Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Completion cock-up - solicitor sends money to wrong account
1,985 views
Skip to first unread message
Nogood Boyo
Feb 6, 2015, 10:09:55 AM2/6/15
to
Not hypothetical...
Completion of house purchase and collection of keys supposed to be today
(Friday). Time off has been taken and arrangements have been made with
various people to do various things over the weekend.
Purchaser's solicitor is now saying the money has been sent to the wrong
account, and can't be traced, because the vendor's solicitor has supplied
incorrect details. Purchasers therefore can't have the keys. At 14:30
they're saying it's too late to get the banks to put things right today.
Would it be reasonable for the purchasers to argue that the problem isn't
theirs and that a further payment to the correct account should be made at
once, leaving the solicitors to sort the mess out in their own time?
Complaint, compensation..?
Nogood Boyo
Completion of house purchase and collection of keys supposed to be today
(Friday). Time off has been taken and arrangements have been made with
various people to do various things over the weekend.
Purchaser's solicitor is now saying the money has been sent to the wrong
account, and can't be traced, because the vendor's solicitor has supplied
incorrect details. Purchasers therefore can't have the keys. At 14:30
they're saying it's too late to get the banks to put things right today.
Would it be reasonable for the purchasers to argue that the problem isn't
theirs and that a further payment to the correct account should be made at
once, leaving the solicitors to sort the mess out in their own time?
Complaint, compensation..?
Nogood Boyo
GB
Feb 6, 2015, 10:41:28 AM2/6/15
to
specified by the vendors?
>
> Nogood Boyo
>
>
Chris R
Feb 6, 2015, 11:06:08 AM2/6/15
to
>
>
> "Nogood Boyo" wrote in message news:cjk1oc...@mid.individual.net...
The first priority has got to be trying to recover the money. If it doesn't
come back from wherever it's gone, the whole situation is likely to collapse
into litigation.
Both sides allege breach of contract by the other. Buyer claims he has paid
the purchase price according to seller's instructions and is entitled to the
property. Buyer serves notice to complete, making time of the essence.
Seller can't complete until money is received and mortgage is discharged.
Even if buyer and/or solicitor are at fault, they can't pay the money again
because they haven't got it. Buyer's mortgage lender asks for its money back
from buyer's solicitor because it's not received the mortgage of the
property and withdraws its mortgage offer. Seller sues or he purchase price
or rescinds the contract for breach. Bothe sides complain about their
solicitors. Liability probably ends up with the insurer of one or both firms
of solicitors, but in the meantime the whole chain has collapsed.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Nogood Boyo
Feb 6, 2015, 11:12:23 AM2/6/15
to
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:mb2n9u$5r0$1...@dont-email.me...
GB
Feb 6, 2015, 12:10:12 PM2/6/15
to
On 06/02/2015 15:48, Nogood Boyo wrote:
>> The purchaser's solicitors have made the payment to the account specified
>> by the vendors?
>>
> So they claim. Aren't such things verified in some way?
There'll be a paper (or electronic) trail, all right! It won't be hard
>> The purchaser's solicitors have made the payment to the account specified
>> by the vendors?
>>
> So they claim. Aren't such things verified in some way?
to apportion blame. However, I can't see anybody digging their hand in
their pocket for a few hundred k to cover the completion monies in the
meantime.
GB
Feb 6, 2015, 12:14:03 PM2/6/15
to
On 06/02/2015 16:05, Chris R wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Nogood Boyo" wrote in message news:cjk1oc...@mid.individual.net...
>> Not hypothetical...
>>
>> Completion of house purchase and collection of keys supposed to be today
>> (Friday). Time off has been taken and arrangements have been made with
>> various people to do various things over the weekend.
>>
>> Purchaser's solicitor is now saying the money has been sent to the wrong
>> account, and can't be traced, because the vendor's solicitor has supplied
>> incorrect details. Purchasers therefore can't have the keys. At 14:30
>> they're saying it's too late to get the banks to put things right today.
>>
>> Would it be reasonable for the purchasers to argue that the problem isn't
>> theirs and that a further payment to the correct account should be made at
>> once, leaving the solicitors to sort the mess out in their own time?
>>
>> Complaint, compensation..?
>>
> Serious problems all round.
>
> The first priority has got to be trying to recover the money. If it doesn't
> come back from wherever it's gone, the whole situation is likely to collapse
> into litigation.
The banks are notoriously unhelpful about this sort of thing, claiming
>>
>>
>> "Nogood Boyo" wrote in message news:cjk1oc...@mid.individual.net...
>> Not hypothetical...
>>
>> Completion of house purchase and collection of keys supposed to be today
>> (Friday). Time off has been taken and arrangements have been made with
>> various people to do various things over the weekend.
>>
>> Purchaser's solicitor is now saying the money has been sent to the wrong
>> account, and can't be traced, because the vendor's solicitor has supplied
>> incorrect details. Purchasers therefore can't have the keys. At 14:30
>> they're saying it's too late to get the banks to put things right today.
>>
>> Would it be reasonable for the purchasers to argue that the problem isn't
>> theirs and that a further payment to the correct account should be made at
>> once, leaving the solicitors to sort the mess out in their own time?
>>
>> Complaint, compensation..?
>>
> Serious problems all round.
>
> The first priority has got to be trying to recover the money. If it doesn't
> come back from wherever it's gone, the whole situation is likely to collapse
> into litigation.
that they can't give out details of the account holder.
IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be a
checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
number.
Chris R
Feb 6, 2015, 12:20:40 PM2/6/15
to
>
>
> "Nogood Boyo" wrote in message news:cjk629...@mid.individual.net...
valid bank account number and sort code by mistake. Once a transfer has been
made, the banks often don't want to know.
--
Chris R
steve robinson
Feb 6, 2015, 12:56:49 PM2/6/15
to
the money has gone.
Purchasers solicitor needs to check details supplied by the vendor if
they have indeed paid the funds to the specified account then the fault
lies with the vendor/ vendors agents.
If this is what has happened then they should be proactive in chasing
up the vendor.
If on the other hand the purchasers solicitor has made a mistake i
would expect them to re send the funds immediatly to the correct
account (assuming they have funds available.)
This could get really messy if not soughted quickly, you need to speak
without delay to the senior partners of the solicitors
eastender
Feb 6, 2015, 12:57:08 PM2/6/15
to
On 2015-02-06 17:13:53 +0000, GB said:
> On 06/02/2015 16:05, Chris R wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Nogood Boyo" wrote in message news:cjk1oc...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Not hypothetical...
>>>
>>> Completion of house purchase and collection of keys supposed to be today
>>> (Friday). Time off has been taken and arrangements have been made with
>>> various people to do various things over the weekend.
>>>
>>> Purchaser's solicitor is now saying the money has been sent to the wrong
>>> account, and can't be traced, because the vendor's solicitor has supplied
>>> incorrect details. Purchasers therefore can't have the keys. At 14:30
>>> they're saying it's too late to get the banks to put things right today.
>>>
>>> Would it be reasonable for the purchasers to argue that the problem isn't
>>> theirs and that a further payment to the correct account should be made at
>>> once, leaving the solicitors to sort the mess out in their own time?
>>>
>>> Complaint, compensation..?
>>>
>> Serious problems all round.
>>
>> The first priority has got to be trying to recover the money. If it doesn't
>> come back from wherever it's gone, the whole situation is likely to collapse
>> into litigation.
>
> The banks are notoriously unhelpful about this sort of thing, claiming
> that they can't give out details of the account holder.
>
> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be
> a checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
> number.
When we sold my late mother's house in 2013 I suggested to our
> On 06/02/2015 16:05, Chris R wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Nogood Boyo" wrote in message news:cjk1oc...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Not hypothetical...
>>>
>>> Completion of house purchase and collection of keys supposed to be today
>>> (Friday). Time off has been taken and arrangements have been made with
>>> various people to do various things over the weekend.
>>>
>>> Purchaser's solicitor is now saying the money has been sent to the wrong
>>> account, and can't be traced, because the vendor's solicitor has supplied
>>> incorrect details. Purchasers therefore can't have the keys. At 14:30
>>> they're saying it's too late to get the banks to put things right today.
>>>
>>> Would it be reasonable for the purchasers to argue that the problem isn't
>>> theirs and that a further payment to the correct account should be made at
>>> once, leaving the solicitors to sort the mess out in their own time?
>>>
>>> Complaint, compensation..?
>>>
>> Serious problems all round.
>>
>> The first priority has got to be trying to recover the money. If it doesn't
>> come back from wherever it's gone, the whole situation is likely to collapse
>> into litigation.
>
> The banks are notoriously unhelpful about this sort of thing, claiming
> that they can't give out details of the account holder.
>
> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be
> a checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
> number.
solicitor that he used a test payment both in receiving money and
paying out. He said 'we never make mistakes' and ignored me... I always
do this with any substantial sum, eg. when I bought a car recently.
E.
Nogood Boyo
Feb 6, 2015, 12:57:24 PM2/6/15
to
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KsidnV771uP5e0nJ...@brightview.co.uk...
be a few days delay.
Fortunately, when the purchaser started raising her voice (surprisingly
effective, as I know from experience), some sort of undertaking was given
(apparently) and the keys were made available. But I suppose that might not
be the end of the matter because they presumably still haven't completed..?
Nogood Boyo
Tim Watts
Feb 6, 2015, 2:02:28 PM2/6/15
to
On 06/02/15 17:24, eastender wrote:
> When we sold my late mother's house in 2013 I suggested to our
> solicitor that he used a test payment both in receiving money and
> paying out. He said 'we never make mistakes' and ignored me... I always
> do this with any substantial sum, eg. when I bought a car recently.
I do too, with respect to paying for say buildings works.
> When we sold my late mother's house in 2013 I suggested to our
> solicitor that he used a test payment both in receiving money and
> paying out. He said 'we never make mistakes' and ignored me... I always
> do this with any substantial sum, eg. when I bought a car recently.
With solicitors for receiving funds, I tear a cheque out of my book,
write Cancelled on it and give it to them with instructions to used the
account numbers as printed.
That at least means *I* cannot cock it up and they have insurance
(although as noted in this thread, that might still be a problem if time
is of the essence (legally or in common parlance).
Reentrant
Feb 6, 2015, 5:02:04 PM2/6/15
to
On 06/02/2015 17:16, Chris R wrote:
> No, it's a known weakness of the payments system that it's easy to get a
> valid bank account number and sort code by mistake. Once a transfer has been
> made, the banks often don't want to know.
>
This was supposed to have improved last year - for several banks and
> No, it's a known weakness of the payments system that it's easy to get a
> valid bank account number and sort code by mistake. Once a transfer has been
> made, the banks often don't want to know.
>
building societies anyway, and on a "voluntary code of practice" basis.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/bank-accounts/10785286/New-bank-code-on-reclaiming-wrong-payments.html>
--
Reentrant
Vir Campestris
Feb 6, 2015, 5:02:44 PM2/6/15
to
On 06/02/2015 17:24, eastender wrote:
> When we sold my late mother's house in 2013 I suggested to our
> solicitor that he used a test payment both in receiving money and
> paying out. He said 'we never make mistakes' and ignored me... I always
> do this with any substantial sum, eg. when I bought a car recently.
