Getting a refund

Options
13

Comments

  • martinsurrey
    martinsurrey Posts: 3,368 Forumite
    Options
    oj29 wrote: »
    If you read the link it might educate you to give better advice regarding issues like this in the future. The council wrongly credited her account with £52,000 of which she went on to spend £9,000 of it. She was then charged with dishonestly retaining wrongful credit which carries a sentence of up to 10 years’ imprisonment but she avoided a jail sentence.
    Oh and by the way, dishonestly retaining wrongful credit is covered under the 1968 Theft Act.

    Yes, and I quoted the sections of the 1968 Act, what the article doesn't cover is HOW the money made its way to her account, without the full details of the case you cant apply its conclusions to anything.

    "Wrongly credited" is a defined term, we do not know how that credit met the definition, but it must have done. That does not mean every misplaced credit is "Wrongful" for the purposes of the Act
  • oj29
    oj29 Posts: 19 Forumite
    Options
    Yes, and I quoted the sections of the 1968 Act, what the article doesn't cover is HOW the money made its way to her account, without the full details of the case you cant apply its conclusions to anything.

    "Wrongly credited" is a defined term, we do not know how that credit met the definition, but it must have done. That does not mean every misplaced credit is "Wrongful" for the purposes of the Act

    "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". Please explain how that does not apply if the business in OP's case does not refund the amount?
  • angryparcel
    angryparcel Posts: 926 Forumite
    Options
    oj29 wrote: »
    "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". Please explain how that does not apply if the business in OP's case does not refund the amount?

    because they DID NOT dishonestly appropriates property.

    The OP gave them the funds (money) as it was a bank transfer.

    It is clear from your post about dirt on the carpet you don't know much about legal processes and how to get resolutions
  • oj29
    oj29 Posts: 19 Forumite
    Options
    because they DID NOT dishonestly appropriates property.

    The OP gave them the funds (money) as it was a bank transfer.

    It is clear from your post about dirt on the carpet you don't know much about legal processes and how to get resolutions

    If they do not return it, they will have dishonestly appropriated property because it does not belong to them and they would be taking ownership of property which clearly does not belong to them, as they have acknowledged.
    Keeping any money wrongly credited to your account could lead to you being charged with 'Retaining wrongful credit'. The 1968 Theft act defines this as: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

    It's clear from your other posts in this topic you don't know what you're talking about.
  • martinsurrey
    martinsurrey Posts: 3,368 Forumite
    Options
    oj29 wrote: »
    "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". Please explain how that does not apply if the business in OP's case does not refund the amount?

    you are not reading ALL of the words in your own posts

    "permanently depriving the other of it"

    There is NO implication in this case that the company is intending to PERMANENTLY depriving the OP of it, they are just taking their time, which they are entitled to do and in fact is advisable to do, to cover them from a money laundering point of view.
  • martinsurrey
    martinsurrey Posts: 3,368 Forumite
    Options
    oj29 wrote: »
    If they do not return it, they will have dishonestly appropriated property because it does not belong to them and they would be taking ownership of property which clearly does not belong to them, as they have acknowledged.
    Keeping any money wrongly credited to your account could lead to you being charged with 'Retaining wrongful credit'. The 1968 Theft act defines this as: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

    It's clear from your other posts in this topic you don't know what you're talking about.

    and you are confusing your offences.

    you would be charged with THEFT if you

    "dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly"

    you would be guilty of Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit if—
    (a)a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest;

    (b)he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and

    (c)he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.

    (2)References to a credit are to a credit of an amount of money.

    [F22(2A)A credit to an account is wrongful to the extent that it derives from—
    (a)theft;
    (b)blackmail;
    (c)fraud (contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006); or
    (d)stolen goods.]
  • oj29
    oj29 Posts: 19 Forumite
    Options
    and you are confusing your offences.

    you would be charged with THEFT if you

    "dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly"

    you would be guilty of Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit if—
    (a)a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest;

    (b)he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and

    (c)he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.

    (2)References to a credit are to a credit of an amount of money.

    [F22(2A)A credit to an account is wrongful to the extent that it derives from—
    (a)theft;
    (b)blackmail;
    (c)fraud (contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006); or
    (d)stolen goods.]

    Care to explain all these cases then?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2595560/Make-hay-sun-shines-Family-defend-woman-went-spree-council-accidentally-gave-52-000.html

    http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/11822015.Youth_who_wrongly_kept___25_000_of_NHS_cancer_trust_s_money_given_year_prison_sentence/

    http://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/dishonest-woman-to-repay-9k-47053/

    http://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/man-spent-pound-6k-account/story-26260342-detail/story.html

    All guilty of dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit.
    Also worth reading this: http://www.money.co.uk/guides/can-you-keep-money-accidentally-paid-into-your-bank-account.htm
  • pmduk
    pmduk Posts: 10,655 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    janet278 wrote: »
    ...I know that I can take this up with the financial ombudsman


    Who were you going to take to the Financial Ombudsman? You can't take your bank as they carried out the instructions you gave them.


    The recipient is unlikely to be subject to the FO's jurisdiction.
  • unholyangel
    unholyangel Posts: 16,863 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    pmduk wrote: »
    Who were you going to take to the Financial Ombudsman? You can't take your bank as they carried out the instructions you gave them.


    The recipient is unlikely to be subject to the FO's jurisdiction.

    Yes they can. Whether it will succeed or not is a different matter. But the ombudsman have previously upheld complaints where the customer input the wrong bank details while doing a transfer. The reason for upholding those complaints was that the customer had notified the bank quickly and had the bank acted quickly enough (by contacting the receiving bank), there was a chance the payment could have been stopped or recalled. If there was no chance of the bank recalling OP's payment at the time OP reported it to them, then its likely the claim will be rejected.

    However as I said previously, it could be more complex than that if OP went into their overdraft.
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
  • lammy82
    lammy82 Posts: 594 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    You are in a strong position, as you know exactly who the money was paid to, they do not deny having received it, and they have stated an intention to return the money to you.

    I suggest you keep the pressure on them with a phone call every few days and if they haven't given you a definite date to return the money within a week or so then follow up with a letter with all the details spelled out. A Letter Before Action would be the next step.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards