Money paid into wrong account

[Michael Browne]

I agree, in the main, with Shanks and am concerned that, given the OP has stated more than once that he and his son accept that the money should be returned and intend to do so, the general advice seems to be to encourage him to keep it and tell the bank and the company to take a hike.

 

Whereas it seems to me, the OP was really asking as to how to return the money in affordable instalments without compromising his son's privacy or security.

[Shanks]

Gold lady – so are you really suggesting that simply because it is a large company that has made the mistake they should just take it on the chin and put up with the loss?

 

At what threshold do you recommend that simple old fashioned honesty and moral standing should be disregarded because of the size of a company’s assets?

[Shanks]

Thank you Michael.

 

Anyway, Goldlady as an aside and not wishing to divert this thread if you are still having problems with late payment have a look here. Apologies if you were already aware of this

 

Late payment legislation and the BPPG Interest calculator.

 

Having this short sentence added to the footer of our invoices has almost stopped late payment entirely.

 

We understand and will exercise our statutory right to interest under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 if we are not paid according to agreed credit terms.

 

They might not like paying bills but they certainly don’t like paying interest in them!

[Chesterexpress]

Hallelujah for common sense, thank you Shanks and Michael Browne. As I pointed out earlier there is a legal obligation and more importantly there is also a moral obligation to pay this money back.

 

As for all that rubbish about robin hood and because it is a company.....what utter tosh.

[mcjohnson]

Shanks, great analysis of the situation.

 

A few things confuse me:

 

- Your son would have received a pay statement from his employer. Why didn't he recognise the amount in his account didn't match the amount on the statement.

 

- One assumes that your son's working hours (including OT) didn't alter significantly the same week, and for the duration whilst, this error occured. Thus he would have worked, and been renumerated for, this working pattern in the past. Knowing what he had been paid previously - how could the additional £90 be justified.

 

- You haven't confirmed how much your son actually earned (per week) in those weeks? If he earned £180, and suddenly there was £270 in his account, then this is more than "being a little bit flush".

 

I agree with Shanks in the entirety. Yes, the company made an error, but they have contacted your bank relatively quickly and asked for the money to be returned. Both legally, and morally, this money should be returned to them.

[julian1957]

We'll probably have to disagree whether he's been "seriously wronged". I remember being young and inexperienced and taking little notice of how much is in my account from week to week. He seems totally unsure when the housing benefit was going to stop and how much was thus still due to him - this alone could easily have covered these amounts in his mind. Also, he does have payments going out of his account as well as variable wages coming in. If there's a lesson here for him it's to have more idea of what's going on with his account from week to week; however, I know him well enough to be totally unsurprised that he didn't notice anything amiss.

 

I can't provide a definitive answer to the question about how much difference £90 would make without going through his entire finances in detail. As for the 2nd time, 3rd time and 4th time, it would be wrong to assume that he even really looks at the screen every single time he uses a cash machine. Yes, I know it's not perfect, but not unusual for a youngster.

 

And if he's thus quite innocently spent money on things he wouldn't otherwise have spent it on then there's a strong argument against paying it back. Conversely, there was no argument against paying back the majority of it.

 

As for "totally outrageous", if you'd had the phone slammed down on you twice (so I certainly made the effort) by the very people who have caused this problem, AFTER explaining exactly what it was about, that you were trying to do them a favour and WHY you weren't going to give a name, then you'd feel it was pretty outrageous too. The attitude was one of sheer arrogance to be honest. My aim was to set up an arrangement to allow repayment with anonymity retained, having already been advised by a recently retired police officer not to give a name under any circumstances.

 

I now feel that the whole thing is slipping away from the little control I had over it, thanks to the "advice" of the CAB. It's difficult to go against advice given by those whose job it is to give advice just in case they're right. But I feel they are totally wrong. As I said, I'm awaiting their "info" then will try to work out what to advise my son to do, knowing that I'm in a no-win situation if it turns out I'm wrong. I may get to the point where I feel I've done all I can to try to help him and tell him he'll HAVE to sort it out for himself. Then he can decide whose advice to take....

[mcjohnson]

I would consider a 14 or 15 year old a youngster - I would consider a 19 year old, with his own property (rented or owned), with a job and with the capability of applying for such things as housing benefit, beyond the realm of youngster.

 

The facts are simple. Your son recognised that he had additional funds in his bank account. He knew these weren't from his employer (as the amount did not match his salary statement), nor from his housing association (as he would have been advised when this was changing). Rather than querying where the additional funds came from, he spent them. Whether he remembered what he had been paid, or the details of his housing beneifit arrangements are his own business, but he had been properly notified of both of these.

