We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
My dad has been scammed out of £19,000
Options
Comments
-
Good Lord, what has this forum turned to. People come here for help and you lot turn detective, nitpicking over every small details. It will be better if people ignore thread that they think has holes in it - maybe point it out once but if they poster insists, let it be to avoid derailing the thread.
Similar happened to me when Lloyds tried to close my account and I made the comment that I have had my account for 10 years, one of the posters in this thread then tried to accuse me of being dishonest because I couldn't possibly have had that account for 10 years. Because Lloyds changed the account name from Vantage to Club Lloyds. Now I have a new account and I should go hunting for when the account name was changed and quote that in my complaints to Lloyds as the date I have had my account from. Problem is, it is the same account, sort code and account number and even my credit reports showed the open date as 10 years ago.
Back to the OP, I really feel for your family and I am glad you have managed to resolve it. I also think, the service level by NatWest is not up to standard.2 -
Where's the value in blindly accepting what a poster says?lopsyfa said:Good Lord, what has this forum turned to. People come here for help and you lot turn detective, nitpicking over every small details. It will be better if people ignore thread that they think has holes in it - maybe point it out once but if they poster insists, let it be to avoid derailing the thread.
Similar happened to me when Lloyds tried to close my account and I made the comment that I have had my account for 10 years, one of the posters in this thread then tried to accuse me of being dishonest because I couldn't possibly have had that account for 10 years. Because Lloyds changed the account name from Vantage to Club Lloyds. Now I have a new account and I should go hunting for when the account name was changed and quote that in my complaints to Lloyds as the date I have had my account from. Problem is, it is the same account, sort code and account number and even my credit reports showed the open date as 10 years ago.
Back to the OP, I really feel for your family and I am glad you have managed to resolve it. I also think, the service level by NatWest is not up to standard.
Garbage in > Garbage out.
If people don't know exactly what's gone on, how can they in any way give sensible, accurate advice?7 -
Yes but at what point will you stop with the finger pointing. You won't do that in real life, will you? Imagine that is your family member that told you that story, and you said but this maybe doesn't add up and they insisted that is the way it appears to them. Will you keep on calling them out for it (school close early, your stories has many holes in it etc) like has happened in this thread.Yahoo_Mail said:
Where's the value in blindly accepting what a poster says?lopsyfa said:Good Lord, what has this forum turned to. People come here for help and you lot turn detective, nitpicking over every small details. It will be better if people ignore thread that they think has holes in it - maybe point it out once but if they poster insists, let it be to avoid derailing the thread.
Similar happened to me when Lloyds tried to close my account and I made the comment that I have had my account for 10 years, one of the posters in this thread then tried to accuse me of being dishonest because I couldn't possibly have had that account for 10 years. Because Lloyds changed the account name from Vantage to Club Lloyds. Now I have a new account and I should go hunting for when the account name was changed and quote that in my complaints to Lloyds as the date I have had my account from. Problem is, it is the same account, sort code and account number and even my credit reports showed the open date as 10 years ago.
Back to the OP, I really feel for your family and I am glad you have managed to resolve it. I also think, the service level by NatWest is not up to standard.
Garbage in > Garbage out.
If people don't know exactly what's gone on, how can they in any way give sensible, accurate advice?
Remember the post is from the point of view of the poster not his dad so he may not be able to capture everything as it happened. And in the real life, stories rarely appears perfect. So if this forum is to be helpful and not push the non-veteran posters away, some allowance need to be allowed for the stories that may not appear fully vetted to you.
If a post appears spammy to you, won't it be better to ignore that post rather than just derail the topic with baseless allegations or detective work.3 -
It's not derailing anything if pointing out things that were claimed to have happened that we know simply cannot happen.lopsyfa said:
Yes but at what point will you stop with the finger pointing. You won't do that in real life, will you? Imagine that is your family member that told you that story, and you said but this maybe doesn't add up and they insisted that is the way it appears to them. Will you keep on calling them out for it (school close early, your stories has many holes in it etc) like has happened in this thread.Yahoo_Mail said:
Where's the value in blindly accepting what a poster says?lopsyfa said:Good Lord, what has this forum turned to. People come here for help and you lot turn detective, nitpicking over every small details. It will be better if people ignore thread that they think has holes in it - maybe point it out once but if they poster insists, let it be to avoid derailing the thread.
