Balance transfer misdirected to another account £4k - please help

eskbanker

p3ncilsharpener said:

eskbanker said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

I don't think that's going to work.  The Ombudsman also said "I can’t see that Halifax have any authority here to demand the return of the balance transfer" i.e. it's not really up to them.

I suspect if Sainsbury's were deemed to have acted too slowly it'll be compo and that's it., I can't see that their tardiness had any effect on the outcome.  Barclaycard need the permission of the customer to take the money back so even if the money was still there it wouldn't make any difference, their actions rather make it clear they wouldn't give permission (or would object to the transfer.)

It's still not clear to me whether the misdirected payments process applies to this or not, in the light of the information that Sainsbury's use Faster Payments for such transfers.

If it does apply, then the sending bank has an obligation to attempt a recall within two working days, so if (say) they took a week, that might be considered unreasonable and a contributory factor in the lack of success, in that the sending bank "will contact the receiving bank on your behalf with a request to prevent the money being mistakenly spent", so if Sainsbury's delayed a request, during which time the recipient withdrew the money, it would have prevented Barclaycard from acting proactively to freeze the amount concerned, regardless of the (later) lack of cooperation from the recipient.

I note that FOS makes no reference to the misdirected payments process in that decision though....

It won't.  The page you linked talks specifically about bank accounts.  The payment itself wasn't misdirected, it went exactly where it was supposed to go (to Barclaycards bank account.)

That certainly seems a valid interpretation, but there is some ambiguity in the original press release:

The procedures apply to payments sent using Faster Payments (which processes virtually every mobile, online and telephone banking payment between banks or building societies) or Bacs Direct Credit (used to pay nearly 90% of the UK workforce, and a billion benefit payments, as well as pension payments, employee expenses, insurance settlements, dividends, refunds and supplier payments). 

The changes apply to all banks and building societies that connect directly to Faster Payments or Bacs Payment Schemes Limited from today, covering more than 95% of electronic payments made in the UK. Implementation is being rolled out across other indirectly connected banks and building societies during early 2016.

Definitive information about the process does seem thin on the ground though, and it's hardly helpful for the FP website to refer to 2016 in the future tense!

sourcrates

To sum up, as mentioned in a previous post, inputting a wrong account number would, or should, result in a decline.

Try making an online payment with your own card, and deliberately input one number wrongly, or two for that matter, the transaction is automatically declined.

So I don`t buy that part of the banks story, however, you appear to have gone as far as you can with this, having exhausted both banks complaints procedures, discovering the ombudsman is unable to rule on such matters, the recipient of the money has cashed it in and done a Lord Lucan, then finding out GDPR prevents this individual from being identified, without an order of the court, it seems like the end of the road to me.

Its difficult to actually know who is at fault here, but it appears to me, unfortunately, to be a bit of a lost cause, I can see no other procedural way that you can get this money returned.

All I can suggest, is that you use the argument I mentioned above, to "unleash Hell" on both companies, by letter, phone if you want to, and by social media, bombard them with letters, light up there social media pages, write to watchdog, or Joe Lycett, he does a consumer related show, generally make a nuisance of yourself, be a pain in there proverbial backside, companies hate bad publicity, it can cost them millions in lost business, even if they won`t admit to any wrong doing, they may refund you as a "gesture of goodwill".

I think that is the path you will have to follow with this, look to shame one of them into "finding" this money, it can work if you have the patience, unless anyone has any other more constructive conventional suggestions for you, then that`s what I'd go with.

p3ncilsharpener

eskbanker said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

eskbanker said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

I don't think that's going to work.  The Ombudsman also said "I can’t see that Halifax have any authority here to demand the return of the balance transfer" i.e. it's not really up to them.

I suspect if Sainsbury's were deemed to have acted too slowly it'll be compo and that's it., I can't see that their tardiness had any effect on the outcome.  Barclaycard need the permission of the customer to take the money back so even if the money was still there it wouldn't make any difference, their actions rather make it clear they wouldn't give permission (or would object to the transfer.)

