Misrepresentation to access funds

concerned43

The financial ombudsman has got back to me and are taking on the case. I am impressed with the speed they have applied to help me. 

Malthusian

That sounds like a largely automated acknowledgment. The FOS is quicker than it was in the pandemic, but it still usually takes some months for an adjudicator to actually start work on the case. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong but I wouldn't expect a full response for a while.

boingy

I had one that took 4 months. 

Keep_pedalling

We have two threads running with similar themes the big difference being this one in Scotland where the the OP had to obtain authority to act through the courts and one in England where no such authority is required. In the Scottish  case the bank have clearly failed in their duty, in the English case I don’t believe they have as they have followed standard practice, but maybe that practice needs to change along Scottish lines.

Delburn

This Ombudsman's decision gives a fair amount of support for the position, that if a provider pays out the balance of a deceased person's account to a person who has no authority to act for the estate, then the provider may be liable for the estate and beneficiaries losses.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-1689124.pdf

In this example the Building Society was also already on notice of a potential dispute.

It appeared that the Ombudsman paid little attention to arguments such as we followed our policies/procedures.

Malthusian

Delburn said:

It appeared that the Ombudsman paid little attention to arguments such as we followed our policies/procedures.

YBS' arguments on those lines are hilarious. "We released the funds at our discretion" isn't a defence, it's a confession. "We followed our procedures" wouldn't be a defence either. If the bank's policy is that every fifth customer who enters the branch gets punched in the nose it doesn't make it legal or reasonable.
It is also heartening that an investigator (the first FOS case handler) initially found for the estate, and it only went to an ombudsman because YBS appealed, and the grounds for their appeal were essentially "waaaaaah". 
If I was the OP I would email them and ask them to consider that case when dealing with the complaint. (Ombudsmen aren't bound by precedent as judges are, but what is fair and reasonable in one case will usually be found to be fair and reasonable in another.)
The facts are a little different, mainly in that the bank in the OP's case does not appear to have been aware of a potential dispute when they paid the money out. But that fact does not appear to be crucial in the Ombudsman's decision.

But in any event, the central issue here is that YBS has released funds to someone that was not authorised to receive them. I’m not commenting on YBS’ processes or whether these are correct – it isn’t my role to do so (although again I note the funds were actually released outside of its processes using its discretion). I’m simply considering whether it has made an error when it decided to release the funds to the other party. And based on the information available in this specific complaint, I think it has. And I think this has caused a direct loss to Mrs M’s estate.

buddy9

Keep_pedalling said:

We have two threads running with similar themes the big difference being this one in Scotland where the the OP had to obtain authority to act through the courts and one in England where no such authority is required. In the Scottish  case the bank have clearly failed in their duty, in the English case I don’t believe they have as they have followed standard practice, but maybe that practice needs to change along Scottish lines.

On the basis of the information available this is not a requirement of Scots Law but a requirement of Virgin Money as applied in Scotland. But even then it is not totally clear. The full VM policy does not appear to be available online and the OP didn’t respond to a request to post a link to the VM policy.

concerned43

buddy9 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

We have two threads running with similar themes the big difference being this one in Scotland where the the OP had to obtain authority to act through the courts and one in England where no such authority is required. In the Scottish  case the bank have clearly failed in their duty, in the English case I don’t believe they have as they have followed standard practice, but maybe that practice needs to change along Scottish lines.

On the basis of the information available this is not a requirement of Scots Law but a requirement of Virgin Money as applied in Scotland. But even then it is not totally clear. The full VM policy does not appear to be available online and the OP didn’t respond to a request to post a link to the VM policy.

I didn't need to post a link as someone else kindly did. 

concerned43

Delburn said:

This Ombudsman's decision gives a fair amount of support for the position, that if a provider pays out the balance of a deceased person's account to a person who has no authority to act for the estate, then the provider may be liable for the estate and beneficiaries losses.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-1689124.pdf

In this example the Building Society was also already on notice of a potential dispute.

It appeared that the Ombudsman paid little attention to arguments such as we followed our policies/procedures.

Interesting read. I have made it easier for the ombudsman as Virgin Money admit their mistake and upheld my complaint. It's with the ombudsman because they refuse to answer the question put to them regarding what happens if they cannot recall the funds. Two days after asking that question, Virgin money sent me a pamphlet titled "dealing with debt".
The issue I have with this case is that the thief got away with it. Where's the justice here?
I have asked in my case for a recall and if unsuccessful, then Virgin pay court fees to bring the brother to court. 

buddy9

concerned43 said:

I didn't need to post a link as someone else kindly did. 

My apologies. I did not spot this.