who the fark gets 26,000 for free in an account and doesn't alert the authorities?

Jon iz teh kewl: who the fark gets 26,000 for free in an account and doesn't alert the authorities?

Well, it becomes ours.

She didn't make sure it was ok after the first month?

I could understand losing track of a few hundred pounds/dollars here and there. But your entire salary for two farking years? Must be nice to have that much go missing and not notice it.

(Yeah, I know that £1000/month isn't a grand fortune, but it's a LOT of money if that's all you earn.)

If it's possible for someone to not notice that kind of money not going into their account, then it's also possible that someone didn't notice all of that money going into their account either.

However, beings that it was spent and didn't just accumulate in said wrong account, then I'm kinda doubting it.

Someone's a real jerk, and laughed all the way to the ATM.

Is this the thread where everyone mocks this woman's intelligence due to her making a simple mistake?

Of course it is.

well then the govt. should just mint a £26,000 commermative silver coin made out $1 of actual silver

So if the bank accidentally put $100000 in her account she wouldnt have to pay it back, right?

/banks are thieves

I guarantee you if it were the bank that was out 26K, they'd find a way to get it back from the accidental recipient, even if it meant sending someone over to break kneecaps or force them to watch Absolutely Fabulous.

That said, I fail to see how any of this is the bank's fault. Sure, they should give her a break about one transfer - which they did - but two frakking years? No. Lots of things are the bank's fault, but this ain't one of 'em.

for one, how could you not notice that mistake after the first month?

for two, wouldn't the recipient rather repay the money with interest than go to prison? seems like a pretty clear choice to me---stealing 26k sterling likely earns a few years in the slammer...

austin_millbarge: So if the bank accidentally put $100000 in her account she wouldnt have to pay it back, right?

/banks are thieves

not if you take that money and buy $100,000 in gold.  see they can't take gold away

Of course a bank just can't hand over some ones details because you made a mistake, it's called the Data Protection Act and enforces the basic right of privacy. If you want to find out you need to persuade a judge that you have a legal right to the private information so you can then start to recover your money.

You made the mistake, its up to you to sort it out.

/would be nice not to notice £1,000 a month missing from my account.

nucal: She didn't make sure it was ok after the first month?

This.

Clearly this woman is an idiot.  So is her husband for that matter.
But at the same time, they also must have SO MUCH disposable income that they didn't even bother to check on that account for over 2 years.  So they are in good shape either way.

If there is a wider lesson in Sally's story, it is not to agree to paperless statements.

Or to check out your accounts online and verify your biggest transactions (debit or credit).

One of my coworkers puts all of her paychecks into savings/investment/whatever and doesn't touch any of it. They live off her husband's salary and are putting away a ton of money, that's about the only situation I can think where it wouldn't be monitored...but my coworker watches her investments like a hawk, so I dunno.

LordOfThePings: If there is a wider lesson in Sally's story, it is not to agree to paperless statements.

Or to check out your accounts online and verify your biggest transactions (debit or credit).

Yeah, that. The wife and I sit down at least once per week and check all our accounts together to confirm everything is right.

Take some responsibility for yourself.

FTFA: "We have been reluctant to tell anyone we know about the error, so have dwelled heavily on it ourselves. It leaves a sick feeling in my stomach to think someone has been spending all that hard-earned money and I've been going to work - running my own hairdresser's business - when I could have been enjoying a little more time at home with my two sons."

How the frack do you pay yourself, and not notice that you didn't get paid?  For 2 years.  Smells fishier than the soup I had as part of the Lunar New Years feast

I've read enough Fark to know things can get Prisony if you spend the money, so the first few months, I'd ignore it. But after the first year, I think I'd go all Spendy McSpenderson assuming there's no way human error could be responsible and it was some tech glitch no bank software could detect after 4 fiscal qtrs. After all, the recipient had no idea it was a woman's salary, it was just deposits from a mystery account.

irgunner: I've read enough Fark to know things can get Prisony if you spend the money, so the first few months, I'd ignore it. But after the first year, I think I'd go all Spendy McSpenderson assuming there's no way human error could be responsible and it was some tech glitch no bank software could detect after 4 fiscal qtrs. After all, the recipient had no idea it was a woman's salary, it was just deposits from a mystery account.

don't you have enough money already??

i mean what more could you POSSIBLY want

It kind of makes sense, it's not the banks fault you screwed up and they shouldn't have to pay you. What she has to do is sue the person and then she'll have a name. Sure it sucks you gotta do that but you're an idiot for not checking your statements.

durbnpoisn: nucal: She didn't make sure it was ok after the first month?

This.

Clearly this woman is an idiot.  So is her husband for that matter.
But at the same time, they also must have SO MUCH disposable income that they didn't even bother to check on that account for over 2 years.  So they are in good shape either way.

Actually they overdrew the account and had to cut back but still never realised what was going on. Sounds like they are just idiots.

It occurs to me that if you get an extra 12K quid a year and don't declare it on your tax returns, SOMEone in London is going to track you down and exile you to Wales or make you perform on Britain's Got Talent (or whatever they do in the UK to hardened tax criminals). Assuming of course that UK tax laws are similar to the US's. Maybe this "Sally" person should have a chat with someone at HMRC.

So, some random person is taking this woman's money and simply because s/he refuses to pay it back, the bank simply says "There's nothing we can do.  And we can't tell you who took your money."

In a way, isn't the bank aiding and abetting this theft?  Or at least an accessory?

YodaBlues: Every employer I've ever had requires a voided check to setup direct deposit to verify account information.

Our employees have the ability to change their direct deposit information through an employee website. If they opt to do it that way instead of bringing us a paper form and banking information, whatever they enter will be accepted as valid. It's on them if it's incorrect.

LordOfThePings: If there is a wider lesson in Sally's story, it is not to agree to paperless statements.

Or to check out your accounts online and verify your biggest transactions (debit or credit).

This.

Even if I don't make a transaction, I still check my online statement regularly.

Addicted: So, some random person is taking this woman's money and simply because s/he refuses to pay it back, the bank simply says "There's nothing we can do.  And we can't tell you who took your money."

In a way, isn't the bank aiding and abetting this theft?  Or at least an accessory?

No, the bank is only refusing to do so until they get a court order.  Which should be a fairly simple thing for the woman to get if she pursues legal action.

"And now, to her horror, Sally is discovering she has almost no chance of getting back a penny of the £26,650 transferred in error."

Of course she has a chance of getting back a penny of it, and I would guess a decent chance of (eventually) getting back the bulk of it. But "many tears and numerous subsequent calls and letters" won't do it. The bank isn't going to act as her solicitor (or the police) regardless of how much she cries at them.

/the thief is a dumbass for refusing to come to some arrangement before it goes further

ElBarto79: It kind of makes sense, it's not the banks fault you screwed up and they shouldn't have to pay you.

It kind of is the bank's fault.  Their software asked for the name on the account.  It should have been confirming that the number and name matched, just as a teller would.  Instead, it asked for the name then threw the data away.

sendtodave: Is this the thread where everyone mocks this woman's intelligence due to her making a simple mistake?

Of course it is.

We're not mocking her for mixing up the numbers, everyone has done that before. We're finding it amazing that she didn't notice that she wasn't getting her salary deposited for two years. She or her husband never balanced a checkbook or logged into an account online in all that time? I still feel bad for her, but it's harder to fix mistakes like that if you let it go on for so long.

If this were a bank error, the bank would probably end up paying back the balance, however it is not the bank's place to question where their client's send their money, only to be sure the money is transferred.  The bank only did as they were requested to do.  I'm assuming that the bank has already notified the recipient of the funds and warned them of some of the possible legal scenarios that  may occur should they choose not to pay back the rightful owner of that money.

That being said, I wouldn't say the woman is totally at fault for not being able to keep her finances straight.  I'm not sure whether its a home business or a proper commercial business that she runs, but either way, she is probably nickle and diming herself keeping up with business expenses, trying to run a household with kids in it, and for the most part, not seeing too many reasons to believe her money is being syphoned off 1000 pounds a month as, for the most part, the bills are getting paid.  It sounds like they have a very active account and she has relinquished her financial responsibilities into the "capable" hands of her husband, which. in many households is not all that unusual.  Her biggest mistake here would be not learning how to get on line and correctly read an on line statement.

Things she could do better:
1  separate her business and home expenses with separate accounts
2  learn how to get into her on line account to verify monies have been debited and credited
3  keep a separate personal account from the husband that she can manage better
4  keep a budget plan current so anomalies in payments can be better detected
5  keep all receipts and learn to post them as you go along
6  hire a book keeper if the finances are that crazy
7  hire a lawyer (or at least consult with one) about getting your money back

MythDragon: This *would* be a good scam. Have your money go to a friend's account for two years while you spend it. Suddenly 'discover' you don't have your money, and demand the bank pay you back.

And yeah, if this was the bank's money, you best be sure they'd be taking back by any means.

When I owned a business, I had the bank decide to debit my account on a loan that was two days overdue (when I got billed through the mail), right before payday, leaving me scrambling to get my people paid on time. In fact, BB&T was quite fond of just yanking money out of your account for any credit card or loan bills you had with them. Need to buy equipment to finish a job to get the money to pay them, and everyone else? Too bad, they'll just yank the money, and tell you to go fark yourself. Better find another way to buy equipment to finish the job so you can pay them next month.

Wow- it almost sounds like that evil BB&T is making you pay off your current obligations before allowing you to incur new ones.  The point of this being is that you don't get a short term interest free loan at their expense. That being said, they are- like most banks-- pretty evil about stacking your bills so that as you approach your limit, they debit the largest checks first often leaving you with a bunch of little checks that you end up with overdraft penalties on.

LordOfThePings: If there is a wider lesson in Sally's story, it is not to agree to paperless statements.

Or to check out your accounts online and verify your biggest transactions (debit or credit).

Paperless records seem kind of bullshiat to me. My bank's online site only shows six months worth of transactions, but I'm pretty sure that a bank needs to keep financial records for a hell of a lot longer than six months. It is such a spurious limit that I'd almost want to go back to paper records just out of spite.

