Recession Risk As Britain Reels From...
News4 mins ago
Accidental Payment into my bank account.
24 Answers
My Credit card company has made a payment of �1500 into my bank account in error. There is no transaction on the account for this payment.
They now want the money back: where do I stand legally?
They now want the money back: where do I stand legally?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andrew1707. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
a few years ago an employment agency paid me �150 in error. they realised their mistake and asked for it back. i told them i had spent it cos i didnt realise and didnt have it to pay them back. they sold the debt to a collection agency who i promised �5 a month to. i never made a payment and i heard no more about it. i know the amount is in a different league and i think i was lucky. ... you could try telling them you no longer have it and see what happens.
It is possible in law that a recipient of money paid to them in error could keep the money. But the recipient would have to show that the payer was reckless. That is to say, they would have to show that they informed the credit card company, bank, etc, on several occasions, that they had made a mistake. If the payer insisted it was not a mistake but then later realised that in fact they had made a payment in error, they may not be able to claim it back.
I know of no such cases as yet, but I did read some Unjustified Enrichment cases from Scotland where such comments were made in obiter (i.e. the judge says he would have decided in such a way if X or Y had happened). So in theory it is possible, but unlikely.
So you'll have to pay the money back Andrew, but don't be out of pocket for it - say by paying any interest on the amount repayable. You are not entitled to profit from their mistake, but neither is the credit card company who made the error.
I know of no such cases as yet, but I did read some Unjustified Enrichment cases from Scotland where such comments were made in obiter (i.e. the judge says he would have decided in such a way if X or Y had happened). So in theory it is possible, but unlikely.
So you'll have to pay the money back Andrew, but don't be out of pocket for it - say by paying any interest on the amount repayable. You are not entitled to profit from their mistake, but neither is the credit card company who made the error.
If you can show that you accepted the money in good faith and have now spent it, they will find it difficult to get it back. they will not want to take you to court due to the bad publicity and costs involved. Morally, it is their money and you should pay it back, however practically, the longer you you delay the more likely they are to give up. Depends on how hard you are prepared to make a stand.
What the creditor is morally entitled to is irrelevant. We are dealing with a legal problem not morality.
C has transferred money into A's account in error. A can possibly keep the money but must show that C was reckless. In the event that A fails to do so, C is entitled to be repaid every single penny they paid A in error - but only that. A will not pay anything to C for the costs incurred of informing A of their error. Nor can C profit from their error by charging any interest on the amount. The outcome must be equitable.
Someone, somewhere, has made a deliberate act to transfer money into A's account. It may be a different Mr A from the Mr A that should have received the money, nonetheless, a deliberate act has occurred. Someone made a mistake.
If A gives C the opportunity to correct that mistake (probably more than two chances will be required), and C fails to accept they made an error, a court may decide that A is entitled to keep the money.
Trust me. I researched this last year when a colleague was given �XX,XXX twice (when only one loan payment should have been made). He notified them several times (by phone, unfortunately). He has agreed to repay the second amount back, but at zero interest over 25 years. The case law in Scotland strongly suggested that if the error is unilateral, and the recipient informs the payer of the error (more than twice), then the payer's recklessness in compounding their original error may cause them to lose their money. Personally, I think the bank got off lightly, and I would have taken my chances in court.
C has transferred money into A's account in error. A can possibly keep the money but must show that C was reckless. In the event that A fails to do so, C is entitled to be repaid every single penny they paid A in error - but only that. A will not pay anything to C for the costs incurred of informing A of their error. Nor can C profit from their error by charging any interest on the amount. The outcome must be equitable.
Someone, somewhere, has made a deliberate act to transfer money into A's account. It may be a different Mr A from the Mr A that should have received the money, nonetheless, a deliberate act has occurred. Someone made a mistake.
If A gives C the opportunity to correct that mistake (probably more than two chances will be required), and C fails to accept they made an error, a court may decide that A is entitled to keep the money.
Trust me. I researched this last year when a colleague was given �XX,XXX twice (when only one loan payment should have been made). He notified them several times (by phone, unfortunately). He has agreed to repay the second amount back, but at zero interest over 25 years. The case law in Scotland strongly suggested that if the error is unilateral, and the recipient informs the payer of the error (more than twice), then the payer's recklessness in compounding their original error may cause them to lose their money. Personally, I think the bank got off lightly, and I would have taken my chances in court.
They are entitled to the money.Mandimoo's proposal , which seems to suggest that you lie about your still having any of the money is a) possibly a crime under the Theft Acts (because it's then attempting by deception to dishonestly obtain the deferment of a debt due ) and b) not any good if you want to obtain credit in future. The latter is significant because the creditor and the debt collection agency keep records which may be used by credit reference agencies . The action amount to making either non-payment or a settlement on terms and would affect your credit rating .
Stu Dent may be right if you are in Scotland , the case is under Scots law (Scots law and English law differ in many areas and Scottish cases are commonly not , therefore, binding on English courts) and the facts were all in your favour to the extent Stu Dent describes . In England, no chance! In England anyone's best hope would be that the Court, or the creditor, would be sympathetic about the terms on which the debtor repaid.
I take issue with it being solely a legal consideration. A civilised society depends upon the morality of its people. The law is there first to clarify and later to deal with those who break the rules.
This instance needs no clarification. It is a mistake and should be corrected without requiring the law to intervene.
Anything else includes greed, dishonesty and a desire to get something for nothing. One small event, but nevertheless it cheapens the society we live in.
I am no admirer of Credit Card Companies, but they have my vote here.
This instance needs no clarification. It is a mistake and should be corrected without requiring the law to intervene.
Anything else includes greed, dishonesty and a desire to get something for nothing. One small event, but nevertheless it cheapens the society we live in.
I am no admirer of Credit Card Companies, but they have my vote here.
Theft has not taken place. Andrew did not appropriate the money nor did he intend to, nor did he do anything to fraudulently acquire the money by inducing the error. Neither did mandimoo or my colleague.
Customers of banks make errors every day and they are heavily punished for doing so. If they acted fairly towards such customers who go a few pounds overdrawn I'd maybe have a bit more sympathy for them when they then make an error.
Customers of banks make errors every day and they are heavily punished for doing so. If they acted fairly towards such customers who go a few pounds overdrawn I'd maybe have a bit more sympathy for them when they then make an error.
I know what you're saying, Matydalover. In this case I agree that the money should be repaid. But what about Mandimoo? If he genuinely didn't realise that the error had been made it may have meant that he had to face hardship paying back the money - like the millions who, over a lengthy period of time, were overpaid family credit. Morally that's wrong. Big organisations such as banks and governments can afford to take the hit for their errors.
In the UK, if anyone is hard-pressed to repay �150 that is a failure of the system - given the huge amounts that are squandered all around us.
My own local council pays its chief around 200 grand a year. In that case, there should be no local people in desperate need of �150. But there are. Too many. The immorality is the council chief's in accepting an obscene amount while others face prosecution for non-payment of council taxes.
But, the example we were discussing is clear - pay it back. For a genuine victim of the system, it is also clear - tell the system to f/off. I'd support any impoverished nation with a huge bank debt to stop paying.
No, I am not a socialist - Margaret Thatcher took a stand against incompetence, greed and immorality. There's a difference between earning and being paid.
.... I'll cool down soon, it's nearly going home time.
My own local council pays its chief around 200 grand a year. In that case, there should be no local people in desperate need of �150. But there are. Too many. The immorality is the council chief's in accepting an obscene amount while others face prosecution for non-payment of council taxes.
But, the example we were discussing is clear - pay it back. For a genuine victim of the system, it is also clear - tell the system to f/off. I'd support any impoverished nation with a huge bank debt to stop paying.
No, I am not a socialist - Margaret Thatcher took a stand against incompetence, greed and immorality. There's a difference between earning and being paid.
.... I'll cool down soon, it's nearly going home time.
If you mean that Margaret Thatcher stood for greed, incompetence and immorality I heartilly agree. I would be wary of mentioning that name in any thread that has Scots contributers. She raped the Scottish people and everything this country stands for over many years and deserves to die in hellish pain and torture for the rest of her days.