Be careful doing this. It may trigger the bank's fraud protection alarms.
> When we sold my late mother's house in 2013 I suggested to our
> solicitor that he used a test payment both in receiving money and
> paying out. He said 'we never make mistakes' and ignored me... I always
> do this with any substantial sum, eg. when I bought a car recently.
As we found out when A Large Department store sent a test transaction
for a pound through before the remainder of the cost of the dishwasher!
Andy
Adam Funk
Feb 6, 2015, 5:03:47 PM2/6/15
to
On 2015-02-06, GB wrote:
> On 06/02/2015 16:05, Chris R wrote:
>> The first priority has got to be trying to recover the money. If it doesn't
>> come back from wherever it's gone, the whole situation is likely to collapse
>> into litigation.
>
> The banks are notoriously unhelpful about this sort of thing, claiming
> that they can't give out details of the account holder.
>
> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be a
> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
> number.
It's not rocket science --- ISBNs have had this for over 40 years.
> On 06/02/2015 16:05, Chris R wrote:
>> The first priority has got to be trying to recover the money. If it doesn't
>> come back from wherever it's gone, the whole situation is likely to collapse
>> into litigation.
>
> The banks are notoriously unhelpful about this sort of thing, claiming
> that they can't give out details of the account holder.
>
> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be a
> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
> number.
Robin
Feb 6, 2015, 6:20:25 PM2/6/15
to
made by CHAPS. And I don't see how the bank can be liable for an error
made by the payer given the system we have. More important, nor do the
courts - see eg Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc [2013] EWHC 2780
(QB)
- http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2780.html
Best hope is that the receiving bank isn't able to match the a/c number
abd sends the money back. But if someone has put real but wrong a/c
details into play then as (Chris R has set out so clearly) there may
well be troubles ahead.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
spuorg...@gowanhill.com
Feb 6, 2015, 9:53:22 PM2/6/15
to
On Friday, 6 February 2015 17:14:03 UTC, GB wrote:
> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be a
> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
> number.
There is with IBANs, which are derived from ISO country code + 2 check digits + Business Identifier Codes + domestic account number + sortcode
> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be a
> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
> number.
Owain
Tim Watts
Feb 7, 2015, 4:07:22 AM2/7/15
to
On 06/02/15 23:20, Robin wrote:
> As this was a house completion I would have expected the payment to be
> made by CHAPS. And I don't see how the bank can be liable for an error
> made by the payer given the system we have. More important, nor do the
> courts - see eg Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc [2013] EWHC 2780
> (QB)
> - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2780.html
>
>
> Best hope is that the receiving bank isn't able to match the a/c number
> abd sends the money back. But if someone has put real but wrong a/c
> details into play then as (Chris R has set out so clearly) there may
> well be troubles ahead.
>
Surely there is case law for mistakenly paid funds in other formats (eg
> As this was a house completion I would have expected the payment to be
> made by CHAPS. And I don't see how the bank can be liable for an error
> made by the payer given the system we have. More important, nor do the
> courts - see eg Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc [2013] EWHC 2780
> (QB)
> - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2780.html
>
>
> Best hope is that the receiving bank isn't able to match the a/c number
> abd sends the money back. But if someone has put real but wrong a/c
> details into play then as (Chris R has set out so clearly) there may
> well be troubles ahead.
>
cash) if not bank transfers.
I though bank transfers could be reversed withing a certain window in
the case of any error by any party - hence the difference between
cleared and uncleared funds.
Chris R
Feb 7, 2015, 5:02:12 AM2/7/15
to
>
>
> "Tim Watts" wrote in message news:b61hqb-...@squidward.dionic.net...
> On 06/02/15 23:20, Robin wrote:
> > As this was a house completion I would have expected the payment to be
> > made by CHAPS. And I don't see how the bank can be liable for an error
> > made by the payer given the system we have. More important, nor do the
> > courts - see eg Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc [2013] EWHC 2780
> > (QB)
> > - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2780.html
> >
> >
> > Best hope is that the receiving bank isn't able to match the a/c number
> > abd sends the money back. But if someone has put real but wrong a/c
> > details into play then as (Chris R has set out so clearly) there may
> > well be troubles ahead.
> >
>
> Surely there is case law for mistakenly paid funds in other formats (eg
> cash) if not bank transfers.
Yes, you have the clearest possible case against the person whose account
> > As this was a house completion I would have expected the payment to be
> > made by CHAPS. And I don't see how the bank can be liable for an error
> > made by the payer given the system we have. More important, nor do the
> > courts - see eg Tidal Energy Ltd v Bank of Scotland plc [2013] EWHC 2780
> > (QB)
> > - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2780.html
> >
> >
> > Best hope is that the receiving bank isn't able to match the a/c number
> > abd sends the money back. But if someone has put real but wrong a/c
> > details into play then as (Chris R has set out so clearly) there may
> > well be troubles ahead.
> >
>
> Surely there is case law for mistakenly paid funds in other formats (eg
> cash) if not bank transfers.
was wrongly credited. So long as you know who they are, of course.
>
> I though bank transfers could be reversed withing a certain window in the
> case of any error by any party - hence the difference between cleared and
> uncleared funds.
Would you be happy if you sold your house and the buyer's bank then reversed
> I though bank transfers could be reversed withing a certain window in the
> case of any error by any party - hence the difference between cleared and
> uncleared funds.
the transfer of the money? CHAPS transfers are cleared upon receipt, which
is why they are used.
Peter Crosland
Feb 7, 2015, 5:39:33 AM2/7/15
to
--
Peter Crosland
Reply address is valid
Peter Crosland
Feb 7, 2015, 5:39:58 AM2/7/15
to
do these test payments all the time.
Tim Watts
Feb 7, 2015, 5:58:18 AM2/7/15
to
On 07/02/15 10:01, Chris R wrote:
>> Surely there is case law for mistakenly paid funds in other formats (eg
>> cash) if not bank transfers.
>
> Yes, you have the clearest possible case against the person whose account
> was wrongly credited. So long as you know who they are, of course.
Thank you - I assumed so...
>> Surely there is case law for mistakenly paid funds in other formats (eg
>> cash) if not bank transfers.
>
> Yes, you have the clearest possible case against the person whose account
> was wrongly credited. So long as you know who they are, of course.
>>
>> I though bank transfers could be reversed withing a certain window in the
>> case of any error by any party - hence the difference between cleared and
>> uncleared funds.
>
> Would you be happy if you sold your house and the buyer's bank then reversed
> the transfer of the money? CHAPS transfers are cleared upon receipt, which
> is why they are used.
>
speed.
But presumably it is not immune from being reversed in the case of a
proven error (aka the first section of this post) - though I appreciate
the bank is going to want incontrovertible proof that it is an error
rather than just bouncing it back willy nilly.
Robin
Feb 7, 2015, 6:21:38 AM2/7/15
to
> But presumably it is not immune from being reversed in the case of a
> proven error (aka the first section of this post) - though I
> appreciate the bank is going to want incontrovertible proof that it
> is an error rather than just bouncing it back willy nilly.
It can naturally be "reversed" by the person who has the money - which
> proven error (aka the first section of this post) - though I
> appreciate the bank is going to want incontrovertible proof that it
> is an error rather than just bouncing it back willy nilly.
may even be the bank if there is no such account. But that aside,
unless the *bank* made the error I can't see the grounds for the bank
reversing it. As the judge said in the case I cited "There is no
evidence that the bank was responsible for any error in transmission of
the payment, let alone that its employees were negligent. The bank
faithfully discharged its mandate. The payment ended up with the wrong
payee because the claimant gave the wrong sort code and account number."
Anything else means the bank gets involve in a dispute which is already
messy enough .
PS
I recalled and have found today reports of a case when the bank did
reverse a CHAPS payment on its own initiatve. Didn't end well for the
bank. http://www.out-law.com/page-4731
tim.....
Feb 7, 2015, 6:40:29 AM2/7/15
to
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wdednTFl-IuIREjJ...@brightview.co.uk...
If they did, getting one number wrong (or swapping 2) would always result in
an invalid account number, but such mistakes now routinely see money paid
into a valid account.
I can't see the Banks would get away with the excuse " we paid it into the
account you specified", if a checksum digit was wrong
tim
Tim Watts
Feb 7, 2015, 7:00:34 AM2/7/15
to
On 07/02/15 11:21, Robin wrote:
>> But presumably it is not immune from being reversed in the case of a
>> proven error (aka the first section of this post) - though I
>> appreciate the bank is going to want incontrovertible proof that it
>> is an error rather than just bouncing it back willy nilly.
>
> It can naturally be "reversed" by the person who has the money - which
> may even be the bank if there is no such account. But that aside,
> unless the *bank* made the error I can't see the grounds for the bank
> reversing it. As the judge said in the case I cited "There is no
> evidence that the bank was responsible for any error in transmission of
> the payment, let alone that its employees were negligent. The bank
> faithfully discharged its mandate. The payment ended up with the wrong
> payee because the claimant gave the wrong sort code and account number."
>
> Anything else means the bank gets involve in a dispute which is already
> messy enough .
Hmm. So is there case law or precedent that says if you can require the
>> But presumably it is not immune from being reversed in the case of a
>> proven error (aka the first section of this post) - though I
>> appreciate the bank is going to want incontrovertible proof that it
>> is an error rather than just bouncing it back willy nilly.
>
> It can naturally be "reversed" by the person who has the money - which
> may even be the bank if there is no such account. But that aside,
> unless the *bank* made the error I can't see the grounds for the bank
> reversing it. As the judge said in the case I cited "There is no
> evidence that the bank was responsible for any error in transmission of
> the payment, let alone that its employees were negligent. The bank
> faithfully discharged its mandate. The payment ended up with the wrong
> payee because the claimant gave the wrong sort code and account number."
>
> Anything else means the bank gets involve in a dispute which is already
> messy enough .
recipient to return the monies promptly?
eg if you paid your gas bill by BACS but sent me £50 because you got the
account number wrong, am I legally obliged to return the money to you
upon your request? (Not that I wouldn't, but legally...)
> PS
> I recalled and have found today reports of a case when the bank did
> reverse a CHAPS payment on its own initiatve. Didn't end well for the
> bank. http://www.out-law.com/page-4731
>
initiative. But whilst it's not an identical case, it does have parallels.
polygonum
Feb 7, 2015, 7:35:23 AM2/7/15
to
On 06/02/2015 14:34, Nogood Boyo wrote:
likely - obviously it will be based on the amount involved in the
transaction.
--
Rod
Mark Goodge
Feb 7, 2015, 7:36:23 AM2/7/15
to
On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:00:25 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On 07/02/15 11:21, Robin wrote:
>>> But presumably it is not immune from being reversed in the case of a
>>> proven error (aka the first section of this post) - though I
>>> appreciate the bank is going to want incontrovertible proof that it
>>> is an error rather than just bouncing it back willy nilly.
>>
>> It can naturally be "reversed" by the person who has the money - which
>> may even be the bank if there is no such account. But that aside,
>> unless the *bank* made the error I can't see the grounds for the bank
>> reversing it. As the judge said in the case I cited "There is no
>> evidence that the bank was responsible for any error in transmission of
>> the payment, let alone that its employees were negligent. The bank
>> faithfully discharged its mandate. The payment ended up with the wrong
>> payee because the claimant gave the wrong sort code and account number."
>>
>> Anything else means the bank gets involve in a dispute which is already
>> messy enough .
>
>Hmm. So is there case law or precedent that says if you can require the
>recipient to return the monies promptly?
Of course, yes. Anyone who receives money via CHAPS that they are not
actually entitled to is immediately in debt to the sender by that amount
and must return it as soon as practically possible.
>eg if you paid your gas bill by BACS but sent me £50 because you got the
>account number wrong, am I legally obliged to return the money to you
>upon your request? (Not that I wouldn't, but legally...)
Yes, you are. Deliberately attempting to avoid repaying the money is an
offence under the Theft Act 1968:
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
(c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the
circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on smartphones: http://goodge.eu/an
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
typed:
>On 07/02/15 11:21, Robin wrote:
>>> But presumably it is not immune from being reversed in the case of a
>>> proven error (aka the first section of this post) - though I
>>> appreciate the bank is going to want incontrovertible proof that it
>>> is an error rather than just bouncing it back willy nilly.
>>
>> It can naturally be "reversed" by the person who has the money - which
>> may even be the bank if there is no such account. But that aside,
>> unless the *bank* made the error I can't see the grounds for the bank
>> reversing it. As the judge said in the case I cited "There is no
>> evidence that the bank was responsible for any error in transmission of
>> the payment, let alone that its employees were negligent. The bank
>> faithfully discharged its mandate. The payment ended up with the wrong
>> payee because the claimant gave the wrong sort code and account number."
>>
>> Anything else means the bank gets involve in a dispute which is already
>> messy enough .
>
>Hmm. So is there case law or precedent that says if you can require the
>recipient to return the monies promptly?
actually entitled to is immediately in debt to the sender by that amount
and must return it as soon as practically possible.
>eg if you paid your gas bill by BACS but sent me £50 because you got the
>account number wrong, am I legally obliged to return the money to you
>upon your request? (Not that I wouldn't, but legally...)
offence under the Theft Act 1968:
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
(c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the
circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on smartphones: http://goodge.eu/an
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
Paul Rudin
Feb 7, 2015, 8:11:16 AM2/7/15
to
polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> writes:
> Can you insure against such mistakes? And, if so, what sort of cost is
> likely - obviously it will be based on the amount involved in the
> transaction.
What's the real effect here? Having to wait a few days to move in? So
> Can you insure against such mistakes? And, if so, what sort of cost is
> likely - obviously it will be based on the amount involved in the
> transaction.
there might be some hotel and storage costs, but those things don't
really depend on the value of the house.
tim.....
Feb 7, 2015, 8:18:43 AM2/7/15
to
news:wdednTBl-IsHREjJ...@brightview.co.uk...
as do fraudsters
tim
tim
Pelican
Feb 7, 2015, 8:18:57 AM2/7/15
to
"Robin" <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mb4se3$8jv$1...@dont-email.me...
>> But presumably it is not immune from being reversed in the case of a
>> proven error (aka the first section of this post) - though I
>> appreciate the bank is going to want incontrovertible proof that it
>> is an error rather than just bouncing it back willy nilly.
>
> It can naturally be "reversed" by the person who has the money - which may
> even be the bank if there is no such account. But that aside, unless the
> *bank* made the error I can't see the grounds for the bank reversing it.
> As the judge said in the case I cited "There is no evidence that the bank
> was responsible for any error in transmission of the payment, let alone
> that its employees were negligent. The bank faithfully discharged its
> mandate. The payment ended up with the wrong payee because the claimant
> gave the wrong sort code and account number."
The case cited was apparently a case of fraud, where the money quickly
>> proven error (aka the first section of this post) - though I
>> appreciate the bank is going to want incontrovertible proof that it
>> is an error rather than just bouncing it back willy nilly.
>
> It can naturally be "reversed" by the person who has the money - which may
> even be the bank if there is no such account. But that aside, unless the
> *bank* made the error I can't see the grounds for the bank reversing it.
> As the judge said in the case I cited "There is no evidence that the bank
> was responsible for any error in transmission of the payment, let alone
> that its employees were negligent. The bank faithfully discharged its
> mandate. The payment ended up with the wrong payee because the claimant
> gave the wrong sort code and account number."
disappeared from the account. The problem then is who bears the loss. In a
case where the money is still in the account, the legal situation is clear,
and simple, enough.
> Anything else means the bank gets involve in a dispute which is already
> messy enough .
>
> PS
> I recalled and have found today reports of a case when the bank did
> reverse a CHAPS payment on its own initiatve. Didn't end well for the
> bank. http://www.out-law.com/page-4731
which were rather unusual.
Mark Goodge
Feb 7, 2015, 8:19:06 AM2/7/15
to
On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 09:24:09 +0000, Peter Crosland put finger to keyboard
and typed:
Individuals, however, tend not to. And it's a common tactic by users of
stolen card details, to try a test transaction before the real one.
and typed:
stolen card details, to try a test transaction before the real one.
polygonum
Feb 7, 2015, 8:32:04 AM2/7/15
to
thought that an insurer could provide funds to cover purchase in the
short term so as to divorce the moving in from the transfer of funds.
--
Rod
steve robinson
Feb 7, 2015, 8:53:45 AM2/7/15
to
has already given a run down of how it may possibly go, it could take
more than 12 months.
Chris R
Feb 7, 2015, 9:19:41 AM2/7/15
to
>
>
> "tim....." wrote in message news:mb4tc2$bjv$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> "Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:wdednTFl-IuIREjJ...@brightview.co.uk...
> > On 06/02/2015 17:13, GB wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2015 16:05, Chris R wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Nogood Boyo" wrote in message
> >>>> news:cjk1oc...@mid.individual.net...
> "Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:wdednTFl-IuIREjJ...@brightview.co.uk...
> > On 06/02/2015 17:13, GB wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2015 16:05, Chris R wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Nogood Boyo" wrote in message
> >>>> news:cjk1oc...@mid.individual.net...
> >> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be
> >> a
> >> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
> >> number.
> >
> > They already do.
>
> I know that they used to, I don't believe that they do anymore
>
> If they did, getting one number wrong (or swapping 2) would always result
> in an invalid account number, but such mistakes now routinely see money
> paid into a valid account.
>
> I can't see the Banks would get away with the excuse " we paid it into the
> account you specified", if a checksum digit was wrong
>
I seem to remember there is just one check digit, so a random error will
> >> a
> >> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
> >> number.
> >
> > They already do.
>
> I know that they used to, I don't believe that they do anymore
>
> If they did, getting one number wrong (or swapping 2) would always result
> in an invalid account number, but such mistakes now routinely see money
> paid into a valid account.
>
> I can't see the Banks would get away with the excuse " we paid it into the
> account you specified", if a checksum digit was wrong
>
produce a valid result 1/10 of the time.
--
Chris R
Tim Watts
Feb 7, 2015, 9:51:17 AM2/7/15
to
On 07/02/15 12:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:00:25 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:00:25 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
>> eg if you paid your gas bill by BACS but sent me £50 because you got the
>> account number wrong, am I legally obliged to return the money to you
>> upon your request? (Not that I wouldn't, but legally...)
>
> Yes, you are. Deliberately attempting to avoid repaying the money is an
> offence under the Theft Act 1968:
>
> 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
> (c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the
> circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A
>
Thanks Mark.
>> account number wrong, am I legally obliged to return the money to you
>> upon your request? (Not that I wouldn't, but legally...)
>
> Yes, you are. Deliberately attempting to avoid repaying the money is an
> offence under the Theft Act 1968:
>
> 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
> (c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the
> circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A
>
That seems to be a very clear and absolute answer to the buyer getting
monies returned pretty soon so they can be resent correctly to the vendor.
It "merely" leaves the slight matter of the resultant hold up and any
compensation for losses incurred by various parties (particularly if the
sale collapsed).
Tim Watts
Feb 7, 2015, 9:53:03 AM2/7/15
to
"Deliberately attempting to avoid repaying the money is an
offence under the Theft Act 1968:"
credited account holder is notified.
Nogood Boyo
Feb 7, 2015, 10:01:52 AM2/7/15
to
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0jhzwem...@reader80.eternal-september.org...
afternoon on the basis of some sort of undertaking by the purchasers'
solicitors (details not known) and the purchasers have started to move in.
But presumably completion is still to take place.
I'm now wondering about the wisdom of spending money on the place before
completion - essential repairs and improvements are planned, to start
immediately.
The purchase price is actually less than £100k and the purchasers'
solicitors are a large firm. If there are problems retrieving the money, I
hope that they'll do the decent thing and pay again, recovering the(ir)
missing money and resolving disputes in their own time. If they don't, some
local publicity might influence them...
Nogood Boyo
Flop
Feb 7, 2015, 10:02:46 AM2/7/15
to
initiative. In the OP's case, presumably, the solicitors will ask the
bank to return the money.
Nationwide recently changed its T&Cs to enable it to freeze and return
monies received in error.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2784068/Banks-raid-accounts-cash-sent-accident.html
How effective this is I have no idea but it must be better than having
funds lost into a black hole which cannot be probed because of Data
Protection.
--
Flop
Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children
Roland Perry
Feb 7, 2015, 10:18:02 AM2/7/15
to
In message <4oydnV0kVIx7g0vJ...@brightview.co.uk>, at
14:19:15 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
--
Roland Perry
14:19:15 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
>> >> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be
>> >> a
>> >> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
>> >> number.
>> >
>> > They already do.
>>
>> I know that they used to, I don't believe that they do anymore
>>
>> If they did, getting one number wrong (or swapping 2) would always result
>> in an invalid account number, but such mistakes now routinely see money
>> paid into a valid account.
>>
>> I can't see the Banks would get away with the excuse " we paid it into the
>> account you specified", if a checksum digit was wrong
>>
>I seem to remember there is just one check digit, so a random error will
>produce a valid result 1/10 of the time.
You'd need two errors, cancelling themselves out.
>> >> a
>> >> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
>> >> number.
>> >
>> > They already do.
>>
>> I know that they used to, I don't believe that they do anymore
>>
>> If they did, getting one number wrong (or swapping 2) would always result
>> in an invalid account number, but such mistakes now routinely see money
>> paid into a valid account.
>>
>> I can't see the Banks would get away with the excuse " we paid it into the
>> account you specified", if a checksum digit was wrong
>>
>I seem to remember there is just one check digit, so a random error will
>produce a valid result 1/10 of the time.
--
Roland Perry
The Todal
Feb 7, 2015, 10:35:48 AM2/7/15
to
The recipient of the money might transfer it into another account, then
use it to finance some other transaction. Whether or not an accusation
of theft could be sustained, the money might be difficult to retrieve
and the wrongful recipient might be difficult to track down.
Robin
Feb 7, 2015, 11:06:59 AM2/7/15
to
> That seems to be a very clear and absolute answer to the buyer getting
> monies returned pretty soon so they can be resent correctly to the
> vendor.
Sadly not so sure if the holder of the account withdrew the money and
> monies returned pretty soon so they can be resent correctly to the
> vendor.
closed the account promptly.
> It "merely" leaves the slight matter of the resultant hold up and any
> compensation for losses incurred by various parties (particularly if
> the sale collapsed).
Judith
Feb 7, 2015, 11:53:32 AM2/7/15
to
On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 09:21:55 +0000, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be a
>> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
>> number.
>
>They already do.
Are you sure about this?
Not according to the website:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E18727_01/doc.121/e13483/T359831T498954.htm
<snip>
>> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be a
>> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
>> number.
>
>They already do.
Not according to the website:
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E18727_01/doc.121/e13483/T359831T498954.htm
Chris R
Feb 7, 2015, 1:15:56 PM2/7/15
to
>
>
> "The Todal" wrote in message news:cjmpk1...@mid.individual.net...
have a "sweep" arrangement attached that automatically transfers receipts
elsewhere.
Mark Goodge
Feb 7, 2015, 4:06:29 PM2/7/15
to
On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 16:07:36 -0000, Robin put finger to keyboard and typed:
>> That seems to be a very clear and absolute answer to the buyer getting
>> monies returned pretty soon so they can be resent correctly to the
>> vendor.
>
>Sadly not so sure if the holder of the account withdrew the money and
>closed the account promptly.
While of little immediate help to the owner of the money, that course of
action is pretty much guaranteed to result in a conviction for theft.
>> That seems to be a very clear and absolute answer to the buyer getting
>> monies returned pretty soon so they can be resent correctly to the
>> vendor.
>
>Sadly not so sure if the holder of the account withdrew the money and
>closed the account promptly.
action is pretty much guaranteed to result in a conviction for theft.
Mark Goodge
Feb 7, 2015, 4:14:10 PM2/7/15
to
On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 14:50:42 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On 07/02/15 12:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:00:25 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
>
>>> eg if you paid your gas bill by BACS but sent me £50 because you got the
>>> account number wrong, am I legally obliged to return the money to you
>>> upon your request? (Not that I wouldn't, but legally...)
>>
>> Yes, you are. Deliberately attempting to avoid repaying the money is an
>> offence under the Theft Act 1968:
>>
>> 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
>> (c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the
>> circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.
>>
>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A
>>
>
>Thanks Mark.
>
>That seems to be a very clear and absolute answer to the buyer getting
>monies returned pretty soon so they can be resent correctly to the vendor.
Well, just because someone has a legal obligation to do something doesn't
mean they will necessarily do it straight away. They may be unaware of the
obligation. If the money is in an account that they don't check regularly,
they may be unaware of the money until they next get a monthly statement.
Or, they may be dishonest enough to simply ignore the obligation despite
being aware of it.
If the inadvertant recipient does hold on to the money, it can be quite
time-consuming forcing them to repay it.
typed:
>On 07/02/15 12:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:00:25 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
>
>>> eg if you paid your gas bill by BACS but sent me £50 because you got the
>>> account number wrong, am I legally obliged to return the money to you
>>> upon your request? (Not that I wouldn't, but legally...)
>>
>> Yes, you are. Deliberately attempting to avoid repaying the money is an
>> offence under the Theft Act 1968:
>>
>> 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
>> (c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the
>> circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.
>>
>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A
>>
>
>Thanks Mark.
>
>That seems to be a very clear and absolute answer to the buyer getting
>monies returned pretty soon so they can be resent correctly to the vendor.
mean they will necessarily do it straight away. They may be unaware of the
obligation. If the money is in an account that they don't check regularly,
they may be unaware of the money until they next get a monthly statement.
Or, they may be dishonest enough to simply ignore the obligation despite
being aware of it.
If the inadvertant recipient does hold on to the money, it can be quite
time-consuming forcing them to repay it.
Pelican
Feb 7, 2015, 4:30:47 PM2/7/15
to
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lkvcda194a8jbutso...@news.markshouse.net...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 14:50:42 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>On 07/02/15 12:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:00:25 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
>>
>>>> eg if you paid your gas bill by BACS but sent me £50 because you got
>>>> the
>>>> account number wrong, am I legally obliged to return the money to you
>>>> upon your request? (Not that I wouldn't, but legally...)
>>>
>>> Yes, you are. Deliberately attempting to avoid repaying the money is an
>>> offence under the Theft Act 1968:
>>>
>>> A person is guilty of an offence if-
> typed:
>
>>On 07/02/15 12:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:00:25 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
>>
>>>> eg if you paid your gas bill by BACS but sent me £50 because you got
>>>> the
>>>> account number wrong, am I legally obliged to return the money to you
>>>> upon your request? (Not that I wouldn't, but legally...)
>>>
>>> Yes, you are. Deliberately attempting to avoid repaying the money is an
>>> offence under the Theft Act 1968:
>>>
>>> (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.
>>>
>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A
>>>
>>
>>Thanks Mark.
>>
>>That seems to be a very clear and absolute answer to the buyer getting
>>monies returned pretty soon so they can be resent correctly to the vendor.
>
> Well, just because someone has a legal obligation to do something doesn't
> mean they will necessarily do it straight away. They may be unaware of the
> obligation. If the money is in an account that they don't check regularly,
> they may be unaware of the money until they next get a monthly statement.
> Or, they may be dishonest enough to simply ignore the obligation despite
> being aware of it.
>
> If the inadvertant recipient does hold on to the money, it can be quite
> time-consuming forcing them to repay it.
But a much better scenario than where the money has gone.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A
>>>
>>
>>Thanks Mark.
>>
>>That seems to be a very clear and absolute answer to the buyer getting
>>monies returned pretty soon so they can be resent correctly to the vendor.
>
> Well, just because someone has a legal obligation to do something doesn't
> mean they will necessarily do it straight away. They may be unaware of the
> obligation. If the money is in an account that they don't check regularly,
> they may be unaware of the money until they next get a monthly statement.
> Or, they may be dishonest enough to simply ignore the obligation despite
> being aware of it.
>
> If the inadvertant recipient does hold on to the money, it can be quite
> time-consuming forcing them to repay it.
Unless I am missing something (quite a possibility), there is no difference
in principle between the mistaken payment through bank accounts and where
money is handed over mistakenly to a third party. The problem is the same -
how to get it back efficiently.
Mark Goodge
Feb 7, 2015, 4:31:45 PM2/7/15
to
On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 18:12:10 -0000, Chris R put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>> "The Todal" wrote in message news:cjmpk1...@mid.individual.net...
>>
inadvertant recipient genuinely cannot repay it, but has not acted
dishonestly in reaching that position. A civil action for recovery of the
money would almost certainly be successful, but enforcing payment of the
debt would be much harder.
typed:
>> "The Todal" wrote in message news:cjmpk1...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> The recipient of the money might transfer it into another account, then
>> use it to finance some other transaction. Whether or not an accusation of
>> theft could be sustained, the money might be difficult to retrieve and the
>> wrongful recipient might be difficult to track down.
>
>Or the recipient's account may be overdrawn, or charged to secure a debt, or
>have a "sweep" arrangement attached that automatically transfers receipts
>elsewhere.
Yes; the nightmare scenario for the owner of the money is that the
>> use it to finance some other transaction. Whether or not an accusation of
>> theft could be sustained, the money might be difficult to retrieve and the
>> wrongful recipient might be difficult to track down.
>
>Or the recipient's account may be overdrawn, or charged to secure a debt, or
>have a "sweep" arrangement attached that automatically transfers receipts
>elsewhere.
inadvertant recipient genuinely cannot repay it, but has not acted
dishonestly in reaching that position. A civil action for recovery of the
money would almost certainly be successful, but enforcing payment of the
debt would be much harder.
Mark Goodge
Feb 7, 2015, 4:32:07 PM2/7/15
to
On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 14:55:44 -0000, Nogood Boyo put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>The purchase price is actually less than £100k and the purchasers'
>solicitors are a large firm. If there are problems retrieving the money, I
>hope that they'll do the decent thing and pay again, recovering the(ir)
>missing money and resolving disputes in their own time. If they don't, some
>local publicity might influence them...
One of the positive points about this particular affair is that a large
firm of solicitors is precisely the kind of organisation that is likely to
know how to go about recovering money owed to it by an initially unknown
third party :-)
Googling[1] for other instances of this kind of situation tend to bring up
examples like this one, where someone has seemingly lost a large sum of
unrecoverable money to an unknown inadvertant recipient:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276779/A-costly-mistake-Hairdresser-loses-26-000-paying-wages-wrong-account--realising-years.html
In this case, though, and in others like it, it's clear that the owner of
the money is making the fundamental mistake of believing tthat the bank
owes her the money, and is therefore treating it as simply a customer
service dispute. And the final paragraph in that article is completely and
utterly wrong. The correct course of action would have been to get
professional legal advice as early as possible with a view to using the
courts to identify the recipient and then sue them for the money. Reporting
it to the police as a likely offence under section 24A of the Theft Act
would have been a good idea, too.
[1] Or Binging, or DuckDuckGoing, etc
typed:
>The purchase price is actually less than £100k and the purchasers'
>solicitors are a large firm. If there are problems retrieving the money, I
>hope that they'll do the decent thing and pay again, recovering the(ir)
>missing money and resolving disputes in their own time. If they don't, some
>local publicity might influence them...
firm of solicitors is precisely the kind of organisation that is likely to
know how to go about recovering money owed to it by an initially unknown
third party :-)
Googling[1] for other instances of this kind of situation tend to bring up
examples like this one, where someone has seemingly lost a large sum of
unrecoverable money to an unknown inadvertant recipient:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276779/A-costly-mistake-Hairdresser-loses-26-000-paying-wages-wrong-account--realising-years.html
In this case, though, and in others like it, it's clear that the owner of
the money is making the fundamental mistake of believing tthat the bank
owes her the money, and is therefore treating it as simply a customer
service dispute. And the final paragraph in that article is completely and
utterly wrong. The correct course of action would have been to get
professional legal advice as early as possible with a view to using the
courts to identify the recipient and then sue them for the money. Reporting
it to the police as a likely offence under section 24A of the Theft Act
would have been a good idea, too.
[1] Or Binging, or DuckDuckGoing, etc
Pelican
Feb 7, 2015, 4:38:37 PM2/7/15
to
news:lp0ddap3362ka4oj3...@news.markshouse.net...
funds are, the person holding them has no greater claim to them than the
person who provided them. The civil action need not be confined to standard
common law proceedings.
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 18:12:10 -0000, Chris R put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>> "The Todal" wrote in message news:cjmpk1...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> The recipient of the money might transfer it into another account, then
>>> use it to finance some other transaction. Whether or not an accusation
>>> of
>>> theft could be sustained, the money might be difficult to retrieve and
>>> the
>>> wrongful recipient might be difficult to track down.
>>
>>Or the recipient's account may be overdrawn, or charged to secure a debt,
>>or
>>have a "sweep" arrangement attached that automatically transfers receipts
>>elsewhere.
>
> Yes; the nightmare scenario for the owner of the money is that the
> inadvertant recipient genuinely cannot repay it, but has not acted
> dishonestly in reaching that position. A civil action for recovery of the
> money would almost certainly be successful, but enforcing payment of the
> debt would be much harder.
