzy_Mitzy

DoaM said:

Getting the person's IP address is worthless ... you'd need to request the details from their ISP of who held that IP address on date/time - and you'd have no lawful reason (or mechanism) to do that.

I still can't understand the reluctance to refer the matter to the police. It's a crime, after all. They can, within reason, surmount the hurdle of not knowing who received the money and won't give it back. It's not really a 'debt' to be dealt with by the Small Claims Court per se - some ne'er-do-well has nicked it.  

davidmcn

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

DoaM said:

Getting the person's IP address is worthless ... you'd need to request the details from their ISP of who held that IP address on date/time - and you'd have no lawful reason (or mechanism) to do that.

I still can't understand the reluctance to refer the matter to the police. It's a crime, after all. They can, within reason, surmount the hurdle of not knowing who received the money and won't give it back. It's not really a 'debt' to be dealt with by the Small Claims Court per se - some ne'er-do-well has nicked it.  

The police aren't some sort of publicly-funded debt recovery service - they might investigate it if it looks like a crime (and as discussed above, I don't think it's particularly clear that it is), but obviously there is plenty of clearcut crime which they don't have resources to follow up, and even if they discover the identity of the other party that doesn't mean they're going to share it with the OP. Plus they're hardly likely to do so quickly, and I think the OP's priority is just to get the money.

It is undoubtedly a debt which the other party is due to repay, whether or not their actions amount to a crime.

452

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

DoaM said:

Getting the person's IP address is worthless ... you'd need to request the details from their ISP of who held that IP address on date/time - and you'd have no lawful reason (or mechanism) to do that.

I still can't understand the reluctance to refer the matter to the police. It's a crime, after all. They can, within reason, surmount the hurdle of not knowing who received the money and won't give it back. It's not really a 'debt' to be dealt with by the Small Claims Court per se - some ne'er-do-well has nicked it.  

Read post number 6, the op spoke to the police they aren't interested. 

452

davidmcn said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

DoaM said:

Getting the person's IP address is worthless ... you'd need to request the details from their ISP of who held that IP address on date/time - and you'd have no lawful reason (or mechanism) to do that.

I still can't understand the reluctance to refer the matter to the police. It's a crime, after all. They can, within reason, surmount the hurdle of not knowing who received the money and won't give it back. It's not really a 'debt' to be dealt with by the Small Claims Court per se - some ne'er-do-well has nicked it.  

The police aren't some sort of publicly-funded debt recovery service - they might investigate it if it looks like a crime (and as discussed above, I don't think it's particularly clear that it is), but obviously there is plenty of clearcut crime which they don't have resources to follow up, and even if they discover the identity of the other party that doesn't mean they're going to share it with the OP. Plus they're hardly likely to do so quickly, and I think the OP's priority is just to get the money.

It is undoubtedly a debt which the other party is due to repay, whether or not their actions amount to a crime.

You've changed your tune given you started by say it's fraud.

I would say whoever the OP spoke to either wasn't a police officer or not interest, it could be both. 

If there is any suggestion of a crime crime in this case theft. The police should record the crime unless there is additional verifiable information at the time to say there is no offence. The police should then investigate the matter before deciding there's hasn't been a theft.

According the the Home Office recording rules that's how they should be playing the game. 

sbm40

davidmcn said:

DoaM said:

You receive a £1,700 windfall and don't question where it came from or why you got it? You just go ahead and spend it?

You and I are denizens of this forum so by definition of course we keep a careful watch on our bank account and will spot unexpected transactions. Not everyone does (as we can see from some of the queries here).

And even if you strongly suspect they ought to have realised, try proving it beyond reasonable doubt. £1700 isn't necessarily all that noteworthy an amount - bit different from suddenly getting a million quid and then booking a one way ticket to Brazil with your loot.

£1700 might not be 'noteworthy' to you but it was my daughter's uni rent for 4 months and I had to come up another £1700 straight away. I ask for help on a forum designed to help and thank you to those people who have tried to. Some comments are unhelpful and judgemental. 

DoaM

Holy thread necromancy, Batman!

You're pointing your ire in the wrong direction ... the point David was making was that the person you accidentally sent the money to may consider £1,700 not a noteworthy amount. He wasn't directing that comment at you.