You Soo Realllly Must Read This!!!!!!

[Bookworm]

Furthermore, the fact that the other person has spent the money is irrelevant. They could argue that they were not aware that the money wasn't theirs to spend, and there is case law that backs that itis not up to them to check their statements (Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd -v- Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] AC 80 ) BUT in this case, on the information given, it would appear that they were notified, chose to spend the money and then say "tough, we spent it". So, that the money is recoverable from 3rd party is not in doubt, IMO.

 

The problem is whose job is it to go and recover it? Normally, I'd say the bank's, 100%, as it is their mistake.... But is it? They could argue that they followed precisely OP's instructions by sending the money to a certain account no and sort code, and that if that wasn't the correct one, that's not their problem, which is also true, up to a point.

 

So what it then hinges on is the issue of the name and re-allocation of the account details, and there is no doubt in my mind that this is where the bank's (supposed) safeguards totally failed, by a) re-allocating the account details elsewhere so quickly, b) re-allocating them precisely instead of jumbling account details and sort code, c) not checking the name matching the account.

 

So, OP could go after the 3rd party, since he has their details and take them to court, and that may yet be needed. However, I think that in the meantime, he needs to write to the bank and get a final resolution from them that they are not going to pay him back the money and go after the 3rd party themselves. On receipt of this, then he should go to the FOS to ask them to deal with it. If the FOS decision goes against him, then he has the second option to sue 3rd party directly in County Court for the repayment of his money.

[JonCris]

I agree BW but I suspect the main reason the bank won't go after the money is because they are afraid that person might complain to the press causing the floodgates to be opened

[Parva]

Yorkshire Bank also recycle account numbers - or at least did so three years ago when I opened a new current account. When setting the account up the lady dealing with me consulted a huge book of account numbers where many had been crossed out, allocated me one of the ones that wasn't crossed out and then put a line through that one as the account was now mine.

[JonCris]

That would be OK Parva - if they checked the other account details - like the name - but obviously something as simple as that is beyond them - otherwise they wouldn't be making these sorts of errors - once again relying on computers to save money - their avarice knows no bounds

[MATTYFEZ]

I transfered a sum of money from my account to a reletives, to pay some money I owed, ( at the counter in Barclays) and I asked the clerk to check beforehand the account number matched the name as it was alarge sum, her reply was, if the name dosent match then the transaction wont go ahead.

 

Thats what I was told by a Barclays clerk, and it does make sense that the bank is liable, as they credited an account with the wrong name. They should have queried it and the transaction should have failed.

 

I would certainly persue the bank over this, weather they admit fault or not.

 

Good luck.

[buzby]

The clerk was wrong. To succeed, the bank transfer must have a valid sort code and account number. There is no secondary check as to whether the recipients name matches that of the account. Certainly, if BOTH customers bank at the same branch, then there is the opportunity to check (same computer system) but what you are expecting, is that any bank in the UK can specifically tell you the name of every other bank account holder, simply by entering the sort code and account number? No way!

 

Let's take this a step further - assuming the name WAS known. Should the bank abort the transfer when it discovered that the payee, which was shown as (for example) 'Sky Television', but the actual account is 'SSS Ltd'? Following your premise -this would be rejected. But since this is Sky Subscribers Services Limited, the recipient is correct. So your payment doesn't go through and you get hit with Sky's late payment fee. Who is to blame here? You're expecting too much - especially as we all know that banks don't even check the date on cheques to see if they're post dated!

 

IF the account and sort code match, the money goes. If it doesn't, it is returned. Expecting the bank to be liable for a wrong name, when it was the customer who provided the incorrect information is a massive hope.

 

Sure, we can get them when they do things that are unfair, but for stupidity of their customers...? No chance!

[JonCris]

I don't agree buzby

 

What you describe is the banks practice which has developed overtime & which relies entirely on electronic identification of the check via the numbers & bar code.

 

The fact that the banks, again in order to save costs, have themselves chosen to disregard signatures as an additional means of security is entirely a matter for them & not the customer.

 

When that system breaks down because of, what must be a foreseeable risk, the liability cannot then be passed to the victim of such unsafe an practice

 

That coupled with the reissuing of old numbers is IMHO sufficient grounds for being recompensed by the bank

[buzby]

The banks handling of cheques is immaterial to the main complaint, we have a situation that a customer provides inaccurate data, and expects his bank to be responsible for his error. A really nice idea, but please explain to me how there are 'sufficient grounds' for any recompense when they would have no information on who the actual beneficiary is? The pay-in slip details will show the Sort Code and A/c number. and since the slip isn't sent to the recipient's bank errors like these will remain the responsibility of the initiator.

 

When making a transfer in this way, I check the Sort/Account details 3 times as there is no room for error.

[JonCris]

Once again your assuming that the victim is bound by the conduct of the bank & because they choose to no longer send cheques to the other bank the liability for this omission falls upon the customer.

 

If they don't send the cheque to the other banks for ID that's their prerogative but they can't arbitrarily pass liability to the customer for a practice in which the customer had no input in deciding

 

In other words they have to accept the folly of their actions - as must we all

[JonCris]

Forgot to mention plus the reissuing of account numbers at the same branch has to be seen as complete madness & an accident waiting to happen

[buzby]

If they don't send the cheque to the other banks for ID that's their prerogative but they can't arbitrarily pass liability to the customer for a practice in which the customer had no input in deciding

 

In other words they have to accept the folly of their actions - as must we all

 

There's been considerable thread drift - this has nothing to do with the OP. An incorrect number was quoted AIUI on a Bank Giro slip, an error which was nothing to do with the bank.

 

Secondly, your comment regarding the reissue of account numbers is not appropriate here either. In this instance, if the bank had allowed to distinct accounts to operate in parallel, at the same branch then I agree they would be culpable - but again this isn't the issue here. If the banks wish to issue an account with little or no time between then that is their decision, and if this causes a problem not of the account holders making, then they'll have to own up and pay for any problems.

 

The same could be said for the reissuing of telephone, credit card or any other identifiers commercial entities use.

 

As I mentioned earlier - how can you justify a bank being at fault in the OPs case, when they did nothing other than deliver the funds to the A/c and Sort Code of the desired recipient? If it was a cheque paid into a mis-named account, I would agree with you, nut not with Giro Credits, where accuracy of account numbers and sort codes leave no margin for error.

[slick132]

So why do we have to enter the a/c holders name on a credit slip if it's irrelevant to the transaction.

 

Mistakes can, and do, happen. It's now been noticed and the bank should accept some responsibility for the OP's loss. They could reverse the transaction and pursue the 3rd party.

 

Or if it's the 3rd party's honest contention they knew nothing of the incorrect credit, the bank should at least have a proper dialogue with the OP.

[JonCris]

The bank don't check signatures because that's they way they do it - see:p & who are we to argue:rolleyes:

 

Well that appears to be the attitude - but then they thought it was acceptable to charge exorbitant sums to those who went overdrawn & boy weren't they wrong about that.

 

To add to that they have discovered of late, & to their great cost, that is also not acceptable to have disposed of the original agreements:-D

[buzby]

So why do we have to enter the a/c holders name on a credit slip if it's irrelevant to the transaction..

 

Because the information is useful - but only if the account being credited is within the same bank branch or group. Outwith this, it is irrelevant.

 

Mistakes can, and do, happen. It's now been noticed and the bank should accept some responsibility for the OP's loss. They could reverse the transaction and pursue the 3rd party.

 

So what you're saying is the bank didn't make a mistake, but because the OP did, the bank should reimburse him? As much as I hate the issue I'm defending, let's be realistic here. The bank didn't make any error, so have no case to answer.

[JonCris]

I'm sorry Buz but the bank also DID make a mistake.

 

& it's only because they have arbitrarily changed their method of operation that they have overlooked the signature as an added & what used to be principal security check

[buzby]

As you saying they made a mistake because they don't pass on the benfificiary details? If so, when did this change as I NEVER been required to supply a verifiable account name to credit, and I'm going back to 1972.

 

So you're holding the bank liable because they didn't make a check they've never done before (save for same bank transfers) but the OP's error is not a fundamental one?

[Chesterexpress]

I'm sorry Buz but the bank also DID make a mistake.

 

& it's only because they have arbitrarily changed their method of operation that they have overlooked the signature as an added & what used to be principal security check

 

What a load of nonsense, Paypal followed the OP's instructions and credited the bank account he asked them to. Why on earth should the bank reimburse him for what he has already admitted was his fault?

[slick132]

Do you imagine for one second that the bank would just forget it if they didn't have someone else to blame.

 

They'd be after you, reverse the transaction and pursue you for the o/d like a rocket.

 

Someone's lost a lot of money here through a mistake and the bank could do more to help.

[Chesterexpress]

Do you imagine for one second that the bank would just forget it if they didn't have someone else to blame.

 

They'd be after you, reverse the transaction and pursue you for the o/d like a rocket.

 

Someone's lost a lot of money here through a mistake and the bank could do more to help.

 

The bank have contacted the other party and informed them of the mistake made by the OP and requested repayment, which is all that they can do! It is up to the OP to take action against the other party to recover the money. Just because people on here are against the banks over charges, please do not let this cloud your judgement on everything that they do, for once the bank have done nothing wrong whatsoever.

[JonCris]

As you saying they made a mistake because they don't pass on the benfificiary details? If so, when did this change as I NEVER been required to supply a verifiable account name to credit, and I'm going back to 1972.

 

So you're holding the bank liable because they didn't make a check they've never done before (save for same bank transfers) but the OP's error is not a fundamental one?

 

 

Just because it's how they do it doesn't mean it's how they should. As I understand it the OP's name was different which had they checked they would have spotted

 

Incidently nothing about banks clouds my judgement

[buzby]

Actually - it's your use of the phrase "had they checked" that gets me. Why should they? I want to be given the credit for knowing where I want my money to go, and if I can do a BACS transfer for £0.00, or be forced to pay £30 for a verified SWIFT transfer, then you pay your money and take your choice. What you want is all the protection, none of the risk, and not be charged for it. Dream on!

 

As to your last sentence - what judgement? Banks wrong = Consumer right is no judgement. When they do get it wrong, they deserve all they get, but the fee you pay represents the service you get. That's the same across the board, not just the financial sector.

[duntaxi2]

hello my 12 year old son was having a peoblem like this but he was the recipient . In Nat West someone kept paying £600 every couple of months into his account .We told the bank and they could not trace what was going on. It sat there for months and then it happened again so we told them again .The money was sitting there not being touched by us but in the end they found out that whoever was putting the money in was one number different on their account .Nat west asked our permission and we aggreed to take the money out and return it . The bank can sort it out provided reciient is not a crook and spent it.

[Chesterexpress]

The bank can sort it out provided reciient is not a crook and spent it.

 

The problem is the bank can only sort it out if the party who received the money agrees to the return of the money.

[slick132]

ChesterE,

 

If you read my posts elsewhere, you'll realise my judgement is far from clouded and I am not against the banks regardless.

 

The bank could do more to help OP and would act differently if it was their own money that had gone astray.

[buzby]

I'm not sure what the banks could do - all they want is an A/c and sort code, and the authority to make the transfer. Once they get this information and follow the instructions of their customer, anything else is kinda academic. As to getting the money back paid by error - perhapsd we've been numbed by DDs which allow anyone to take anything at anytime they like, so it may come as a shock to some that taking back isn't as easy as putting in. I'm surprised we still have this safeguard, but wait a few years, that'll probably change and customers won't be in control of anything!