It's still not clear to me whether the misdirected payments process applies to this or not, in the light of the information that Sainsbury's use Faster Payments for such transfers.

If it does apply, then the sending bank has an obligation to attempt a recall within two working days, so if (say) they took a week, that might be considered unreasonable and a contributory factor in the lack of success, in that the sending bank "will contact the receiving bank on your behalf with a request to prevent the money being mistakenly spent", so if Sainsbury's delayed a request, during which time the recipient withdrew the money, it would have prevented Barclaycard from acting proactively to freeze the amount concerned, regardless of the (later) lack of cooperation from the recipient.

I note that FOS makes no reference to the misdirected payments process in that decision though....

It won't.  The page you linked talks specifically about bank accounts.  The payment itself wasn't misdirected, it went exactly where it was supposed to go (to Barclaycards bank account.)

That certainly seems a valid interpretation, but there is some ambiguity in the original press release:

The procedures apply to payments sent using Faster Payments (which processes virtually every mobile, online and telephone banking payment between banks or building societies) or Bacs Direct Credit (used to pay nearly 90% of the UK workforce, and a billion benefit payments, as well as pension payments, employee expenses, insurance settlements, dividends, refunds and supplier payments). 

The changes apply to all banks and building societies that connect directly to Faster Payments or Bacs Payment Schemes Limited from today, covering more than 95% of electronic payments made in the UK. Implementation is being rolled out across other indirectly connected banks and building societies during early 2016.

Definitive information about the process does seem thin on the ground though, and it's hardly helpful for the FP website to refer to 2016 in the future tense!

Well that's the thing, the Faster Payment itself went where it was supposed to go. Sainsbury's were sending it from their bank account to Barclaycards, and it appears it got where it was supposed to go.  It's the wrong reference (which is currently being blamed on the OP) that got it credited to the wrong credit card account afterwards but the FP itself went through fine.

As you point out the FOS didn't discuss this at all and it was a pretty recent ruling.

p3ncilsharpener

sourcrates said:

To sum up, as mentioned in a previous post, inputting a wrong account number would, or should, result in a decline.

Try making an online payment with your own card, and deliberately input one number wrongly, or two for that matter, the transaction is automatically declined.

So I don`t buy that part of the banks story, however, you appear to have gone as far as you can with this, having exhausted both banks complaints procedures, discovering the ombudsman is unable to rule on such matters, the recipient of the money has cashed it in and done a Lord Lucan, then finding out GDPR prevents this individual from being identified, without an order of the court, it seems like the end of the road to me.

Its difficult to actually know who is at fault here, but it appears to me, unfortunately, to be a bit of a lost cause, I can see no other procedural way that you can get this money returned.

All I can suggest, is that you use the argument I mentioned above, to "unleash Hell" on both companies, by letter, phone if you want to, and by social media, bombard them with letters, light up there social media pages, write to watchdog, or Joe Lycett, he does a consumer related show, generally make a nuisance of yourself, be a pain in there proverbial backside, companies hate bad publicity, it can cost them millions in lost business, even if they won`t admit to any did wrong doing, they may refund you as a "gesture of goodwill".

I think that is the path you will have to follow with this, look to shame one of them into "finding" this money, it can work if you have the patience, unless anyone has any other more constructive suggestions for you, then that`s what I'd go with.

But it's not a "wrong" account number (assuming you're talking about an invalid one.)  The account number did in fact exist, if it hadn't the payment would either be sat in Barclaycards account and would have been sent back to Sainsbury's when asked or it'd have been sent back automatically.

A balance transfer is in effect a FP or BACS payment between two banks with the card number as a reference.  The BACS system has no idea if a card number is valid or not, or if the reference is correct, just like it doesn't with any other payment you send.  It's not a card payment so it being "declined" like one wouldn't happen (and in this case, it was a valid card number anyway.)

I don't think the latter is going to work, the OP sent the money to the wrong account and someone did a runner with it.  Neither company is to blame here.  Unless the media wants to misrepresent the facts to turn this into something it's not, it's a non-story.

eskbanker

p3ncilsharpener said:

eskbanker said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

eskbanker said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

I don't think that's going to work.  The Ombudsman also said "I can’t see that Halifax have any authority here to demand the return of the balance transfer" i.e. it's not really up to them.

I suspect if Sainsbury's were deemed to have acted too slowly it'll be compo and that's it., I can't see that their tardiness had any effect on the outcome.  Barclaycard need the permission of the customer to take the money back so even if the money was still there it wouldn't make any difference, their actions rather make it clear they wouldn't give permission (or would object to the transfer.)

It's still not clear to me whether the misdirected payments process applies to this or not, in the light of the information that Sainsbury's use Faster Payments for such transfers.

If it does apply, then the sending bank has an obligation to attempt a recall within two working days, so if (say) they took a week, that might be considered unreasonable and a contributory factor in the lack of success, in that the sending bank "will contact the receiving bank on your behalf with a request to prevent the money being mistakenly spent", so if Sainsbury's delayed a request, during which time the recipient withdrew the money, it would have prevented Barclaycard from acting proactively to freeze the amount concerned, regardless of the (later) lack of cooperation from the recipient.

I note that FOS makes no reference to the misdirected payments process in that decision though....

It won't.  The page you linked talks specifically about bank accounts.  The payment itself wasn't misdirected, it went exactly where it was supposed to go (to Barclaycards bank account.)

That certainly seems a valid interpretation, but there is some ambiguity in the original press release:

The procedures apply to payments sent using Faster Payments (which processes virtually every mobile, online and telephone banking payment between banks or building societies) or Bacs Direct Credit (used to pay nearly 90% of the UK workforce, and a billion benefit payments, as well as pension payments, employee expenses, insurance settlements, dividends, refunds and supplier payments). 

The changes apply to all banks and building societies that connect directly to Faster Payments or Bacs Payment Schemes Limited from today, covering more than 95% of electronic payments made in the UK. Implementation is being rolled out across other indirectly connected banks and building societies during early 2016.

Definitive information about the process does seem thin on the ground though, and it's hardly helpful for the FP website to refer to 2016 in the future tense!

Well that's the thing, the Faster Payment itself went where it was supposed to go. Sainsbury's were sending it from their bank account to Barclaycards, and it appears it got where it was supposed to go.  It's the wrong reference (which is currently being blamed on the OP) that got it credited to the wrong credit card account afterwards but the FP itself went through fine.

As you point out the FOS didn't discuss this at all and it was a pretty recent ruling.

Yes, on balance I agree with you, although perhaps worth OP asking FOS for guidance on the point if dialogue is ongoing, nothing to lose by doing so....  Even if the process doesn't apply as such, I don't know if there is anything defining reasonable timescales for credit card companies to conduct recalls, or if there's any onus on the receiving company to take steps to freeze funds in such circumstances?

p3ncilsharpener

eskbanker said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

eskbanker said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

eskbanker said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

I don't think that's going to work.  The Ombudsman also said "I can’t see that Halifax have any authority here to demand the return of the balance transfer" i.e. it's not really up to them.

I suspect if Sainsbury's were deemed to have acted too slowly it'll be compo and that's it., I can't see that their tardiness had any effect on the outcome.  Barclaycard need the permission of the customer to take the money back so even if the money was still there it wouldn't make any difference, their actions rather make it clear they wouldn't give permission (or would object to the transfer.)

It's still not clear to me whether the misdirected payments process applies to this or not, in the light of the information that Sainsbury's use Faster Payments for such transfers.

If it does apply, then the sending bank has an obligation to attempt a recall within two working days, so if (say) they took a week, that might be considered unreasonable and a contributory factor in the lack of success, in that the sending bank "will contact the receiving bank on your behalf with a request to prevent the money being mistakenly spent", so if Sainsbury's delayed a request, during which time the recipient withdrew the money, it would have prevented Barclaycard from acting proactively to freeze the amount concerned, regardless of the (later) lack of cooperation from the recipient.

I note that FOS makes no reference to the misdirected payments process in that decision though....

It won't.  The page you linked talks specifically about bank accounts.  The payment itself wasn't misdirected, it went exactly where it was supposed to go (to Barclaycards bank account.)

That certainly seems a valid interpretation, but there is some ambiguity in the original press release:

The procedures apply to payments sent using Faster Payments (which processes virtually every mobile, online and telephone banking payment between banks or building societies) or Bacs Direct Credit (used to pay nearly 90% of the UK workforce, and a billion benefit payments, as well as pension payments, employee expenses, insurance settlements, dividends, refunds and supplier payments). 

The changes apply to all banks and building societies that connect directly to Faster Payments or Bacs Payment Schemes Limited from today, covering more than 95% of electronic payments made in the UK. Implementation is being rolled out across other indirectly connected banks and building societies during early 2016.

Definitive information about the process does seem thin on the ground though, and it's hardly helpful for the FP website to refer to 2016 in the future tense!

Well that's the thing, the Faster Payment itself went where it was supposed to go. Sainsbury's were sending it from their bank account to Barclaycards, and it appears it got where it was supposed to go.  It's the wrong reference (which is currently being blamed on the OP) that got it credited to the wrong credit card account afterwards but the FP itself went through fine.

As you point out the FOS didn't discuss this at all and it was a pretty recent ruling.

Yes, on balance I agree with you, although perhaps worth OP asking FOS for guidance on the point if dialogue is ongoing, nothing to lose by doing so....  Even if the process doesn't apply as such, I don't know if there is anything defining reasonable timescales for credit card companies to conduct recalls, or if there's any onus on the receiving company to take steps to freeze funds in such circumstances?

From what the OP has posted there was nothing to freeze by the time Barclaycard got involved anyway.

born_again

sarahern said:

Also if they use the faster payment scheme for balance transfers then isnt this subject to Confirmatiom of Payee check?

No they don't. As there is not acc name to check as such. It is a major beneficiary ACC.

A balance transfer goes to a holding account (in this instance @ Barclays) and is then transferred from there to the CC account via the reference no (which is why you use the card number). Which must have been a valid one or it would have been rejected by Barclays.

Just the same as when you make a payment to your CC. Everyone pays the same account and it is then directed to your CC by the reference.

jay1804

Surely Barclaycard are to blame for this. If the OP did miss type the card number. First of all if there was no balance on the account, they should have reversed the balance transfer payment.

As the credit balance has been transferred out the account, they should re-debt the amount and redirect the money to the OPs account or back to Sainsbury's.

Even though it not money laundering, Barclaycard have basically assisted in fraud.

p3ncilsharpener

jay1804 said:

Surely Barclaycard are to blame for this. If the OP did miss type the card number. First of all if there was no balance on the account, they should have reversed the balance transfer payment.

As the credit balance has been transferred out the account, they should re-debt the amount and redirect the money to the OPs account or back to Sainsbury's.

Even though it not money laundering, Barclaycard have basically assisted in fraud.

No and no.

Did you read the FOS ruling I linked to?

Barclaycard has done nothing wrong by following an instruction, Sainsbury's have done nothing wrong by following an instruction.

The OP erred by giving incorrect card details and the recipient errred by swiping the credit.

Thrugelmir

jay1804 said:

Surely Barclaycard are to blame for this. If the OP did miss type the card number. First of all if there was no balance on the account, they should have reversed the balance transfer payment.

As the credit balance has been transferred out the account, they should re-debt the amount and redirect the money to the OPs account or back to Sainsbury's.

Even though it not money laundering, Barclaycard have basically assisted in fraud.

Pure speculation not factual information. Pointless hypothesising.