/ Yes, I understand that data storage isn't free, particularly when you're a major, national (or multi-national) business with millions of customers and having what is a fair chance of being literally tons of data to store. I should think a financial institution would need to keep records of its transactions for longer than six months. Hell, I, as a private citizen, am expected to keep records for at least six years, on the chance the government decides to audit me. I'm pretty sure I can't just say "Oh yeah, in Aug 2011 I made X and spent Y. Oh, you need details? Well, data storage is expensive! I don't have that information anymore."

/ Yes, I also understand that most banks let you download a file that can be read by most financial management programs to make such personal recordkeeping easier. It's still ridiculous for the bank's site to lack that information, because they need to keep that information anyway.

austin_millbarge: So if the bank accidentally put $100000 in her account she wouldnt have to pay it back, right?

It took eight posts for someone to mention this little fact?

Niveras: LordOfThePings: If there is a wider lesson in Sally's story, it is not to agree to paperless statements.

Or to check out your accounts online and verify your biggest transactions (debit or credit).

Paperless records seem kind of bullshiat to me. My bank's online site only shows six months worth of transactions, but I'm pretty sure that a bank needs to keep financial records for a hell of a lot longer than six months. It is such a spurious limit that I'd almost want to go back to paper records just out of spite.

/ Yes, I understand that data storage isn't free, particularly when you're a major, national (or multi-national) business with millions of customers and having what is a fair chance of being literally tons of data to store. I should think a financial institution would need to keep records of its transactions for longer than six months. Hell, I, as a private citizen, am expected to keep records for at least six years, on the chance the government decides to audit me. I'm pretty sure I can't just say "Oh yeah, in Aug 2011 I made X and spent Y. Oh, you need details? Well, data storage is expensive! I don't have that information anymore."

/ Yes, I also understand that most banks let you download a file that can be read by most financial management programs to make such personal recordkeeping easier. It's still ridiculous for the bank's site to lack that information, because they need to keep that information anyway.

You can go back as far as you want- for a fee.  The secret to avoid these charges would be taking the time monthly, bi-monthly, semi-annually or whatever, to download your statement -hardcopy at minimum-- and keep it in a secure area.

I call BS. She gambled it away did something else with it and doesn't want her husband to find out.

BullBearMS: austin_millbarge: So if the bank accidentally put $100000 in her account she wouldnt have to pay it back, right?

It took eight posts for someone to mention this little fact?

If the bank accidentally put money into her account, and she withdrew it and refused to repay it, would the bank (a) cry and write ineffectual letters about it, (b) complain to the newspaper, or (c) send lawyers/cops after her?

Been here and done that as a payroll administrator.

How did this go on this long?  Most people would miss it after the second transaction.

BullBearMS: austin_millbarge: So if the bank accidentally put $100000 in her account she wouldnt have to pay it back, right?

It took eight posts for someone to mention this little fact?

If it were a bank error, the bank would correct the error and then could take it all back as they know who- and deal directly-- with the recipients of the incorrectly routed money.  Not everybody has that kind of cheese so I imagine arrangements for payment would have to be made.

If the mistake were made on the part of the party sending the funds, then it would be up to that party to correct the error and seek repayment.  The bank's job is not to decipher your wishes, only to carry them out.  If it takes you two years to discover the mistake, so be it.  At this point, the bank's only responsibility would be to stop payment to the incorrect recipient, notify them of the error, and then resume payment to the corrected account.

It is up to the payer to reclaim the lost funds from the recipient of the of the ill-gotten gains.  The catch 22 on this is that the bank, in order to retain confidentiality, does not reveal client's names or other personal information, nor are they required to act upon the claim.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: BullBearMS: austin_millbarge: So if the bank accidentally put $100000 in her account she wouldnt have to pay it back, right?

It took eight posts for someone to mention this little fact?

If the bank accidentally put money into her account, and she withdrew it and refused to repay it, would the bank (a) cry and write ineffectual letters about it, (b) complain to the newspaper, or (c) send lawyers/cops after her?

If she had the recipient's name, she could aso send a lawyer after them.  The problem is that the bank does not provide personal information.  I'm sure there are ways of legally compelling the bank to share the recipient's name if the recipient had been involved in some sort of illegal activity in which the payer believed her money to be routed correctly.  But as the recipient did nothing wrong (from a legal stand point) or was not directly involved in the misrouting of the money, there will probably be very little she can do to recover her funds.

I would assume the bank, in an effort to retain their reputation and customers, would make some effort to lean on the recipient  via correspondence but probably are not obliged to do much more.

There are some surprisingly rational posts in this thread. This surprises me.

This lady allowed herself to get hosed. She was responsible for directing the funds and monitoring them and she failed on both counts. As mentioned, the bank has probably notified the recipient of the money and that is really all they have to do until a judge gets involved. It's just not their fault.

Once a court order shows up they'll just hand over the contact infos and whatever dickface collected and spent 26k of someone else's money will have to work out a payment arrangement.  Who knows, though. Maybe there's no law about spending mystery money.