Similar happened to me when Lloyds tried to close my account and I made the comment that I have had my account for 10 years, one of the posters in this thread then tried to accuse me of being dishonest because I couldn't possibly have had that account for 10 years. Because Lloyds changed the account name from Vantage to Club Lloyds. Now I have a new account and I should go hunting for when the account name was changed and quote that in my complaints to Lloyds as the date I have had my account from. Problem is, it is the same account, sort code and account number and even my credit reports showed the open date as 10 years ago.
Back to the OP, I really feel for your family and I am glad you have managed to resolve it. I also think, the service level by NatWest is not up to standard.
Garbage in > Garbage out.
If people don't know exactly what's gone on, how can they in any way give sensible, accurate advice?
Remember the post is from the point of view of the poster not his dad so he may not be able to capture everything as it happened. And in the real life, stories rarely appears perfect. So if this forum is to be helpful and not push the non-veteran posters away, some allowance need to be allowed for the stories that may not appear fully vetted to you.
If a post appears spammy to you, won't it be better to ignore that post rather than just derail the topic with baseless allegations or detective work.
The OP initially insisted an existing payee details were changed yet we know this cannot happen, hence my point about mis-communication.
It's not about being detective or vetting posts but getting the facts straight, any advice given without these is bad advice.5 -
kaMelo said:
It's not derailing anything if pointing out things that were claimed to have happened that we know simply cannot happen.lopsyfa said:
Yes but at what point will you stop with the finger pointing. You won't do that in real life, will you? Imagine that is your family member that told you that story, and you said but this maybe doesn't add up and they insisted that is the way it appears to them. Will you keep on calling them out for it (school close early, your stories has many holes in it etc) like has happened in this thread.Yahoo_Mail said:
Where's the value in blindly accepting what a poster says?lopsyfa said:Good Lord, what has this forum turned to. People come here for help and you lot turn detective, nitpicking over every small details. It will be better if people ignore thread that they think has holes in it - maybe point it out once but if they poster insists, let it be to avoid derailing the thread.
Similar happened to me when Lloyds tried to close my account and I made the comment that I have had my account for 10 years, one of the posters in this thread then tried to accuse me of being dishonest because I couldn't possibly have had that account for 10 years. Because Lloyds changed the account name from Vantage to Club Lloyds. Now I have a new account and I should go hunting for when the account name was changed and quote that in my complaints to Lloyds as the date I have had my account from. Problem is, it is the same account, sort code and account number and even my credit reports showed the open date as 10 years ago.
Back to the OP, I really feel for your family and I am glad you have managed to resolve it. I also think, the service level by NatWest is not up to standard.
Garbage in > Garbage out.
If people don't know exactly what's gone on, how can they in any way give sensible, accurate advice?
Remember the post is from the point of view of the poster not his dad so he may not be able to capture everything as it happened. And in the real life, stories rarely appears perfect. So if this forum is to be helpful and not push the non-veteran posters away, some allowance need to be allowed for the stories that may not appear fully vetted to you.
If a post appears spammy to you, won't it be better to ignore that post rather than just derail the topic with baseless allegations or detective work.
The OP initially insisted an existing payee details were changed yet we know this cannot happen, hence my point about mis-communication.
It's not about being detective or vetting posts but getting the facts straight, any advice given without these is bad advice.
But that is part of the scam. The OP has said it from their point of view. Also, the NatWest system doesn't always behave deterministically. Some people have posted their experience of being able to change the reference no of a saved payee without card reader (I have before, I know someone will soon claim they know better) while others can't.
No problem trying to get the right story, it is about the number of come backs while the op maintain their story and the tone of the comments: school has closed, your story has holes etc. Why can't we clarify the story while being respectful?
I am not going to continue this line of discussion so as not to derail thread further. You can believe what you like but you should reflect whether you will say that to people to their face before posting it.2 -
...and is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?3
-
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.No it isn't!Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.Yes it is!No it isn't!Yes it is!No it isn't!Yes it is!No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.It is NOT!It is!1
-
I am sure you can apply your discretion but most people will know when to stop the back and forth - about 10 or more pages of you are wrong, I am not back and forth is not normal.colsten said:
What is the max permitted number of come backs, please? Is it the same number for all posters?lopsyfa said:
...... it is about the number of come backs ......1 -
May I just point out that you cannot "get" power of attorney if someone has capacity to grant it. They have to decide they want one, and then decide who they wish to act for them. And then many people only want it to be enacted when they have fully lost capacity.
I shall repeat!AWOL84 said:
I said way back on the thread that the bloke he paid was someone legitimate back in November of last year. He doesn't know him but paid him to transfer a vinyl record over onto CD for him.
So from this, it appears that your father did indeed send funds to a known payee? Then it would not need a card reader to authorise. Only by luck on finding the previous payee, that your father had set up, are you able to locate the missing £19,000. Hopefully this will be returned to his account.AWOL84 said:Apologies for the late response, had a million and one things on.
Right so the bank got in touch with us on Wednesday via email. I'm absolutely staggered that given my elderly father has just lost £19,000 they didn't have the decency to call rather than send a nameless e-mail providing their update.
The email said that they'd investigated "thoroughly" and because my dad had updated details via the use of a card reader that they'd been unable to refund.
By this point my head was just about to explode with rage/anger so I called Natwest to tell them once again that a card reader HAD NOT BEEN USED. I told them surely they have the capabilities to check if a card reader had been used? He said they do have the capabilities. They said they'd raise an appeal for us and we'd hear in five days.
After this I decided to try and find payee that my dad had paid back in November whose details Natwest told us had been updated. Dad could only remember part of his companys name and after a solid two hour spell of checking Google I managed to find the company and speak to the man in question.
To my utter amazement the man said he'd received the £19,000 and was only made aware after his own bank called to say whether he was expecting the payment. The bank informed him they'd withold the funds and then speak to the senders bank.
So much for Natwests "thorough" investigation eh? I called them back to provide the update and after spending nearly two hours on hold finally spoke to someone who wasn't helpful at all. I asked why wasn't we notifed about this? I asked could they call the payees bank to confirm the funds are being held and he said they could not.
The following day I called Natwest back again and again spent close to two hours on hold before speaking to someone which led to me being directed to about four different departments until I actually spoke to someone competent. He informed me that on their system he can Natwest had raised this with the payees bank a few days previous which left me further enraged as to why no one had told us this before?
All in all it seems to be a happy ending as it would appear the funds will be coming back to my dad although Natwest still haven't confirmed. They're saying they've contacted the other bank and they have upto 30 days to respond (quite why it takes this long I do not know).
The service received from Natwest has been the worst I've ever experienced with any company in my entire life and as soon as this is resolved we will be moving my dads bank account.
I'm angry with myself for not trying to find the payees details sooner as it would have saved a lot of stress.
I did ask Natwest the question as to what the scammers hoped to achieve by sending it to a payee already setup and they informed me that it's quite common that funds are sent in this way and the scammers would find the payees details to then contact them to say money has been sent in error can you wire it back to this account etc.
This begs the question, I have said previously that your father had paid a known payee!
This suggest to me now, that you father is not able to carryout his normal banking and would require some other person to do it for them? This should resolve the issues in the future.
I am afraid, your father was not scammed?
As for OP, I would get some power of attorney to run your father's money affairs.
The scammer sent them the funds to clearly try and obtain back from him after.YOUR FATHER WAS NOT SCAMMED. HE WAS CONFUSED AND SENT THE MONEY.
YOU NEED POWER OF ATTORNEY TO RUN HIS MONEY AFFAIRS!
End Of!
Falling victim to a sophisticated scam happens to many people - I can recall seeing a newspaper article written by someone who works in a relevant job role still falling victim. Shouting at the OP isn't going to make any difference and doesn't automatically mean that dad needs someone swooping in and removing all control from him.All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.
Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards