I have been paid twice... can I keep it??

[Nailz]

Hi All,

 

My salary is not paid direct by my employer but through a payroll agency.

 

Last week I was short paid but paid twice by my employer, I advised my employer of this and the same day, the duplicate payment was cleared from my account (didnt realise they could do that). My company then organised to pay me my shortfall (230 pounds) on a new transfer but when the money hit my account, the company had paid me my original salary too. (1220 pounds)

 

I advised my employer, who checked their bank account and advised it hadnt come out of their account, so as far as they are concerend they dont care.

 

My question is, can I keep it? how long does it have to stay in my account before they legally cant ask for it back, or is it theirs forever and I cant spend it?

 

My friend said that they can automatically recall it up to 6 days from the transfer date which would be Monday, and that after 14 days they cannot ask for it back... this sounds a little to good to be true!

 

Thanks for your help in advance, as it goes without saying, I would prefer to keep it!!

[omicron]

Roughly speaking, no, but they can't take it back without mutally agreeing a repayment schedule with you. My dad's office got paid another office's bonus a while ago, about £200 worth, I think they settled on £2 a week deductted from his wages to pay it back.

[Michael Browne]

is it theirs forever and I cant spend it?

 

Effectively, yes. One thing for sure is that it isn't yours.

[Nailz]

I know its not mine, but how often in life do you actually get someting like this happen to you?

 

If I can keep it I will, I did my bit, I told my company.

 

So if I take what both of you are saying, I would have to pay it back if they noticed, but I can claim its gone and agree a repayment schedule?

[bottomburp]

deleted

[Nailz]

Thanks for that, i guess I will move it into an account where i cannot spend it and see what happens!

 

Anyone have any ideas on the legalities of it?

[rogerebaker]

My daughter had a similar thing last year. I did some research and found out that by keeping it you commit no criminal offence.

 

Their only recourse is via the civil courts.

 

If they try to take it back you can appeal to the ombudsman who can apparently ajudicate.

 

buy some premium bonds and if they ask for it back cash them in and pay them.

 

You may win the jackpot in the mean time

[ab123uk]

The payroll agency are able to ring your banks clearing dept and as long as they provide the necessary details of their account it left, your account, and the reference & credit date, if the funds are still their the bank has a right to debit the funds, in some cases, they can do this even if you go overdrawn. This will be in the T & Cs, best thing to do is see what happens.... dont make any spending sprees, but yes, they can claim it back, as it is money that you are not entitled to.

[Guest NATTIE]

Be the better person take what is yours and owed to you not something that is not. It's a nice thought but BE THE BETTER PERSON.

 

If you're not....well i cannot say anything because i will be banned if i told you my thoughts.

[funkyparott]

You should bear in mind the following offence:-

 

Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit - Theft Act 1968, Section 24

 

(This offence is unusual in that the actus reus 'the act', necessarily involves an ommision or failure to act.)

 

24A. - (1) A person is guilty of an offence 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

© 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.

 

(3) A credit to an account is wrongful if it is the credit side of a money transfer obtained contrary to section 15A of this Act.

 

(4) A credit to an account is also wrongful to the extent that it derives from-

 

(a) theft;

(b) an offence under section 15A of this Act;

© blackmail; or

(d) stolen goods.

(5) In determining whether a credit to an account is wrongful, it is immaterial (in particular) whether the account is overdrawn before or after the credit is made.

 

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

[rogerebaker]

The above amendment to the Theft Act is not relevant in this case.

 

keeping a wrongful credit is only applicable if the orignal money kept was obtained dishonestly / by theft / by deception.

 

It was introduced to deal with people who for intance obtain a motgage fraudulently and then then transfer the money to a third party who then either keeps it or moves it on.

 

Money transfers under the original Theft Act were not considered property so this amendment was introduced to close that loop hole.

 

Heres an extract from the internet on the subject

 

 

It is made clear that a credit is only "wrongful" if it derives from a dishonest source i.e. stolen goods, blackmail, theft or the new section 15A offence. In the latter case, a credit side of a money transfer is regarded as "wrongful" if that transfer is obtained in circumstances amounting to the new offence under section 15A. So someone who, through a bank error, is credited an amount to an account, realises the mistake and does nothing about it will not be guilty of the new section 24A offence. Such conduct would not amount to an offence under the Theft legislation unless the taking of advantage of another's mistake in these circumstances can amount to theft contrary to section 1 of the 1968 Act. Clearly, if D knowingly pockets excess change in a supermarket handed to her because of an assistant's error, then that can amount to theft from the supermarket due to section 5(4) of the 1968 Act; but here the property, the excess change, "belongs to" the supermarket. In the case of the credit transfer, however, Preddy makes it clear that the property does not "belong to" the person, V, from whose account the amount is debited but instead belongs in essence to the bank who operates that account; so it would seem that there is no section 1 theft offence as against V, the customer.

[Guest NATTIE]

My original point was simply to say that if we are stooping to the level of greed we stoop to a level unworthy of us. Maybe I am moralising too much but I guess I have had a different upbringing to some.

[Nailz]

thanks for your help guys.

 

Just to be clear i wasnt looking for opinions on whether it was morally right or wrong but what the legalities are.

 

Thanks for those that gave the advice,

 

I will be waiting for the bank to recover the money, as opposed to chasing them to give it back, I believe its their mistake and they should correct it. i did my bit by telling my company.

[Michael Browne]

I believe its their mistake and they should correct it. i did my bit by telling my company.

Keep repeating this and you might convince yourself that you've acted honestly, but I doubt whether you'll convince anybody else.

[demon_x_slash]

^^ (seconded)

[Guest NATTIE]

totally agreed with above 2 posters.

[Bookworm]

Enough.

 

OP asked for legalities, not moral judgment. Let's keep to the legal issues.

 

Thank you.

[bottomburp]

deleted

[Michael Browne]

Nailz has understood that the money can be reclaimed and should not be used.

Then he might as well just give it back.

 

It is, as Nailz says, up to the company that made the mistake to reclaim it and it has been drawn to their attention

It's not the company that's made the mistake, it's the bank and it certainly hasn't been drawn to their attention.

[bottomburp]

deleted

[indebtstudent]

My two cents...

 

I must first say I'm recalling this from A level law and I'm now 23.

 

I do recall SOMETHING about a case which invovled theft and the situation was similar. I cannot remember the outcome but I think an argument could be made, certainly you're looking dishonest because you KNOW the money is not yours.

 

From what I recall (in laymans terms) Theft is defined as dishonestly obtaining property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.

 

If you move it to another account aren't you appropriating it? It's certainly property. You know it's not yours, not sure whether this is sufficient to show it belongs to another.

 

I would've thought unless you don't touch the money at all it could be argued that you intend to deprive the other off it.

 

Also what about interest? This isn't really yours either is it?

 

I'm probably wrong as A levels do tend to over simplify stuff but I hope you can see where I am coming from. I would be very careful, exhaust all possibilities and then... still not spend the money!

[rogerebaker]

Some of you losing the plot

 

Give nailz a break for goodness sake. Whats the harm in making a bit of mischief when the occasion arises. If it was the other way round he would have to be filling in forms in triplicate, waiting for a month for the money to clear and then have to apologise and grovel to get it back and probably have to pay 35.00 to wit. Its not often you get the chance to make them grovel a bit

 

some of you need to lighten up.

[rogerebaker]

My two cents...

 

I must first say I'm recalling this from A level law and I'm now 23.

 

I do recall SOMETHING about a case which invovled theft and the situation was similar. I cannot remember the outcome but I think an argument could be made, certainly you're looking dishonest because you KNOW the money is not yours.

 

From what I recall (in laymans terms) Theft is defined as dishonestly obtaining property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.

 

If you move it to another account aren't you appropriating it? It's certainly property. You know it's not yours, not sure whether this is sufficient to show it belongs to another.

 

I would've thought unless you don't touch the money at all it could be argued that you intend to deprive the other off it.

 

Also what about interest? This isn't really yours either is it?

 

I'm probably wrong as A levels do tend to over simplify stuff but I hope you can see where I am coming from. I would be very careful, exhaust all possibilities and then... still not spend the money!

 

Theres no actual appropriation of property as the transfer of money is purely an electronic process therefor falls outside of the theft Act.

[Tellllll]

He didn't 'dishonestly obtain' anything...he mistakenly received it.

 

I would look down the road of 'unsolicited goods'......he has made them aware....I believe they have 28 days to come back and reclaim it.....if they dont...its his!!!

 

T

[Guest NATTIE]

Nailz, my advice would be to ask one or the other that you will write them a cheque for the amount that you are not due, ie £900 if memory serves me right, ie 1200-300(which is owed to you) = £900.

Honesty has always been the best policy. Of course if they actually do not want the money then fine spend it. Is that a more calmer approach?

What have they said about it when you first told them?