It would usually be possible to trace the funds to the end. Wherever the
> typed:
>
>>> "The Todal" wrote in message news:cjmpk1...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> The recipient of the money might transfer it into another account, then
>>> use it to finance some other transaction. Whether or not an accusation
>>> of
>>> theft could be sustained, the money might be difficult to retrieve and
>>> the
>>> wrongful recipient might be difficult to track down.
>>
>>Or the recipient's account may be overdrawn, or charged to secure a debt,
>>or
>>have a "sweep" arrangement attached that automatically transfers receipts
>>elsewhere.
>
> Yes; the nightmare scenario for the owner of the money is that the
> inadvertant recipient genuinely cannot repay it, but has not acted
> dishonestly in reaching that position. A civil action for recovery of the
> money would almost certainly be successful, but enforcing payment of the
> debt would be much harder.
funds are, the person holding them has no greater claim to them than the
person who provided them. The civil action need not be confined to standard
common law proceedings.
Mark Goodge
Feb 7, 2015, 5:09:27 PM2/7/15
to
On Sun, 8 Feb 2015 08:30:19 +1100, Pelican put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>Unless I am missing something (quite a possibility), there is no difference
>in principle between the mistaken payment through bank accounts and where
>money is handed over mistakenly to a third party. The problem is the same -
>how to get it back efficiently.
In principle, no, there's no significant difference.
typed:
>Unless I am missing something (quite a possibility), there is no difference
>in principle between the mistaken payment through bank accounts and where
>money is handed over mistakenly to a third party. The problem is the same -
>how to get it back efficiently.
Mark Goodge
Feb 7, 2015, 5:15:18 PM2/7/15
to
On Sun, 8 Feb 2015 08:36:42 +1100, Pelican put finger to keyboard and
If A inadvertently pays money to B, and B in turn uses it to pay a
legitimate debt owed to C, neither A nor B have any grounds to recover the
money from C. B still owes the money to A, but if he does not possess the
necessary funds to make the payment, and has no realistic prospect of
acquiring them by other means (such as borrowing them) then either A will
have to accept repayment by instalments (quite possibly over very many
years) or force B into bankruptcy.
legitimate debt owed to C, neither A nor B have any grounds to recover the
money from C. B still owes the money to A, but if he does not possess the
necessary funds to make the payment, and has no realistic prospect of
acquiring them by other means (such as borrowing them) then either A will
have to accept repayment by instalments (quite possibly over very many
years) or force B into bankruptcy.
polygonum
Feb 7, 2015, 5:23:47 PM2/7/15
to
On 07/02/2015 21:27, Mark Goodge wrote:
> The correct course of action would have been to get
> professional legal advice as early as possible with a view to using the
> courts to identify the recipient and then sue them for the money. Reporting
> it to the police as a likely offence under section 24A of the Theft Act
> would have been a good idea, too.
If the recipient is unknown there could be all sorts of problems in
> The correct course of action would have been to get
> professional legal advice as early as possible with a view to using the
> courts to identify the recipient and then sue them for the money. Reporting
> it to the police as a likely offence under section 24A of the Theft Act
> would have been a good idea, too.
attempting that. For example, account holder is resident abroad, or is
dead (bank not having yet been informed). Without more information, I'd
put it as a possible offence rather than likely.
--
Rod
Roland Perry
Feb 8, 2015, 3:17:46 AM2/8/15
to
In message <lkvcda194a8jbutso...@news.markshouse.net>, at
21:14:02 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
after trying to persuade you to go paperless - at which point the gap
between statements is however long between the person logging in. If
they think the account is effectively dormant, that could be a year.
--
Roland Perry
21:14:02 on Sat, 7 Feb 2015, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>If the money is in an account that they don't check regularly,
>they may be unaware of the money until they next get a monthly statement.
Monthly? Some big banks only post a statement once a quarter, and that's
>they may be unaware of the money until they next get a monthly statement.
after trying to persuade you to go paperless - at which point the gap
between statements is however long between the person logging in. If
they think the account is effectively dormant, that could be a year.
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
Feb 8, 2015, 4:14:26 AM2/8/15
to
you to view online, ok for those able to undertsand how to and they
assume everyone has computers or smart phones.
tim.....
Feb 8, 2015, 5:52:54 AM2/8/15
to
news:lkvcda194a8jbutso...@news.markshouse.net...
bank from telling you who this person actually is.
tim
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 14:50:42 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>>On 07/02/15 12:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:00:25 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
>>
>>>> eg if you paid your gas bill by BACS but sent me £50 because you got
>>>> the
>>>> account number wrong, am I legally obliged to return the money to you
>>>> upon your request? (Not that I wouldn't, but legally...)
>>>
>>> Yes, you are. Deliberately attempting to avoid repaying the money is an
>>> offence under the Theft Act 1968:
>>>
>>> A person is guilty of an offence if-
> typed:
>
>>On 07/02/15 12:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:00:25 +0000, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
>>
>>>> eg if you paid your gas bill by BACS but sent me £50 because you got
>>>> the
>>>> account number wrong, am I legally obliged to return the money to you
>>>> upon your request? (Not that I wouldn't, but legally...)
>>>
>>> Yes, you are. Deliberately attempting to avoid repaying the money is an
>>> offence under the Theft Act 1968:
>>>
>>> (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.
>>>
>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A
>>>
>>
>>Thanks Mark.
>>
>>That seems to be a very clear and absolute answer to the buyer getting
>>monies returned pretty soon so they can be resent correctly to the vendor.
>
> Well, just because someone has a legal obligation to do something doesn't
> mean they will necessarily do it straight away. They may be unaware of the
> obligation. If the money is in an account that they don't check regularly,
> they may be unaware of the money until they next get a monthly statement.
> Or, they may be dishonest enough to simply ignore the obligation despite
> being aware of it.
>
> If the inadvertant recipient does hold on to the money, it can be quite
> time-consuming forcing them to repay it.
Especially as hiding behind "data protection" will stop the intermediate
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A
>>>
>>
>>Thanks Mark.
>>
>>That seems to be a very clear and absolute answer to the buyer getting
>>monies returned pretty soon so they can be resent correctly to the vendor.
>
> Well, just because someone has a legal obligation to do something doesn't
> mean they will necessarily do it straight away. They may be unaware of the
> obligation. If the money is in an account that they don't check regularly,
> they may be unaware of the money until they next get a monthly statement.
> Or, they may be dishonest enough to simply ignore the obligation despite
> being aware of it.
>
> If the inadvertant recipient does hold on to the money, it can be quite
> time-consuming forcing them to repay it.
bank from telling you who this person actually is.
tim
tim.....
Feb 8, 2015, 5:55:22 AM2/8/15
to
news:xn0ji13nb...@reader80.eternal-september.org...
and the ability to remember 15 different, unique, cryptically-strong
passwords
tim
passwords
tim
tim.....
Feb 8, 2015, 6:07:52 AM2/8/15
to
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4oydnV0kVIx7g0vJ...@brightview.co.uk...
but most errors are not random, they are a single wrong digit or transposed
digits
Thus a CS algorithm is selected so that it is guaranteed to find all of
these
(and no, I'm not a maths graduate so I can't provide the profit of that
statement, I just work in an industry where, for at least the past 30 years,
it is taken as read that it is true)
tim
Gorf
Feb 8, 2015, 12:39:29 PM2/8/15
to
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 5:14:03 PM UTC, GB wrote:
> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be a
> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
> number.
I always thought there was at least one check digit on the account number, but (after a quick look to check) it turns out there are several layers of validation.
> IMHO, the whole account number system is ridiculous. There ought to be a
> checksum, so that getting one digit wrong produces an invalid account
> number.
It's actually quite hard to get the wrong sort code/account number by typo
http://www.sortcodes.co.uk/
Mark Goodge
Feb 8, 2015, 12:43:51 PM2/8/15
to
On Sun, 8 Feb 2015 08:00:53 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
Well, yes, if it's gone into a paperless savings account it could genuinely
be some considerable time before the inadvertant recipient notices.
typed:
be some considerable time before the inadvertant recipient notices.
Mark Goodge
Feb 8, 2015, 12:46:01 PM2/8/15
to
On Sun, 8 Feb 2015 10:52:48 -0000, tim..... put finger to keyboard and
That's why you need to involve a solicitor, as it may require a court order
to extract the information. Although that wouldn't necessarily be
necessary, because you could write to the recipient c/o the bank and they
will forward the letter on.
to extract the information. Although that wouldn't necessarily be
necessary, because you could write to the recipient c/o the bank and they
will forward the letter on.
Robin
Feb 8, 2015, 12:58:12 PM2/8/15
to
numbers into
a site which:
a. is not secure
b. is registered to a non-UK individual (Plamen Mihaylov, address
withheld)
c. appears to be hosted in Illinois, USA
I seem to recall one J Clarkson Esq found that exposing sort code and
account number was not risk free.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Feb 8, 2015, 2:45:58 PM2/8/15
to
"tim....." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Some banks only provide one yearly statements, as you say
>> they expect you to view online, ok for those able to
>> undertsand how to and they assume everyone has computers or
>> smart phones.
They don't expect anything. They just want to save money.
>> Some banks only provide one yearly statements, as you say
>> they expect you to view online, ok for those able to
>> undertsand how to and they assume everyone has computers or
>> smart phones.
> and the ability to remember 15 different, unique,
> cryptically-strong passwords
generate strong passwords.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Nogood Boyo
Feb 8, 2015, 5:47:08 PM2/8/15
to
"Nogood Boyo" <use...@bwllfa.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cjka8s...@mid.individual.net...
> news:KsidnV771uP5e0nJ...@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>>> "Nogood Boyo" wrote in message news:cjk1oc...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Not hypothetical...
>>> "Nogood Boyo" wrote in message news:cjk1oc...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> Completion of house purchase and collection of keys supposed to be today
>>> (Friday). Time off has been taken and arrangements have been made with
>>> various people to do various things over the weekend.
>>>
>>> Purchaser's solicitor is now saying the money has been sent to the wrong
>>> account, and can't be traced, because the vendor's solicitor has
>>> supplied incorrect details. Purchasers therefore can't have the keys. At
>>> 14:30 they're saying it's too late to get the banks to put things right
>>> today.
>>>
>>> Would it be reasonable for the purchasers to argue that the problem
>>> isn't theirs and that a further payment to the correct account should be
>>> made at once, leaving the solicitors to sort the mess out in their own
>>> time?
>>>
>>> Complaint, compensation..?
>>>
>> Serious problems all round.
>>
>> The first priority has got to be trying to recover the money. If it
>> doesn't come back from wherever it's gone, the whole situation is likely
>> to collapse into litigation.
>>
>> Both sides allege breach of contract by the other. Buyer claims he has
>> paid the purchase price according to seller's instructions and is
>> entitled to the property. Buyer serves notice to complete, making time of
>> the essence. Seller can't complete until money is received and mortgage
>> is discharged. Even if buyer and/or solicitor are at fault, they can't
>> pay the money again because they haven't got it. Buyer's mortgage lender
>> asks for its money back from buyer's solicitor because it's not received
>> the mortgage of the property and withdraws its mortgage offer. Seller
>> sues or he purchase price or rescinds the contract for breach. Bothe
>> sides complain about their solicitors. Liability probably ends up with
>> the insurer of one or both firms of solicitors, but in the meantime the
>> whole chain has collapsed.
>>
> Wow, I hadn't realised it might be that serious. I thought worst case
> might be a few days delay.
>
> Fortunately, when the purchaser started raising her voice (surprisingly
> effective, as I know from experience), some sort of undertaking was given
> (apparently) and the keys were made available. But I suppose that might
> not be the end of the matter because they presumably still haven't
> completed..?
>
Apparently the "undertaking" was an agreement by the solicitors for both
sides that the keys should be released on the basis that whoever is shown to
have been at fault will cover the cost of putting things right. I'm quite
impressed that something like that should have been put in place within an
hour or two. Is that something that lawyers have ready for use if/when
needed..?
Nogood Boyo
Message has been deleted
davi...@gmail.com
Feb 9, 2015, 3:45:07 AM2/9/15
to
On Sunday, 8 February 2015 22:47:08 UTC, Nogood Boyo wrote:
> Apparently the "undertaking" was an agreement by the solicitors for both
> sides that the keys should be released on the basis that whoever is shown to
> have been at fault will cover the cost of putting things right.
Surely that's just stating what the legal position would have been anyway?
> Apparently the "undertaking" was an agreement by the solicitors for both
> sides that the keys should be released on the basis that whoever is shown to
> have been at fault will cover the cost of putting things right.
Or an agreement to have an argument at a future date...
Rob Morley
Feb 9, 2015, 4:17:18 AM2/9/15
to
it's resolved.
Robin
Feb 9, 2015, 4:56:40 AM2/9/15
to
> Apparently the "undertaking" was an agreement by the solicitors for
> both sides that the keys should be released on the basis that whoever
> is shown to have been at fault will cover the cost of putting things
> right. I'm quite impressed that something like that should have been
> put in place within an hour or two. Is that something that lawyers
> have ready for use if/when needed..?
>
Not quite the same thing but after the great storm on 15/16 October 1987
> both sides that the keys should be released on the basis that whoever
> is shown to have been at fault will cover the cost of putting things
> right. I'm quite impressed that something like that should have been
> put in place within an hour or two. Is that something that lawyers
> have ready for use if/when needed..?
>
there was a problem for lots of those due to complete on Friday 16
October: clearing and CHAPS were suspended. Nevertheless many people
moved in as planned after some frantic phone calls between solicitors
who agreed to go ahead on the basis of payment on Monday - plus interest
of course!
Mind you, I don't know if the solicitors charges extra for the work
involved :)
Roland Perry
Feb 9, 2015, 5:11:25 AM2/9/15
to
In message <mb9rgj$hiu$1...@dont-email.me>, at 08:35:31 on Mon, 9 Feb
2015, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>account number ...
To be found on the back of virtually every utility/card bill.
--
Roland Perry
2015, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>>> It's actually quite hard to get the wrong sort code/account number by
>>> typo http://www.sortcodes.co.uk/
>>
>> That seems to invite people to enter their sort codes and account
>> numbers into a site which:
>
>Of course you could always test it with someone elses sort code and
>>> typo http://www.sortcodes.co.uk/
>>
>> That seems to invite people to enter their sort codes and account
>> numbers into a site which:
>
>account number ...
To be found on the back of virtually every utility/card bill.
--
Roland Perry
Chris R
Feb 9, 2015, 5:26:48 AM2/9/15
to
>
>
> "Robin" wrote in message news:mba07f$2f5$1...@dont-email.me...
undertakings have been relied upon as being s good as cash in the bank,
which makes all sorts of complex transactions possible without having to
wait for transfers of funds through the banking system. Personally i think
those days are ending and it will be necessary to find some other means of
achieving certainty, such as bank escrows.
The undermining of certainty in the banking system is becoming an increasing
problem, with fewer and fewer methods of payment giving anyone the assurance
that a payment is indefeasible.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Roger Hayter
Feb 9, 2015, 5:28:00 AM2/9/15
to
*now*, as opposed to having a possible future liability. I suspect this
could only happen if at least one of the solicitors involved belonged to
a very large firm that could afford to voluntarily risk such a large
sum, even thought they may not ultimately be responsible for it. It
doesn't strike me as the sort of altruistic act an insurance company
would perform.
--
Roger Hayter
The Todal
Feb 9, 2015, 5:32:47 AM2/9/15
to
binding on the law firm, and breach of an undertaking is a serious
matter justifying SRA disciplinary action.
Undertakings should not be lightly entered into. An undertaking to
retrieve the money from where it was wrongly sent and to forward it to
the correct destination is a rather unwise undertaking because it
promises something that cannot necessarily be accomplished. In such
scenarios lawyers like to use phrases like "use our best endeavours"
which deprive the undertaking of any real force.
Robin
Feb 9, 2015, 5:58:38 AM2/9/15
to
> It's both a strength and a weakness of our system that solicitors'
> undertakings have been relied upon as being s good as cash in the
> bank, which makes all sorts of complex transactions possible without
> having to wait for transfers of funds through the banking system.
> Personally i think those days are ending and it will be necessary to
> find some other means of achieving certainty, such as bank escrows.
>
> The undermining of certainty in the banking system is becoming an
> increasing problem, with fewer and fewer methods of payment giving
> anyone the assurance that a payment is indefeasible.
That's rather depressing - while also being totally persausive. I've
> undertakings have been relied upon as being s good as cash in the
> bank, which makes all sorts of complex transactions possible without
> having to wait for transfers of funds through the banking system.
> Personally i think those days are ending and it will be necessary to
> find some other means of achieving certainty, such as bank escrows.
>
> The undermining of certainty in the banking system is becoming an
> increasing problem, with fewer and fewer methods of payment giving
> anyone the assurance that a payment is indefeasible.
also wondered if having banks which are not too big to fail (putting at
risk any amount over Ł85,000 on deposit) has some nasty consequences.
May I be lazy and ask if you or others happen to know if solicitors now
have to spread client money across multiple accounts to limit the impact
of one bank failing? I suspect not as it'd add a great deal to their
work and to clients' costs (eg if completion required 5 CHAPS payments
from 5 different accounts). And I suppose requiring every conveyancer
to use a BoE account would be anti-competitive (and a breach of umpteen
EU Directives/Regulations).
Roland Perry
Feb 9, 2015, 6:08:50 AM2/9/15
to
In message <zsmdnf9i6YfUFkXJ...@brightview.co.uk>, at
10:26:09 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
clearing cheques was a significant extra degree of certainty.
On the other hand, other methods are not always as good as they are
cracked up to be. I sent a "Faster Payment" (which I understood to have
a 2hr target) to someone at lunchtime on the 24th December, and they
didn't get it until the 29th. Or perhaps that's just the effect of two
BH's and two weekend days nose to tail?
Although Fasterpayments.org says:
"Single immediate payments can be sent 24 hours a day, seven days a
week"
--
Roland Perry
10:26:09 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
>The undermining of certainty in the banking system is becoming an increasing
>problem, with fewer and fewer methods of payment giving anyone the assurance
>that a payment is indefeasible.
I thought the relatively recent "6 days and it's certain" rule for
>problem, with fewer and fewer methods of payment giving anyone the assurance
>that a payment is indefeasible.
clearing cheques was a significant extra degree of certainty.
On the other hand, other methods are not always as good as they are
cracked up to be. I sent a "Faster Payment" (which I understood to have
a 2hr target) to someone at lunchtime on the 24th December, and they
didn't get it until the 29th. Or perhaps that's just the effect of two
BH's and two weekend days nose to tail?
Although Fasterpayments.org says:
"Single immediate payments can be sent 24 hours a day, seven days a
week"
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 9, 2015, 7:07:25 AM2/9/15
to
In message <SlJtbDTS...@perry.co.uk>, at 10:08:18 on Mon, 9 Feb
2015, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
08-32-10 12001039 (HMRC)
(Yes, I know, neither a credit card nor a utility).
--
Roland Perry
2015, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>>Of course you could always test it with someone elses sort code and
>>account number ...
>
>To be found on the back of virtually every utility/card bill.
Here's one which arrived in the post this morning:
>>account number ...
>
>To be found on the back of virtually every utility/card bill.
08-32-10 12001039 (HMRC)
(Yes, I know, neither a credit card nor a utility).
--
Roland Perry
Roger Hayter
Feb 9, 2015, 7:43:08 AM2/9/15
to
(or more likely either his building society or his own vendor) must have
actually received a large sum of money? I find it hard to believe a
bank or building society would cancel a charge on property in return for
a solicitor's undertaking. Or am I too cynical?
--
Roger Hayter
Martin Bonner
Feb 9, 2015, 8:14:04 AM2/9/15
to
On Monday, 9 February 2015 12:43:08 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
> But in this case it may not be just an undertaking. Surely the seller
> (or more likely either his building society or his own vendor) must have
> actually received a large sum of money? I find it hard to believe a
> bank or building society would cancel a charge on property in return for
> a solicitor's undertaking. Or am I too cynical?
I presume that the charge has *not* been cancelled - but it will be on
> But in this case it may not be just an undertaking. Surely the seller
> (or more likely either his building society or his own vendor) must have
> actually received a large sum of money? I find it hard to believe a
> bank or building society would cancel a charge on property in return for
> a solicitor's undertaking. Or am I too cynical?
Monday.
matthew...@gmail.com
Feb 9, 2015, 8:44:03 AM2/9/15
to
situation - and followed it up late last year with an update.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/08/transfer-money-wrong-account-nationwide
The moral of the story - be very careful what you tell the banks to do!
Chris R
Feb 9, 2015, 8:44:28 AM2/9/15
to
>
>
> "Robin" wrote in message news:mba3rm$fqs$1...@dont-email.me...
banks/consumers/others to reverse transactions, so money that looks as if it
its there can disappear again. That's now true of credit card, debit card,
direct debit and cheque payments, at least for a short period, and if the
banks start to reverse transactions where someone claims error or fraud, may
also apply to faster payments and CHAPS. In complex transactions money may
be passed through many hands instantaneously by way of solicitors'
undertakings; if they become risky to give, the system will break down.
Solicitors will only give undertakings if they are certain they can comply.
If they have received funds but the transaction could potentially be
reversed, the solicitor is risking his own money by giving the undertaking.
They have also become increasingly worried, since the banking criseis, about
bank failure or breakdowns in payment systems, leading to many solicitors
offering undertakings "to instruct our bank to pay", which is no good at all
to the recipient if the bank doesn't honour the instruction.
We seem to be unique in the world using solicitors' undertakings in this
way, so there must be other ways of achieving the same thing. Probably
involving someone getting paid in proportion to the risk they are taking,
which solicitors never are.
--
Chris R
Message has been deleted
RobertL
Feb 9, 2015, 11:05:23 AM2/9/15
to
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 3:41:28 PM UTC, GB wrote:
> specified by the vendors?
I'd still be interested to know who made the mistake.
I always thought the buyer's solicitor passed the money to the vendor's solicitor (not to the vendors) who then transferred it (from their client account) to the vendor.
Robert
> On 06/02/2015 14:34, Nogood Boyo wrote:
> > Not hypothetical...
> >
> > Completion of house purchase and collection of keys supposed to be today
> > (Friday). Time off has been taken and arrangements have been made with
> > various people to do various things over the weekend.
> >
> > Purchaser's solicitor is now saying the money has been sent to the wrong
> > account, and can't be traced, because the vendor's solicitor has supplied
> > incorrect details. Purchasers therefore can't have the keys. At 14:30
> > they're saying it's too late to get the banks to put things right today.
> >
> > Would it be reasonable for the purchasers to argue that the problem isn't
> > theirs and that a further payment to the correct account should be made at
> > once, leaving the solicitors to sort the mess out in their own time?
> >
> > Complaint, compensation..?
> The purchaser's solicitors have made the payment to the account
> > Not hypothetical...
> >
> > Completion of house purchase and collection of keys supposed to be today
> > (Friday). Time off has been taken and arrangements have been made with
> > various people to do various things over the weekend.
> >
> > Purchaser's solicitor is now saying the money has been sent to the wrong
> > account, and can't be traced, because the vendor's solicitor has supplied
> > incorrect details. Purchasers therefore can't have the keys. At 14:30
> > they're saying it's too late to get the banks to put things right today.
> >
> > Would it be reasonable for the purchasers to argue that the problem isn't
> > theirs and that a further payment to the correct account should be made at
> > once, leaving the solicitors to sort the mess out in their own time?
> >
> > Complaint, compensation..?
> specified by the vendors?
I'd still be interested to know who made the mistake.
I always thought the buyer's solicitor passed the money to the vendor's solicitor (not to the vendors) who then transferred it (from their client account) to the vendor.
Robert
Roland Perry
Feb 9, 2015, 11:46:48 AM2/9/15
to
In message <9956d0a3-0ec8-4a47...@googlegroups.com>, at
08:04:39 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:
Agreed; but from the original posting it's apparently alleged that the
vendor's solicitors got their *own* account number wrong.
--
Roland Perry
08:04:39 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:
vendor's solicitors got their *own* account number wrong.
--
Roland Perry
GB
Feb 9, 2015, 12:09:06 PM2/9/15
to
On 09/02/2015 16:42, Roland Perry wrote:
> Agreed; but from the original posting it's apparently alleged that the
> vendor's solicitors got their *own* account number wrong.
This would usually be in a standard document.
> Agreed; but from the original posting it's apparently alleged that the
> vendor's solicitors got their *own* account number wrong.
Roland Perry
Feb 9, 2015, 12:20:52 PM2/9/15
to
In message <mbapei$buk$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:01 on Mon, 9 Feb 2015,
GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
>> Agreed; but from the original posting it's apparently alleged that the
>> vendor's solicitors got their *own* account number wrong.
>
>This would usually be in a standard document.
Or at the very least some standard cut-n-paste.
>> vendor's solicitors got their *own* account number wrong.
>
>This would usually be in a standard document.
--
Roland Perry
GB
Feb 9, 2015, 12:49:15 PM2/9/15
to
Nogood Boyo
Feb 9, 2015, 3:58:00 PM2/9/15
to
"Martin Bonner" <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e963b919-38ea-414b...@googlegroups.com...
to discharge any mortgage or the like. There's no chain. First time buyers
buying from pensioners who have inherited the house from pensioner
relatives.
Mark Goodge
Feb 9, 2015, 4:47:13 PM2/9/15
to
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:33:09 +0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 04:01:24 -0800, matthew.larkin wrote:
>
>> The Guardian ran an article a couple of years ago about this sort of
>> situation - and followed it up late last year with an update.
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/08/transfer-money-wrong-
>account-nationwide
>>
>> The moral of the story - be very careful what you tell the banks to do!
>
>The article does seem to follow the view that the Nationwide - despite
>being entirely blameless - should somehow mitigate it's customers
>incompetence. Speaking as a Nationwide member, I'm pleased they don't.
I'm inclined to agree. I think there are things that the banks could
possibly do to minimise the possibility of a mistake, including requiring
the account name to match as well as the account number - at the moment you
only need the short code and the number - before accepting an inbound
credit. But, if a mistake is made by a customer, I don't think the bank is
obliged to solve the problem for them.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on smartphones: http://goodge.eu/an
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
and typed:
>On Mon, 09 Feb 2015 04:01:24 -0800, matthew.larkin wrote:
>
>> The Guardian ran an article a couple of years ago about this sort of
>> situation - and followed it up late last year with an update.
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/nov/08/transfer-money-wrong-
>account-nationwide
>>
>> The moral of the story - be very careful what you tell the banks to do!
>
>being entirely blameless - should somehow mitigate it's customers
>incompetence. Speaking as a Nationwide member, I'm pleased they don't.
I'm inclined to agree. I think there are things that the banks could
possibly do to minimise the possibility of a mistake, including requiring
the account name to match as well as the account number - at the moment you
only need the short code and the number - before accepting an inbound
credit. But, if a mistake is made by a customer, I don't think the bank is
obliged to solve the problem for them.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on smartphones: http://goodge.eu/an
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
Zapp_Brannigan
Feb 9, 2015, 5:37:54 PM2/9/15
to
"Sally firmly believes Nationwide should have stepped in to help both
parties – for example, by taking on the debt and setting up a repayment
plan so Laura could pay back the society rather than the couple."
Tim Watts
Feb 10, 2015, 3:44:54 AM2/10/15
to
On 09/02/15 21:18, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> I'm inclined to agree. I think there are things that the banks could
> possibly do to minimise the possibility of a mistake, including requiring
> the account name to match as well as the account number - at the moment you
> only need the short code and the number - before accepting an inbound
> credit. But, if a mistake is made by a customer, I don't think the bank is
> obliged to solve the problem for them.
I agree - but the bank's systems are old and rusty.
>
> I'm inclined to agree. I think there are things that the banks could
> possibly do to minimise the possibility of a mistake, including requiring
> the account name to match as well as the account number - at the moment you
> only need the short code and the number - before accepting an inbound
> credit. But, if a mistake is made by a customer, I don't think the bank is
> obliged to solve the problem for them.
Case in point - I made a payment to someone the other day. In the Payee
field of my online banking there were not enough characters to even type
the payee's full surname (double barrelled but not especially long). So
I had to abbreviate it.
That's going to play havoc with any matching scheme. As will the adding
in of "Mr/Miss/etc" or their full first name vs one or more initials.
People basically write random stuff in the payee field that contains
maybe one matching element at worst.
Message has been deleted
Adam Funk
Feb 10, 2015, 8:36:53 AM2/10/15
to
Mark Goodge
Feb 10, 2015, 7:01:49 PM2/10/15
to
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:54:35 +0000, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
Indeed.
Adam Funk
Feb 11, 2015, 4:47:36 AM2/11/15
to
the topic.
Mark Goodge
Feb 11, 2015, 2:15:18 PM2/11/15
to
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 09:24:49 +0000, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
The difference, of course, is that nobody loses any money as a result of a
typo on Usenet. When I recently had to make a large payment via electronic
banking, I checked and re-checked both the destination details and the
reference number several times before clicking "confirm".
typo on Usenet. When I recently had to make a large payment via electronic
banking, I checked and re-checked both the destination details and the
reference number several times before clicking "confirm".
Flop
Feb 11, 2015, 5:57:54 PM2/11/15
to
On 11/02/2015 17:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> The difference, of course, is that nobody loses any money as a result of a
> typo on Usenet. When I recently had to make a large payment via electronic
> banking, I checked and re-checked both the destination details and the
> reference number several times before clicking "confirm".
>
> Mark
>
The difficulty is that I learn from my mistakes.
>
> The difference, of course, is that nobody loses any money as a result of a
> typo on Usenet. When I recently had to make a large payment via electronic
> banking, I checked and re-checked both the destination details and the
> reference number several times before clicking "confirm".
>
> Mark
>
Usually, how to make them again.
More frequently in literal cases where I write something which makes
sense; read it back - still makes sense; give it to someone else who
finds it ambiguous.
With numbers, a long sequence (eg CC number), the original and copy
appear to be the same. Only moving my fingers one number at a time does
a difference become obvious.
A checksum is essential - especially in cases where an error cannot be
easily righted.
--
Flop
Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children
Adam Funk
Feb 11, 2015, 5:59:21 PM2/11/15
to
sort code & account number together) would prevent most of the
errors. As usual (see also premium rate fraud), the banks (telcos)
say "there's nothing we can do" but if law put the financial burden on
them they would suddenly be able to pull a solution out of, um,
somewhere.
Mark Goodge
Feb 12, 2015, 5:24:30 AM2/12/15
to
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:13:04 +0000, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
I don't necessarily disagree. But that would, of course, require the
renumbering of existing accounts, which has downsides in itself.
A big part of the problem is the unintentional consequences of
computerising a system originally designed to be managed on paper. Where a
human would spot a possible mistake and be able to query it before
fulfilling it, a computer just blindly does what it is told to do. And if
the input contains an error then so will the output, and correcting that
mistake may be considerably harder than preventing it being made in the
first place. Another example, already the subject of a thread in this
group, is the demise of Taylor and Sons as a result of an error by
Companies House. Price tracking software used by Amazon Marketplace sellers
and the like reglarly throws up ridiculous prices, such as several thousand
for a wooden toy or a few quid for a diamond ring. All of these are a
result, not of a failure in the software, but of the software doing
precisely what it was intended to do with the input it was given.
But fixing that is not easy. Putting a human back into the loop means
greter expense and, often, delays which would be unacceptable to users. If
I make a bank transfer to pay a debt, I don't want to have to wait until it
has been approved by a member of the bank's staff every time. And getting
the software to make human-like judgements about whether an otherwise valid
transaction is actually an error requires a degree of AI that is by no
means infallible. There are plenty of horror stories of people being left
without access to funds while on holiday because their credit card
company's fraud checking algorithm has mistakenly interpreted their unusual
pattern of spending as indicative of malice. Even seemingly simple changes,
such as the addition of a check digit to account numbers, requires
coordination across a global industry and major investment in upgrading
existing software.
One possibly more simple and efective solution to the problem of money
going to the wrong account would be to require the use of IBANs rather
than, or in addition to, standard account numbers for transactions above a
certain floor limit. Alternatively, make only transfers using IBAN
irreversible in the way that all CHAPS transfers are now. Given that IBANs
include check digits, the sort code and the account code, a valid IBAN
uniquely identifies any bank account anywhere in the world without the need
for any other information, and a simple typo will invalidate it. And all
accounts, at least within the EU and US, have an IBAN. So getting people to
use them is primarily a matter of education rather than any underlying
changes.
renumbering of existing accounts, which has downsides in itself.
A big part of the problem is the unintentional consequences of
computerising a system originally designed to be managed on paper. Where a
human would spot a possible mistake and be able to query it before
fulfilling it, a computer just blindly does what it is told to do. And if
the input contains an error then so will the output, and correcting that
mistake may be considerably harder than preventing it being made in the
first place. Another example, already the subject of a thread in this
group, is the demise of Taylor and Sons as a result of an error by
Companies House. Price tracking software used by Amazon Marketplace sellers
and the like reglarly throws up ridiculous prices, such as several thousand
for a wooden toy or a few quid for a diamond ring. All of these are a
result, not of a failure in the software, but of the software doing
precisely what it was intended to do with the input it was given.
But fixing that is not easy. Putting a human back into the loop means
greter expense and, often, delays which would be unacceptable to users. If
I make a bank transfer to pay a debt, I don't want to have to wait until it
has been approved by a member of the bank's staff every time. And getting
the software to make human-like judgements about whether an otherwise valid
transaction is actually an error requires a degree of AI that is by no
means infallible. There are plenty of horror stories of people being left
without access to funds while on holiday because their credit card
company's fraud checking algorithm has mistakenly interpreted their unusual
pattern of spending as indicative of malice. Even seemingly simple changes,
such as the addition of a check digit to account numbers, requires
coordination across a global industry and major investment in upgrading
existing software.
One possibly more simple and efective solution to the problem of money
going to the wrong account would be to require the use of IBANs rather
than, or in addition to, standard account numbers for transactions above a
certain floor limit. Alternatively, make only transfers using IBAN
irreversible in the way that all CHAPS transfers are now. Given that IBANs
include check digits, the sort code and the account code, a valid IBAN
uniquely identifies any bank account anywhere in the world without the need
for any other information, and a simple typo will invalidate it. And all
accounts, at least within the EU and US, have an IBAN. So getting people to
use them is primarily a matter of education rather than any underlying
changes.
RobertL
Feb 12, 2015, 6:44:18 AM2/12/15
to
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:24:30 AM UTC, Mark Goodge wrote:
> One possibly more simple and efective solution to the problem of money
> going to the wrong account would be to require the use of IBANs rather
> than, or in addition to, standard account numbers for transactions above a
> certain floor limit. Alternatively, make only transfers using IBAN
> irreversible in the way that all CHAPS transfers are now. Given that IBANs
> include check digits, the sort code and the account code, a valid IBAN
> uniquely identifies any bank account anywhere in the world without the need
> for any other information, and a simple typo will invalidate it. And all
> accounts, at least within the EU and US, have an IBAN. So getting people to
> use them is primarily a matter of education rather than any underlying
> changes.
That is a very good solution.
> One possibly more simple and efective solution to the problem of money
> going to the wrong account would be to require the use of IBANs rather
> than, or in addition to, standard account numbers for transactions above a
> certain floor limit. Alternatively, make only transfers using IBAN
> irreversible in the way that all CHAPS transfers are now. Given that IBANs
> include check digits, the sort code and the account code, a valid IBAN
> uniquely identifies any bank account anywhere in the world without the need
> for any other information, and a simple typo will invalidate it. And all
> accounts, at least within the EU and US, have an IBAN. So getting people to
> use them is primarily a matter of education rather than any underlying
> changes.
In fact you can check any IBAN here
http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/resources_and_publications/iban_checker/
Robert
Ian Jackson
Feb 12, 2015, 7:05:51 AM2/12/15
to
In article <7jkoda58gpg2l5isc...@news.markshouse.net>,
all the published and printed account numbers one digit longer.
>A big part of the problem is the unintentional consequences of
>computerising a system originally designed to be managed on paper. Where a
>human would spot a possible mistake and be able to query it before
>fulfilling it, a computer just blindly does what it is told to do.
Computering the system is something the banks did. They should be
made to bear the consequences. I was very unimpressed to read judges
accepting the argument from the banks which, effectively was: our
computers don't check the account name on payments, so we are not
liable. Utterly circular !
>But fixing that is not easy. [...]
The point is that this is not a failure of human factors or
engineering, as much as it is a failure of regulation.
If the costs of mistakes were borne by those able to change the
system, then either:
A. "The changes required are too expensive or difficult" (as the
banks claim) which really means that the changes required are
more expensive than the losses. In which case simply putting
up with the losses is a rational decision.
B. Actually there are reasonably easy things that could be done
and which would help. In which case these things should be done.
But with the current apportionment of liability they won't.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:13:04 +0000, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:13:04 +0000, Adam Funk put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>>Sure, but a check digit on the account number (or even better, on the
>>sort code & account number together) would prevent most of the
>>errors. As usual (see also premium rate fraud), the banks (telcos)
>>say "there's nothing we can do" but if law put the financial burden on
>>them they would suddenly be able to pull a solution out of, um,
>>somewhere.
>
>I don't necessarily disagree. But that would, of course, require the
>renumbering of existing accounts, which has downsides in itself.
No, it doesn't. The check digit could be added onto the end, making
>>sort code & account number together) would prevent most of the
>>errors. As usual (see also premium rate fraud), the banks (telcos)
>>say "there's nothing we can do" but if law put the financial burden on
>>them they would suddenly be able to pull a solution out of, um,
>>somewhere.
>
>I don't necessarily disagree. But that would, of course, require the
>renumbering of existing accounts, which has downsides in itself.
all the published and printed account numbers one digit longer.
>A big part of the problem is the unintentional consequences of
>computerising a system originally designed to be managed on paper. Where a
>human would spot a possible mistake and be able to query it before
>fulfilling it, a computer just blindly does what it is told to do.
made to bear the consequences. I was very unimpressed to read judges
accepting the argument from the banks which, effectively was: our
computers don't check the account name on payments, so we are not
liable. Utterly circular !
>But fixing that is not easy. [...]
The point is that this is not a failure of human factors or
engineering, as much as it is a failure of regulation.
If the costs of mistakes were borne by those able to change the
system, then either:
A. "The changes required are too expensive or difficult" (as the
banks claim) which really means that the changes required are
more expensive than the losses. In which case simply putting
up with the losses is a rational decision.
B. Actually there are reasonably easy things that could be done
and which would help. In which case these things should be done.
But with the current apportionment of liability they won't.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
Roland Perry
Feb 12, 2015, 7:27:24 AM2/12/15
to
In message <7jkoda58gpg2l5isc...@news.markshouse.net>, at
08:00:52 on Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
"United Airlines has said it will void all tickets bought during
a computer glitch which saw first class London-New York flights
sell for just £50.
The currency glitch, discovered yesterday, meant that by
registering as a customer in Denmark, the flights from Heathrow
to Newark could be bought for 491 Danish krone - the equivalent
of £50.
The airline issued a statement last night blaming the issue on a
'third-party error'.
Meanwhile, the thing about items for sale at ridiculously high prices is
normally a placeholder for "out of stock", which the vendor finds it
more useful/efficient than de-listing something and re-listing when
stock is replenished. Presumably the platform wasn't designed to
quarantine listings with zero stock levels.
In the UK train fare database there are many fares at 10p, which is a
placeholder for "Don't sell this". Whether the 10p fare is exposed to
the customer is again a decision for the sales platform.
--
Roland Perry
08:00:52 on Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>Price tracking software used by Amazon Marketplace sellers
>and the like reglarly throws up ridiculous prices, such as several thousand
>for a wooden toy or a few quid for a diamond ring. All of these are a
>result, not of a failure in the software, but of the software doing
>precisely what it was intended to do with the input it was given.
In the news today:
>and the like reglarly throws up ridiculous prices, such as several thousand
>for a wooden toy or a few quid for a diamond ring. All of these are a
>result, not of a failure in the software, but of the software doing
>precisely what it was intended to do with the input it was given.
"United Airlines has said it will void all tickets bought during
a computer glitch which saw first class London-New York flights
sell for just £50.
The currency glitch, discovered yesterday, meant that by
registering as a customer in Denmark, the flights from Heathrow
to Newark could be bought for 491 Danish krone - the equivalent
of £50.
The airline issued a statement last night blaming the issue on a
'third-party error'.
Meanwhile, the thing about items for sale at ridiculously high prices is
normally a placeholder for "out of stock", which the vendor finds it
more useful/efficient than de-listing something and re-listing when
stock is replenished. Presumably the platform wasn't designed to
quarantine listings with zero stock levels.
In the UK train fare database there are many fares at 10p, which is a
placeholder for "Don't sell this". Whether the 10p fare is exposed to
the customer is again a decision for the sales platform.
--
Roland Perry
Rob Morley
Feb 12, 2015, 8:23:26 AM2/12/15
to
On 12 Feb 2015 11:55:02 +0000 (GMT)
ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote:
> In article <7jkoda58gpg2l5isc...@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >I don't necessarily disagree. But that would, of course, require the
> >renumbering of existing accounts, which has downsides in itself.
>
> No, it doesn't. The check digit could be added onto the end, making
> all the published and printed account numbers one digit longer.
>
How do you add a digit without changing the number?
> In article <7jkoda58gpg2l5isc...@news.markshouse.net>,
> Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >I don't necessarily disagree. But that would, of course, require the
> >renumbering of existing accounts, which has downsides in itself.
>
> No, it doesn't. The check digit could be added onto the end, making
> all the published and printed account numbers one digit longer.
>
Adam Funk
Feb 12, 2015, 8:45:21 AM2/12/15
to
On 2015-02-12, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <7jkoda58gpg2l5isc...@news.markshouse.net>, at
> 08:00:52 on Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>Price tracking software used by Amazon Marketplace sellers
>>and the like reglarly throws up ridiculous prices, such as several thousand
>>for a wooden toy or a few quid for a diamond ring. All of these are a
>>result, not of a failure in the software, but of the software doing
>>precisely what it was intended to do with the input it was given.
>
> In the news today:
>
> "United Airlines has said it will void all tickets bought during
> a computer glitch which saw first class London-New York flights
> sell for just £50.
>
> The currency glitch, discovered yesterday, meant that by
> registering as a customer in Denmark, the flights from Heathrow
> to Newark could be bought for 491 Danish krone - the equivalent
> of £50.
>
> The airline issued a statement last night blaming the issue on a
> 'third-party error'.
I don't think airlines should be allowed to get away with that. They
> In message <7jkoda58gpg2l5isc...@news.markshouse.net>, at
> 08:00:52 on Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>Price tracking software used by Amazon Marketplace sellers
>>and the like reglarly throws up ridiculous prices, such as several thousand
>>for a wooden toy or a few quid for a diamond ring. All of these are a
>>result, not of a failure in the software, but of the software doing
>>precisely what it was intended to do with the input it was given.
>
> In the news today:
>
> "United Airlines has said it will void all tickets bought during
> a computer glitch which saw first class London-New York flights
> sell for just £50.
>
> The currency glitch, discovered yesterday, meant that by
> registering as a customer in Denmark, the flights from Heathrow
> to Newark could be bought for 491 Danish krone - the equivalent
> of £50.
>
> The airline issued a statement last night blaming the issue on a
> 'third-party error'.
decided to put automatic pricing in place in order to try to stick the
customers for as much as possible, so they should have to take the hit
when it works the other way.
> Meanwhile, the thing about items for sale at ridiculously high prices is
> normally a placeholder for "out of stock", which the vendor finds it
> more useful/efficient than de-listing something and re-listing when
> stock is replenished. Presumably the platform wasn't designed to
> quarantine listings with zero stock levels.
>
> In the UK train fare database there are many fares at 10p, which is a
> placeholder for "Don't sell this". Whether the 10p fare is exposed to
> the customer is again a decision for the sales platform.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages