Money sent to wrong account

whitesmith

... unless forced to do so by a court order. All this cost money of course, so depends on the amount sent as to if it is worth it.

eskbanker

whitesmith said:

... unless forced to do so by a court order. All this cost money of course, so depends on the amount sent as to if it is worth it.

Indeed, but the cost of securing a Norwich Pharmacal order to force Santander to disclose the identity of the recipient would be disproportionately expensive when compared with the cost of an MCOL claim (probably by at least one order of magnitude) so best not to get OP's hopes up!

whitesmith

i knew you knew what i meant !

althought the OP has not said what sum is involved.

garmeg

eskbanker said:

whitesmith said:

... unless forced to do so by a court order. All this cost money of course, so depends on the amount sent as to if it is worth it.

Indeed, but the cost of securing a Norwich Pharmacal order to force Santander to disclose the identity of the recipient would be disproportionately expensive when compared with the cost of an MCOL claim (probably by at least one order of magnitude) so best not to get OP's hopes up!

Presumably the cost of the order could also be claimed from the wrongful recipient as well as the original funds?

Perhaps not, actually, if it is the bank withholding the information.

whitesmith

yes all costs could be claimed from the recipient.

eskbanker

garmeg said:

eskbanker said:

whitesmith said:

... unless forced to do so by a court order. All this cost money of course, so depends on the amount sent as to if it is worth it.

Indeed, but the cost of securing a Norwich Pharmacal order to force Santander to disclose the identity of the recipient would be disproportionately expensive when compared with the cost of an MCOL claim (probably by at least one order of magnitude) so best not to get OP's hopes up!

Presumably the cost of the order could also be claimed from the wrongful recipient as well as the original funds?

Perhaps not, actually, if it is the bank withholding the information.

whitesmith said:

yes all costs could be claimed from the recipient.

Do you have anything that supports that view?  Obviously the MCOL costs can be added to the claim against the recipient, but it's not immediately clear to me that it's viable to include the substantial cost of the previous action against Santander (including Santander's costs incurred as respondent in that action), but happy to be corrected if there's precedent somewhere.

However, even if such inflated costs could be granted against the recipient, actually recovering them could be an entirely different matter if they're substantial, so this whole exercise remains risky IMHO, especially when dependent on the goodwill of OP's husband's client....

whitesmith

Don't really have any precidents as that is not my field although what I was trying to say is that costs could be claimed from the recipient - whether that would be successful is a matter for the court of course

the link below shows what's one person did and in the end is seeking a charging order on the recipient's house for the debt plus costs and expenses. Again whether this would be successful I don't know.

if it happened to me I would certainly ask the court for everything I had spent pursuing the action as well as recovery of the original debt plus interest

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/08/transfer-money-wrong-account-nationwide

eskbanker

whitesmith said:

Don't really have any precidents as that is not my field although what I was trying to say is that costs could be claimed from the recipient - whether that would be successful is a matter for the court of course

the link below shows what's one person did and in the end is seeking a charging order on the recipient's house for the debt plus costs and expenses. Again whether this would be successful I don't know.

if it happened to me I would certainly ask the court for everything I had spent pursuing the action as well as recovery of the original debt plus interest

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/08/transfer-money-wrong-account-nationwide

Perhaps I'm missing it, but I can't see any reference to the £2,500 costs of securing the Norwich Pharmacal order being added to the claim against the recipient?  There is later reference to some expenses being added but it seems to me that they relate to the enforcement of the breached repayment plan, etc.

The story illustrates exactly the point I was making about the distinction between a successful claim and actually recovering the money though!

phillw

I thought it had since been made a criminal act, so you can report it to the police.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2016/01/sent-money-to-the-wrong-bank-account-now-it-should-be-easier-to-get-it-back/

Surely the police can find out where the money went and try to get it back?

eskbanker

phillw said:

I thought it had since been made a criminal act, so you can report it to the police.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2016/01/sent-money-to-the-wrong-bank-account-now-it-should-be-easier-to-get-it-back/

Surely the police can find out where the money went and try to get it back?

That article just states the obvious about existing law (presumably the Theft Act) rather than asserting anything newly becoming a criminal act when the misdirected payments code (which has no legislative standing) was introduced in 2016:

If your mistake's genuine, it is unlikely the recipient will dispute your claim, particularly as anyone who spends money not belonging to them is committing a crime and can be reported to the police.

but this doesn't mean that the sender of a misdirected payment can immediately go to the police if a recipient disputes the claim, since at that point there's no evidence that the recipient is spending the money....