SORRY MARTIN, PREMIUM BONDS NOT SO SAFE AFTER ALL.

strawb_shortcake

Grumpy_chap said:

strawb_shortcake said:

Winning £1160 on £40 of premium bonds in 21 years seems incredibly lucky...

Or even £2,160...

Then again, one win of £2k early on reinvested to PBs now increases the chance of further wins.  Would still need another 6 or 7 minimum value wins to reach that outcome.  So, still above average luck I would have thought.

Fortunately, the £40 invested 50 years ago did not win the top prize early on, or this really would have been a bad luck story.

Oops I'd be a terrible accountant 

Doidle99

Section62 said:

Doidle99 said:

elsien said:

I am curious, though.  Why would a change of postcode mean the post going elsewhere?

If I live at 1 Bridge Street,
                 x town
I would still expect my post to come to 1 Bridge Street X town unless there was an identical house and road number in the new postcode? 

People get postcodes wrong all the time, but the post still arrives.

Completely correct. I did,of course, check if there is an identical address somewhere. There is not. I lived in a small Scottish village.

So is the old postcode in use for a different address now?  If so, when did that happen?

Section62 said:

Doidle99 said:

elsien said:

I am curious, though.  Why would a change of postcode mean the post going elsewhere?

If I live at 1 Bridge Street,
                 x town
I would still expect my post to come to 1 Bridge Street X town unless there was an identical house and road number in the new postcode? 

People get postcodes wrong all the time, but the post still arrives.

Completely correct. I did,of course, check if there is an identical address somewhere. There is not. I lived in a small Scottish village.

So is the old postcode in use for a different address now?  If so, when did that happen?

I did indeed check that. The NS&I postcode check threw up just two random address with differing postcodes. It does not appear that the postcode is in use.

Doidle99

No it is not in use according to the NS&I database.

nottsphil

la531983 said:

Yup, this is all your fault.

Sorry.

You must think that the proportion of blame attributable to the fraudster has somehow expired (due to the length of time elapsed?)

Doidle99

I just Googled that. It appears that there is no time limitation on Fraud. If there is it only commences when the fraud is discovered.

Section62

Doidle99 said:

Section62 said:

Doidle99 said:

elsien said:

I am curious, though.  Why would a change of postcode mean the post going elsewhere?

If I live at 1 Bridge Street,
                 x town
I would still expect my post to come to 1 Bridge Street X town unless there was an identical house and road number in the new postcode? 

People get postcodes wrong all the time, but the post still arrives.

Completely correct. I did,of course, check if there is an identical address somewhere. There is not. I lived in a small Scottish village.

So is the old postcode in use for a different address now?  If so, when did that happen?

I did indeed check that. The NS&I postcode check threw up just two random address with differing postcodes. It does not appear that the postcode is in use.

So if the postcode isn't in use (which is what I expected - to reduce ambiguity they aren't usually recycled any time soon, if ever) then the letter should have been delivered to the property whose name/number/street/town is written on the envelope, just as if there was no postcode written on the envelope at all.  Alternatively, returned to sender.  And I think I'm correct that all NS&I outgoing mail has a return address on the back, so that shouldn't have presented a problem.

For multiple items of mail to be delivered to some random address, based only on a disused postcode, which just happens to be occupied by a fraudster, doesn't seem probable.

poppystar

Grumpy_chap said:

It seems very unusual that an individual as meticulous to have all their bank statements from 29 years ago would not also have very detailed records of all other funds they held and keep those funds under regular review.

If I understand correctly:

• In 1975, the OP purchased 40 Premium Bonds (£40 ?)
• In 1990, the OP's post code (but nothing else in their address) changed.
• In 1996, the account was cashed in and closed (at a value of £2,2k)
• In 2025, the OP recalled these forgotten funds and sought to draw them out only to be advised that was not possible because of the funds being drawn in 1996.

For the £40 to increase to £2.2k, the OP must have received some winnings and must have selected for the winnings to be reinvested in Premium Bonds at the outset.


Given the timelines, it is possible but not probable that all the winnings were in the period 1990 (post code change) and 1996 (account closed).  If any of the winnings were in the far longer period between 1975 (purchase) and 1990 (post code change), the OP would have received a letter advising of the same.

Now, when someone else at elsewhere did receive the letter with the winnings notification, that individual did not simply put back in the mail "not known at this address" but opened the letter, and then made a claim to access the account, and then cashed in the funds. 
If we assume that the individual making this claim was not also called Doidle99 (or very similar), that would have required the individual to intentionally impersonate the OP to access the account to get the cheque sent.  Once in receipt of the cheque - assuming it was not crossed "account payee only" - the individual could have signed the back of the cheque to re-assign.
BUT, the very greatest number of people are honest and would not access a.n.others account in the event of such an opportunity.
So, something seems rather amiss here.

What was it that made the OP consider these 40 Premium Bonds this year that they have never considered in the past 29 years?

In the years since the post code change in 1990, what other correspondence has the OP not received by failure to update the records?
Again, for an individual as meticulous as to keep the bank statements for as far back as 1996, I would be surprised if there is anything that the OP did not update the records.

An option that wasn’t available until much later.

Doidle99

Section62.  I agree that it in improbabable as you surmise. It is more likely that the account was hijacked and the account details amended. 

Grumpy_chap

poppystar said:

Grumpy_chap said:

It seems very unusual that an individual as meticulous to have all their bank statements from 29 years ago would not also have very detailed records of all other funds they held and keep those funds under regular review.

If I understand correctly:

• In 1975, the OP purchased 40 Premium Bonds (£40 ?)
• In 1990, the OP's post code (but nothing else in their address) changed.
• In 1996, the account was cashed in and closed (at a value of £2,2k)
• In 2025, the OP recalled these forgotten funds and sought to draw them out only to be advised that was not possible because of the funds being drawn in 1996.

For the £40 to increase to £2.2k, the OP must have received some winnings and must have selected for the winnings to be reinvested in Premium Bonds at the outset.


Given the timelines, it is possible but not probable that all the winnings were in the period 1990 (post code change) and 1996 (account closed).  If any of the winnings were in the far longer period between 1975 (purchase) and 1990 (post code change), the OP would have received a letter advising of the same.

Now, when someone else at elsewhere did receive the letter with the winnings notification, that individual did not simply put back in the mail "not known at this address" but opened the letter, and then made a claim to access the account, and then cashed in the funds. 
If we assume that the individual making this claim was not also called Doidle99 (or very similar), that would have required the individual to intentionally impersonate the OP to access the account to get the cheque sent.  Once in receipt of the cheque - assuming it was not crossed "account payee only" - the individual could have signed the back of the cheque to re-assign.
BUT, the very greatest number of people are honest and would not access a.n.others account in the event of such an opportunity.
So, something seems rather amiss here.

What was it that made the OP consider these 40 Premium Bonds this year that they have never considered in the past 29 years?

In the years since the post code change in 1990, what other correspondence has the OP not received by failure to update the records?
Again, for an individual as meticulous as to keep the bank statements for as far back as 1996, I would be surprised if there is anything that the OP did not update the records.

An option that wasn’t available until much later.

Oh - I was not aware that was a recent change.  According to my internet search just now, the option to reinvest the winnings in Premium Bonds only became available in 2011.  This is well-after the OP claims the bonds were cashed out (1996).  It would therefore seem to be impossible that the £2.2k payment made in 1996 was actually the OP's Premium Bonds.

Could it be that the PBs cashed out in 1996 were an individual with a similar name and some other matching credentials to the OP, but not actually the OP?  (i.e. another genuine individual correctly due the £2.2k.)
Maybe the OP's PBs were never cashed out and there is still £40 somewhere to be recovered?  

Section62

Doidle99 said:

Section62.  I agree that it in improbabable as you surmise. It is more likely that the account was hijacked and the account details amended. 

Which brings us on to NS&I's often frustrating habit of refusing to do things without sending a letter or application form to the address they have on file for the customer.  Getting online access set up required registration which in turn required documents sent in the post.  Which suggests the hijacker would have first needed to get NS&I to agree to change your address.  A withdrawal request by post would also have generated letters to the registered address for the account.

Grumpy_chap's suggestion of a mix up with NS&I telling you about a withdrawal by another customer would seem a lot more probable than you winning the extra money and a fraudster somehow persuading NS&I to send them the money without you having any contact from NS&I.  But that would also depend on whether your recent contact with NS&I involved you providing your holder's number.  Do you know it, and did you quote it when you contacted them?  Or did they have to search for your records using your name/address/DOB, or by bond numbers?  (It also seems somewhat unlikely that a mix up between customers wouldn't be spotted in a case going to FOS)