 

In these situations, it's always good to put the boot on the other foot to determine "how wrong" they actually are; Imagine if your son had accidentally transferred some money into their account, and they replied to you that they had already spent it and you couldn't have it back. I envisage that you would be on this very site now, arguing exactly the opposite arguments to those currently being pursued.

[julian1957]

When I was 19 I frequently wouldn't even open my wages slips and was totally muddle-headed about most things financial. And he's far worse than I was. Rightly or wrongly, the one thing I truly believe is that he wouldn't have gone through any thought process that led him to believe that someone had paid money into his account in error - he probably wouldn't even have known it was possible for such a thing to occur.

 

As for applying for housing benefit, his girlfriend filled in the form as she's more idea than he has (though probably not a lot more). She would have handled all the paper work beyond that too.

 

A quick calculation on roughly what I think he's earning as basic plus the variability of overtime (sometimes on a Sunday at double time or more - not sure what the rate is without speaking to him), plus the "totally confused" factor, plus the "not communicating with girlfriend over housing benefit" factor and so on leaves me no doubt he simply didn't have a clue what should or should not be in his account. Even if he thought he was "more flush", he simply wouldn't have taken the step needed to think that something wasn't right. Believe me on this, I know him and it's an accurate description of what would have happened.

 

I take your point about the boot being on the other foot, but then I've said all along that most of it should be repaid. But I may now be wasting my time saying anything after the CAB told him not to contact them.

[Shanks]

We'll probably have to disagree whether he's been "seriously wronged".

 

Well you are right on that at least. Your son had funds paid into his account that he did not earn, did not deserve, was not owed and imo had no legal right to retain. Now simply because he is too “young and inexperienced” to monitor effectively what he has in his current account on a weekly basis he feels he has the right to spend it on ‘drinks for his mates’ and other unnecessary items, then when the original owner asks for it back - apparently it is him that has been ‘seriously wronged’.

 

If there's a lesson here for him it's to have more idea of what's going on with his account from week to week

 

Well that's certainly one lesson..

 

As for the 2nd time, 3rd time and 4th time, it would be wrong to assume that he even really looks at the screen every single time he uses a cash machine.

 

This would seem to contradict your earlier argument that he was aware of an increased balance on his account when he was spending the cash but put it down to some overtime or benefit credit.

 

I can begin to see though why you are so concerned about identity theft, if your son did suffer from this crime it would clearly be weeks before he discovered it had happened to him, by which time the perpetrators and his money would be far away

 

And if he's thus quite innocently spent money on things he wouldn't otherwise have spent it on then there's a strong argument against paying it back.

 

I'm sorry I still can't see this strong argument - he has money or has directly benefitted from money that he shouldn't have - are you saying that whether through error or not just because he is incapable of tracking his finances he shouldn't have to pay it back?

 

Conversely, there was no argument against paying back the majority of it.

 

If you have no argument for the majority of it then why not all of it, the facts haven’t changed. I have already acknowledged that with your level of concern over identity theft there are a number of ways the funds could be transferred without compromising this. I am certain that if you negotiated this with company concerned they would be happy to let you deduct the amount incurred from the total. But I can see no justifiable reasoning for any other deductions.

 

As for "totally outrageous", ...AFTER explaining exactly what it was about, that you were trying to do them a favour and WHY you weren't going to give a name, then you'd feel it was pretty outrageous too.

 

So they were caught in a ‘dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t’ situation.

 

I have already suggested one way this can be resolved without any possible risk of identity being compromised. I would further suggest that you send them a letter explaining the situation and offering your proposal for repayment. You do not need to sign the letter or give your address. Simply enclose a copy of their first letter as way of showing they are in contact with the right person, and request that, as their first letter was received perfectly well that all future correspondence be sent the same way i.e. via the Abbey.

 

If you want a more definite assurance that this is not an internally devised [problem] then I recommend that you ring Directory Enquiries and ask for the main switchboard number – even prolific [problematic] will find it hard to get this entry altered. Call the number and ask for the name of the most senior worker there, either Managing Director, Chairman or similar. If you are asked what it is about, simply say it is a personal matter and you would like to write to them.

 

Write an explanation of the whole situation, include your concerns about id theft and then address your letter to this person and send using the advice above for any responses. The advantage of this approach is that the matter will be highlighted to a senior level and investigated. If it is an error by an inattentive member of staff they will be retrained and hopefully the matter will not arise again. If it is an elaborate [problem] then this should be revealed and dealt with accordingly. Either way both you and son are kept anonymous throughout the entire process.

