Bank refusing refund for patio works not carried out

eskbanker

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

Fraud is of course a criminal matter....

Incorrect. Fraud can be proven and sanctioned against (in the form of damages) in civil court. In addition, the burden of proof in civil court is lower.

It's hardly incorrect to observe that fraud is a crime, but the point being made repeatedly throughout the thread is that a civil case is the most appropriate route for OP to follow in order to have the best chance of recovering costs, which, as above, doesn't necessarily entail needing to prove fraud as such.

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:
I don't know if you're referring to my comment or someone else's but I stand by my remark that "The fact that your friend had a decent job done by this contractor would suggest that it wasn't set up as a fraudulent enterprise", which isn't the same thing as your characterisation!

I didn't read your post, but if you said that then I'm afraid you're wrong. The defendant's history is not relevant. It doesn't matter whether he set up his business in order to commit fraud, or whether he performed a thousand prior jobs honestly and to an impeccable standard, because that is not pertinent to the allegations. The only time that something like that would be relevant in court would be in a criminal court, where it might be used as mitigation, to demonstrate a spur of the moment decision as opposed to a planned campaign.

Again, not wrong, but perhaps misinterpreted and/or misrepresented when shorn of its context - if you do get round to reading the thread you'll perhaps understand the point that was being made, which related to recoverability from the bank under the APP regime rather than obsessing about whether it's fraud, a distinction you had appeared to accept above....

born_again

[Deleted User] said:

I haven't read the bulk of the thread as I recently I decided to keep out of them. You can speculate as to why. But. What I will say is it is almost inconceivable that what you describe is not fraud. I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

You paid 20% deposit and four months later the guy turns up, spends four hours mucking about, then takes another 30% off you. After that, he never turns up again. Now we can

a) Believe he turned up knowing full well he wasn't going to continue with the job, and took the 30% with that in mind.

b) Leave our brains at the door and postulate that the very day after he'd taken your money, and four months after you'd paid him the initial deposit, something so terrible happens to him that not only is he unable to complete the job, ever, but he's unable to even speak about it.

I see previous posters have speculated that it's unlikely to be fraud because the guy was recommend, or because he'd done a decent job for someone else. All these factors are entirely irrelevant. If some saintly builder with 40 years of satisfied customers behind him one day finds himself in dire need of cash and runs off with the deposit from a customer, that's no less fraud than if it was Fred West.

In fact, as you describe it, it's not just fraud, it's classic fraud, almost cliched in its adherence to the template,

To clear up fraud here, in this case.
As far as banks go. Fraud is when a unknown 3rd party uses your details, not when you make a payment yourself.

So it would need to go to court if you wanted to argue fraud. Police will not be interested, as they will simply say civil matter. As we know OP does not have any details for the person. 

Grumpy_chap

gilbo47 said:

I have just received a letter from my bank clearly stating and confirming I have been a victim of APP fraud...but they are not refunding me (and they dont go into reasons why not).  Picture below with amount and bank specific Web links redacted.

So I'm confused...if they confirm I've been a victim of APP fraud (even though here it's pretty much confirmed I'm not) how can they refuse to refund me?

Do I just give this up as a just a badly worded letter...or...has my argument that "Hang on, bank...if you've confirmed I'm victim of APP fraud then surely you need to act accordingly and demonstrate how I've been grossly negligent before refusing to refund" got some weight and worth pursuing?

I am surprised by the letter from the bank and I refrained from comments because I could not add anything substantially different from what @Aylesbury_Duck and @eskbanker had already said.

I have read the letter again and wonder whether it is the clumsily worded letter the OP suspected.  The letter seems very generic and, as noted, no reasons given for the rejection.

I wonder whether what is really meant in the first line is "Thanks for speaking to us about the suspected fraud..." and the first line of the second paragraph really means "You claimed to have experienced..."  It is quite possible in these "woke" times that the banks simply prepared a standard letter that accepts the fraud so as not to get complaints of denial from any snowflakes.  I can quite imagine the thread "I suffered fraud and bank simply denies it took place".

Anyway, the bank do appear to have accepted the APP fraud, which is surprising IMO.  I am not an expert.  The description of how the claim was assessed is wholly standard text.  Nothing specific at all to the OP's circumstances.  I certainly agree with the proposed action to contact the bank to seek better explanations.


The subsequent posts about fraud and whether it is a criminal matter, or can be pursued through the civil courts seem rather moot given that the whereabouts of the tradesperson are currently unknown.
It is unlikely the Police would take any action to instigate a criminal process.  There would have to be a significant number of reports of the same individual systematically deserting patio jobs for there to be any Police interest.
If the OP were minded to pursue a civil case for fraud, it first requires the OP to locate the individual and establish that the individual has assets which can be reclaimed.  If that situation arises, a straight forward small claims court process would seem far simpler than seeking recovery under civil claim for fraud.

[Deleted User]

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

eskbanker said:

[Deleted User] said:

I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

Fraud is of course a criminal matter....

Incorrect. Fraud can be proven and sanctioned against (in the form of damages) in civil court. In addition, the burden of proof in civil court is lower.

It's hardly incorrect to observe that fraud is a crime

You didn't merely observe that fraud was a crime, as clearly I would not have disagreed. What happened was, in response to my mention of fraud being established in civil court, you highlighted the word 'civil' and replied, "Fraud is of course a criminal matter....". 

eskbanker said:
Again, not wrong, but perhaps misinterpreted and/or misrepresented when shorn of its context - if you do get round to reading the thread you'll perhaps understand the point that was being made, which related to recoverability from the bank under the APP regime rather than obsessing about whether it's fraud, a distinction you had appeared to accept above....

But that wasn't the point being made by several people, and it wasn't the point being made by me. I made the comment that in civil court, this would almost certain be found to be fraud. That's it. The entire purpose of my post was to refute the previous statements, which to put it mildly are naive, that this was somehow the result of a well-meaning tradesman who got himself into a bit of a mix up and ah well, mistakes happen. Why anyone would try and convince an obvious victim of fraud of this, especially on this site, is a mystery.

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

I haven't read the bulk of the thread as I recently I decided to keep out of them. You can speculate as to why. But. What I will say is it is almost inconceivable that what you describe is not fraud. I wouldn't speculate on the type of fraud, and maybe granted it doesn't sound like the APP flavour, but it is fraud, and I would eat my hat if it was not judged to be in a civil court.

You paid 20% deposit and four months later the guy turns up, spends four hours mucking about, then takes another 30% off you. After that, he never turns up again. Now we can

a) Believe he turned up knowing full well he wasn't going to continue with the job, and took the 30% with that in mind.

b) Leave our brains at the door and postulate that the very day after he'd taken your money, and four months after you'd paid him the initial deposit, something so terrible happens to him that not only is he unable to complete the job, ever, but he's unable to even speak about it.

I see previous posters have speculated that it's unlikely to be fraud because the guy was recommend, or because he'd done a decent job for someone else. All these factors are entirely irrelevant. If some saintly builder with 40 years of satisfied customers behind him one day finds himself in dire need of cash and runs off with the deposit from a customer, that's no less fraud than if it was Fred West.

In fact, as you describe it, it's not just fraud, it's classic fraud, almost cliched in its adherence to the template,

To clear up fraud here, in this case.
As far as banks go. Fraud is when a unknown 3rd party uses your details, not when you make a payment yourself.

So it would need to go to court if you wanted to argue fraud. Police will not be interested, as they will simply say civil matter. As we know OP does not have any details for the person. 

A fraud is the the blanket term for deceit resulting in monetary advantage. A scam is a type of fraud. I don't know where you heard that the fraudster needs to be anonymous (although ironically is this case, he is). Even APP does not make that distinction.

"Authorised push payment fraud where the customer has been tricked into transferring money to the fraudster’s account" - Ombudsman.

"So it would need to go to court if you wanted to argue fraud" - Yes, that's what I said. I don't know the amount involved but likely small claims is the logical recourse. Small claims being, of course, civil court, and as able as any civil court to find and officially record that the defendant acted fraudulently.

And I'm sure it wouldn't be too onerous to find out who this guy is, given his interactions in the area. If that for some reason proves impossible then you pay £500 to an investigator to do the job for you. You might even get some of it back as a judgement but even if you don't, it would be worth it.

To reiterate, the point of my original post is clear; this was a fraud, not some silly mixup. Whether it is taken to court or the bank pays out or the OP builds the patio himself is another matter.

born_again

[Deleted User] said:

A fraud is the the blanket term for deceit resulting in monetary advantage. A scam is a type of fraud. I don't know where you heard that the fraudster needs to be anonymous (although ironically is this case, he is). Even APP does not make that distinction.

Because it is part & parcel of the fraud training we are given.
Fraud = 3rd party
Dispute = payment card holder made 👍

[Deleted User]

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

A fraud is the the blanket term for deceit resulting in monetary advantage. A scam is a type of fraud. I don't know where you heard that the fraudster needs to be anonymous (although ironically is this case, he is). Even APP does not make that distinction.

Because it is part & parcel of the fraud training we are given.
Fraud = 3rd party
Dispute = payment card holder made 👍

Whilst most frauds are carried out anonymously, and anonymity doubtless makes the fraud easier to pull off, it's not anonymity that causes it to be fraud and nor is it a contributory factor. Conversely, a lack of anonymity does not make a fraudulent transaction any the less so.

So the crime committed against an old lady who pays someone £20k to 'fix her ridge tiles' is fraud regardless of whether the person is a random cold caller or her grandson.

lincroft1710

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

A fraud is the the blanket term for deceit resulting in monetary advantage. A scam is a type of fraud. I don't know where you heard that the fraudster needs to be anonymous (although ironically is this case, he is). Even APP does not make that distinction.

Because it is part & parcel of the fraud training we are given.
Fraud = 3rd party
Dispute = payment card holder made 👍

So the crime committed against an old lady who pays someone £20k to 'fix her ridge tiles' is fraud regardless of whether the person is a random cold caller or her grandson.

I would have said that was overcharging rather than fraud. 

[Deleted User]

lincroft1710 said:

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

A fraud is the the blanket term for deceit resulting in monetary advantage. A scam is a type of fraud. I don't know where you heard that the fraudster needs to be anonymous (although ironically is this case, he is). Even APP does not make that distinction.

Because it is part & parcel of the fraud training we are given.
Fraud = 3rd party
Dispute = payment card holder made 👍

So the crime committed against an old lady who pays someone £20k to 'fix her ridge tiles' is fraud regardless of whether the person is a random cold caller or her grandson.

I would have said that was overcharging rather than fraud. 

Are you not familiar with scare quotes and their meaning? I thought everyone would be, otherwise instead of writing "'fix her ridge tiles'" I would have explained that no such work was ever carried out.

Ergates

[Deleted User] said:

lincroft1710 said:

[Deleted User] said:

born_again said:

[Deleted User] said:

A fraud is the the blanket term for deceit resulting in monetary advantage. A scam is a type of fraud. I don't know where you heard that the fraudster needs to be anonymous (although ironically is this case, he is). Even APP does not make that distinction.

Because it is part & parcel of the fraud training we are given.
Fraud = 3rd party
Dispute = payment card holder made 👍

So the crime committed against an old lady who pays someone £20k to 'fix her ridge tiles' is fraud regardless of whether the person is a random cold caller or her grandson.

I would have said that was overcharging rather than fraud. 

Are you not familiar with scare quotes and their meaning? I thought everyone would be, otherwise instead of writing "'fix her ridge tiles'" I would have explained that no such work was ever carried out.

It was not at all clear from what you wrote that you intended to indicate that the ridge tiles had not been fixed.

eskbanker

[Deleted User] said:

Before you even get to the question of recompense, the facts should be established. The very idea that the OP was told that a stereotypical and unequivocal instance of fraud was actually a good faith mistake, on this site of all sites, is more than enough reason to put the record straight.

I don't think it's any more appropriate to describe this as an unequivocal instance of fraud than it is for others to assert unequivocally that it's not fraud - it might be fraud, but nobody knows that for sure.

[Deleted User] said:

Somewhat pertinently, the bank's repayment, or otherwise, is fundamentally affected by whether a fraud has been committed.

Not true, it's more nuanced than that, as outlined in one of the posts you chose not to read!