[Planner]

They were obviously not going to discuss the matter with just anyone that rang them up and asked. Can you imagine the cries of ‘breach of Data Protection Act’ etc etc on here and other places if they had just allowed a conversation about this matter to be pursued without first checking to see who they were talking to.

 

Im confused with your advice, you have suggested twice that the company where right to ask for a name so that they can "check" who they are talking to. Could you tell me how they are going to "check"? All that they have is an account number and the bank that issued it, if the o/p rings up and says hi this is Mr Ben Dover I want to talk about incorrect payments into my account, how can they be confident that they are indeed talking to Mr Ben Dover? They cant.

 

Under no cirrcumstances would I give my name to these people. The amount can be repaid without giving a name, or if the o/p so choses, not repaid (which definatley warrants not giving a name).

 

The argument about giving a name to "check" who they are talking to is a non-starter as they dont know who they are meant to be talking to in the first place!

[Shanks]

Planner- please spend no more of your time being confused at my advice

If the OP does not want to give a name when she rings then fine. I was merely pointing out that it is hard to have any sympathy when she takes this line and the company then refuse to deal with her.

I have outlined a number of ways she can repay the money without jeopardising her privacy. I was only explaining that it is standard practice for any company to ask to identify who it was they were talking to. And usually, with good reason, to be reluctant to discuss any matter without at least ascertaining the name of the person concerned. This is not limited to but certainly usually the case when discussing matters of a financial nature.

[Planner]

Shanks - Please dont spend anymore of your time writing confusing advice:)

 

 

 

If the OP does not want to give a name when she rings then fine. I was merely pointing out that it is hard to have any sympathy when she takes this line and the company then refuse to deal with her.

 

Actually you didnt say this, you didnt even imply it. You where very specific about why they should ask for the name. You said the name was required so that they could "check" they where speaking with the account holder and complying with data protection. Nothing to do with "sympathy".

[Shanks]

If the OP does not want to give a name when she rings then fine. I was merely pointing out that it is hard [for an outside third party] to have any sympathy when she takes this line and the company then refuse to deal with her.

 

I was not implying any sympathy would be forthcoming from the company just from me I hope the red makes this clearer

I was only explaining that it is standard practice for any company to ask to identify who it was they were talking to. And usually, with good reason, to be reluctant to discuss any matter without at least ascertaining the name of the person concerned. This is not limited to but certainly usually the case when discussing matters of a financial nature.

 

Perhaps you disagree with this process or think it is not appropriate or necessary for these checks to be made. I for one am very glad that most companies at least try to adhere to some sort of check like this. Whether it is posible in this case can only be for the OP to decide.

 

planner, I can see no point in continuing this petty debate on semantics and interpretation, it is straying from the main point of the thread and wasting everyones time. If my advice has been at all confusing (even though I have now edited the offending part out) please feel free to ignore it. My view on the main topic is clear and I have offered whatever advice I can to the OP in order to help them resolve the matter in a satisfactory way for all concerned. I am pleased this appears to have been validated by a number of subsequent posts.

[Planner]

Much better Shanks. Remember.... its always good to make use of the preview post button, thats why its there.

 

I quite agree that if I have an account etc with a company, then they should "check" I am who I say I am when I ring up. In this particular case they cant do that as there is no way of matching the name given to the account number and vice versa. Nothing to do with semantics just clear advice and common sense.

 

I think the name being given/not given is a key part of the advice that I think you need to be corrected on. An account number on its own is pretty useless, an account number and a name on the other hand is much more useful if the company in question decided to persue matters further.

 

Cant fault the rest of your advice.

[Shanks]

Thank you Planner - your point is well made

 

Cheers

[Goldlady]

Anyway, Goldlady as an aside and not wishing to divert this thread if you are still having problems with late payment have a look here. Apologies if you were already aware of this

 

Late payment legislation and the BPPG Interest calculator.

 

Having this short sentence added to the footer of our invoices has almost stopped late payment entirely.

 

Quote:

We understand and will exercise our statutory right to interest under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 if we are not paid according to agreed credit terms.

They might not like paying bills but they certainly don’t like paying interest in them!

 

Shanks, I do already know about all this and the only time I ever actually got any statutory interest was when a large supermarket chain owed us over 6k and took nearly 6 months to pay it. (We failed to comply with their criteria for invoicing - wrong product code, wrong something else - as they had recently been taken over by a large US company, whereas previously they had paid without a problem). They finally paid us because one of the people we owed as a result of this was a friend of their then Operations Director and he sorted it all out. But they overpaid us . Three years later they realised and asked for it back - to which I replied 'here are our invoices for commercial interest - you owe us £27 - we do not owe you £300' and they never asked again.

 

But in the real world of commerce people just ignore it and stick to their original payment terms - imposed by the debtor and not the creditor. 'So if you want to work for us again you will damn well wait for your money until we decide to pay - or we will go elsewhere.'

[IdaInFife]

I agree, in the main, with Shanks and am concerned that, given the OP has stated more than once that he and his son accept that the money should be returned and intend to do so, the general advice seems to be to encourage him to keep it and tell the bank and the company to take a hike.

 

Whereas it seems to me, the OP was really asking as to how to return the money in affordable instalments without compromising his son's privacy or security.

 

I don't think anyone has actually said to keep the money.

 

That is up to the op and family.

 

What me and Goldlady were saying was that we think that the company is at fault not the op's son.

 

If i was to make an electronic payment, I will not get that back. The banks clearly states that.

 

If the op's son was to pay it back he will then be out of pocket.

 

I do overtime here and there and my employer works out overtime from different dates from month to month so I don't know exactly when it will be paid and how much. I hardly ever check my payslips now cause they have not been wrong in the last few years as long as my minimum wage is in the bank i know i will get more next pay day.

 

For the wallet example. yes i have taken wallets i have found to the police because they are evidently didn't belong to me but anything in my bank account is what I beleive i have earned.

 

 

Idax

[Lula]

I cant beleive that there is 3 pages of this

 

The Op's son received extra money which he spent, as he has an independent dwelling, earns money and operates a bank account, I presume that he is competent (if you can call a 19 year old competent that is ).

 

If he doesnt want to give away his identity, why not send them postal orders up to the amount of the error?

 

Either way, the honest and moral thing to do is pay the money back end of story IMHO

[Conniff]

I cant beleive that there is 3 pages of this

 

The Op's son received extra money which he spent, as he has an independent dwelling, earns money and operates a bank account, I presume that he is competent (if you can call a 19 year old competent that is ).

 

If he doesnt want to give away his identity, why not send them postal orders up to the amount of the error?

 

Either way, the honest and moral thing to do is pay the money back end of story IMHO

 

I thought exactly the same thing when I saw this still running.

 

I can't honestly see how giving a name will lead to any sort of '[problem]'.

If that were the case then everone who has ever issued a cheque with Banks name, Account number, Sort code and signature on could be classed as inviting their account to be raided, but that isn't the case as there are safeguards to stop this.

 

His own works has his name, bank and account number, is he not afraid of them [causing problems] him?

 

This really is simple, he has been paid money that he is not entitled to in error and has to pay it back. It will catch up on him eventually and that may be by a court summons dropping on the mat so who will be really be out of pocket then especially if court cost are included.

[jobe11]

has anyone considered the fact that this is someones wages!!!! petit point scoring with the company and bank is really not on.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

I have to agree with Conniff in that this subject has gotten rather complicated for no good reason.

 

The lad has had payments paid into his account which were not meant for him. Hardly unique, although quite rare.

 

He must pay it back as it is just a mistake. If he refuses to then he is depriving the originator of that money-which is theft.

 

If the lad is scared of giving out his name in case of a [problem] then just go to the police, this type of [problem] is a criminal offence.

 

With regard to how he repays-if he has spent it then just agree a repayment plan. As someone previously mentioned, I was also 19 and was earning more than my father at this time who was a skilled tradesman. I didn't open up my wage packs, (as cash was the norm back then), for weeks, sometimes a couple of months.

 

I wouldn't have known any difference to my pay. This could be the situation now for the lad.

 

Just pay back at a rate he can afford. Or risk going to a civil or criminal court. He must pay it back-simple as.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Gold lady – so are you really suggesting that simply because it is a large company that has made the mistake they should just take it on the chin and put up with the loss?

 

At what threshold do you recommend that simple old fashioned honesty and moral standing should be disregarded because of the size of a company’s assets?

 

 

Hmmm, Goldlady, I'm not surprised by her attitude here.

 

In the employment section a previous post by her felt it was fair that her employee's are paid late just because her company's creditors were late payers!!

 

Great!

[Goldlady]

Yes by about a tenner and I also said in the same post that we often gave them subs when they were struggling:mad:

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Yes by about a tenner and I also said in the same post that we often gave them subs when they were struggling:mad:

 

Unfortuanately I've worked for an employer who stopped me a tenner which meant almost no food for a week!

 

Yes, ten quid is a lot to some of us!