If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   "Hi, I entered the wrong account number when I set up my direct deposit two years ago; can I have my £26,000 back?" "NOPE"   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 77
    More: Dumbass, bank statements, bank accounts, data protection, wire transfer  
•       •       •

9994 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2013 at 7:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-10 09:45:25 AM
Good to know the bank doesn't bother to check that the name you enter on the deposit form matches the name of the account holder.
 
2013-02-10 09:45:59 AM
Real Women Drink Akvavit: I think everyone in this story, the bank that apparently doesn't confirm information they already have on file, the woman who needs to learn to double check important digits, her husband who should check deposits as well as debits if he's going to "handle the bank account" and the spendthrift who is now seeing their questionably financed party end, needs a boot to the head, really.

Yea, there isn't anyone in the story who should be proud of their actions, but least of all the lady and her husband. You're dealing with your money, keep better track of that stuff!
 
2013-02-10 10:03:41 AM

skinink: Real Women Drink Akvavit: I think everyone in this story, the bank that apparently doesn't confirm information they already have on file, the woman who needs to learn to double check important digits, her husband who should check deposits as well as debits if he's going to "handle the bank account" and the spendthrift who is now seeing their questionably financed party end, needs a boot to the head, really.

Yea, there isn't anyone in the story who should be proud of their actions, but least of all the lady and her husband. You're dealing with your money, keep better track of that stuff!


I know I'm repeating myself, but I still can't believe they went two years without noticing there weren't deposits (or worse, not checking accounts at all). I can maybe see missing a few if things are hectic, but come on. No one is that busy for that length of time, they're just not managing it at all.
 
2013-02-10 10:34:16 AM

sendtodave: Is this the thread where everyone mocks this woman's intelligence due to her making a simple mistake not being very intelligent?

Of course it is.


FTFY
 
2013-02-10 10:47:14 AM
Oh, just lawyer up Sally, let the professionals whose job it is to take money from people handle this one.
 
2013-02-10 11:22:04 AM

Madman drummers bummers: 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.


Yeah, the bank did nothing wrong.  The clawed back the transfer that could be clawed back, they have no obligation beyond that.

Her beef is with the person who errantly received the money and wont return it.  Given the situation she's probably going to have to sue and I rather suspect they're judgment proof.
 
2013-02-10 11:26:11 AM

Loren: Madman drummers bummers: 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.

Yeah, the bank did nothing wrong.  The clawed back the transfer that could be clawed back, they have no obligation beyond that.

Her beef is with the person who errantly received the money and wont return it.  Given the situation she's probably going to have to sue and I rather suspect they're judgment proof.


I agree. This is like she put cash in an envelope and wrote the wrong address on it. The Post Office did what she told them, it's not their fault the mail went to the wrong address. Except here she has no way of finding out who ended up with her money, unless she sues.
 
2013-02-10 11:43:28 AM

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?


There are laws that protect privacy, more than likely the bank isn't legally allowed to reveal the name on the account and if they did they could be subject to criminal or civil action. It would be up to the person who made the error to go through the courts to get the info, one would hope the bank would cooperate as much as possible within the law.
 
2013-02-10 12:33:32 PM

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


I did that, and my first paycheck was directed to a wrong account number.  I was paid by hard check, and I corrected my account number in our HR software, but I was wondering if it went to some other person.

But then I got thinking.  Account numbers are so long, intentionally so, such that a mistyping of a number by one digit would be very unlikely to deposit it to another account. For instance, my misdirected paycheck was returned back to my company as being an error.
 
2013-02-10 12:33:37 PM
"But Sally had incorrectly typed in just one of the eight digits in the account number - and the money was sent to the wrong person."

I call shenanigans. It seems very unlikely that a bank account number does not end in a check-digit that makes this sort of mistake completely impossible.
 
2013-02-10 12:34:57 PM

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

Of course it is.


Oh god no. This is where we mock her for not keeping tabs for TWO FARKING YEARS! She's a dumbass, pure and simple.
 
2013-02-10 12:36:09 PM

capt.hollister: "But Sally had incorrectly typed in just one of the eight digits in the account number - and the money was sent to the wrong person."

I call shenanigans. It seems very unlikely that a bank account number does not end in a check-digit that makes this sort of mistake completely impossible.


Lol yeah, see my post immediately above yours for a csb
 
2013-02-10 01:17:11 PM
Okay, yes, the woman involved should have been checking her statements occasionally, but WTF kind of bank has account numbers without check digits? I realize that that's not foolproof, but it would prevent the vast majority of these cases from happening. A single wrong digit should cause the system to reject the entry. And why does the bank require you to provide other identifying info such as name, birthdate, etc. if they don't actually verify it? Sounds like there's a couple banks that need to bring their security measures into this century.
 
2013-02-10 01:25:18 PM
two years? if it makes it to court i'd flat out tell them that if you're that dense that you missed it for that long it's your problem not the banks or the person you were giving 1000/month to.
 
2013-02-10 02:52:34 PM

Norfolking Chance: 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.


I think I'd notice ten bucks a month missing from my account.
 
2013-02-10 03:01:29 PM

evil saltine: Good to know the bank doesn't bother to check that the name you enter on the deposit form matches the name of the account holder.


Many years ago, there was a scam that pretty much was based on this.

When you would walk into a bank to make a deposit, the bank had blank deposit slips you could fill out.  The scammers would print their own version - that had an account number built in.  Apparently the banks would use the printed account number if available, and only look at hand written account numbers if the deposit slip didn't have a pre-printed account number.

So people fill out the deposit slip, make a deposit, and the money all goes to the scammers account.  The scammers would quickly withdraw the money and make a run for it, because a day or two later, there are going to be complaints and the bank would catch on.

I may not have the details exactly right, but it went something like that.
 
2013-02-10 03:05:35 PM
www.global-air.com

The bank is out nearly $270,000 when this woman spent a mistaken deposit to her account. Think how many overdraft charges they're going to have to collect ... what... a couple of days? Oh, never mind ... (new window)
 
2013-02-10 03:31:50 PM

JuggleGeek: evil saltine: Good to know the bank doesn't bother to check that the name you enter on the deposit form matches the name of the account holder.

Many years ago, there was a scam that pretty much was based on this.

When you would walk into a bank to make a deposit, the bank had blank deposit slips you could fill out.  The scammers would print their own version - that had an account number built in.  Apparently the banks would use the printed account number if available, and only look at hand written account numbers if the deposit slip didn't have a pre-printed account number.

So people fill out the deposit slip, make a deposit, and the money all goes to the scammers account.  The scammers would quickly withdraw the money and make a run for it, because a day or two later, there are going to be complaints and the bank would catch on.

I may not have the details exactly right, but it went something like that.


http://www.snopes.com/business/bank/deposit.asp


[A] new customer picked up a hefty batch of [blank] deposit slips, but he did not fill them out. Instead, he took them to premises where a typewriter equipped to write in magnetic-ink characters was available. Using this special typewriter, he imprinted his account number in magnetic ink at the bottom of the blank deposit forms. He then returned to the bank on different occasions and added these magnetically-printed forms to the neat pile of blank deposit slips in the trays. Then he went away and waited for the jackpot

Other customers streamed into the bank and, dipping into the trays of deposit slips, innocently recorded their own deposits in the usual way ... the computer funneled the deposits of scores of the bank's customers into the new depositor's account. And by the time the customers began to complain that checks they were issuing against their deposits were bouncing, the new depositor, to whose account other depositors had miraculously added a quarter of a million dollars, had drawn out a hundred thousand of it and disappeared.


Con man Frank W. Abagnale (of Catch Me If You Can fame) claims in his memoirs that he successfully pulled off this scam.
 
2013-02-10 03:44:51 PM

clowncar on fire: 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 believe if she had a lawyer she would already have that info. The bank just won't provide it to her without being compelled, which is entirely sensible.
 
2013-02-10 03:47:40 PM

planes: [www.global-air.com image 150x200]

The bank is out nearly $270,000 when this woman spent a mistaken deposit to her account. Think how many overdraft charges they're going to have to collect ... what... a couple of days? Oh, never mind ... (new window)


The bank yanked back the amount that was still in the erroneously credited account, just like that. But they don't have access to the money that has already been withdrawn, so it is up to her to collect it for herself. Just like it would be up to them if they had made a similar error.
 
2013-02-10 06:09:01 PM

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


She didn't set up Direct Deposit -- at least to the incorrect account.  She had her paycheck deposited into her HSBC account, and setup an auto-transfer each month to move £1000 of it to a joint account with another bank.  It actually sounds like she was trying to follow good savings policies (especially considering her limited income), but neither she nor her husband noticed the money was never arriving.

Greek: Okay, yes, the woman involved should have been checking her statements occasionally, but WTF kind of bank has account numbers without check digits? I realize that that's not foolproof, but it would prevent the vast majority of these cases from happening. A single wrong digit should cause the system to reject the entry. And why does the bank require you to provide other identifying info such as name, birthdate, etc. if they don't actually verify it? Sounds like there's a couple banks that need to bring their security measures into this century.


The check digit is a good point.  Routing numbers have check digits to ensure they're correct, but I suppose it would be up to the bank to determine if they want to include a check digit in the account number.  I know I've seen accounts that definitely didn't have check digits involved.

As for asking for additional info, that's mainly used by the banks and the government when they are looking for money laundering-type transactions, or to help identify problems when customers notice.  It doesn't provide any security and there's really nothing for the banks to do about it.  The ACH system used for these types of transfers is not exactly bleeding edge technology, and  £1000 transfers aren't nearly large enough to trigger any kind of in-depth investigation by the bank or government.

That said, the receiver's statements should show the name that was entered for those deposits on their account statements (essentially just acts as a memo line unfortunately), so it would be VERY clear that they weren't the intended recipient.
 
2013-02-10 08:47:24 PM
I'd say, it would be pretty difficult and annoying to have to find all that money for the bank to have to do that. On the other hand if it was the bank that was missing the money, they'd get it back regardless.
 
2013-02-11 08:27:46 AM
If there is a wider lesson in Sally's story, it is not to agree to paperless statements.

Because someone who doesn't check an account or notice they aren't getting a paycheck for 2 years would definitely open and carefully examine their statement if ink and paper were involved.
 
2013-02-11 02:15:23 PM
FTFA: "By law, a person is not entitled to rely on another's mistake to keep money to which they were not entitled," a Nationwide spokesman says. But he adds: "The final payment transferred was recovered, but previous payments were no longer in the account. The recipient has been contacted and we have established she doesn't have the funds to repay."

At least we know the recipient of the money was a female.  Few more little tidbits of info like this and we'll have our culprit.
 
2013-02-11 10:10:11 PM
Here's another story in which I don't know who to root for.

The woman?  Yes, I know, she let her husband handle the money.  It's old-fashioned and quaint.  Yet, if I were hubby, I'd feel more cherished if my wife helpd me discover such errors.  I didn't marry Stupid for this reason.

The bank?  Aside from the whole matter of not being able to get it back because the recipient refused. there's this passage:

FTA: The fact she correctly entered her surname as the intended recipient at Nationwide, alongside the correct sort code, counted for nothing. When banks transfer money, they use only the sort code and account number - it turns out that account names are irrelevant.

I despise filling out forms.  Most times there are many forms, and about half of each duplicates half of the information asked for in the next.  The redundancy is irritating to me, yet I try to calm my nerves with the notion that redundancy serves a purpose- that when one or more of these don't match, someone will sound an alarm.  Apparently this bank collects valuable information, but does not USE it for anything meaningful.


Yeah, I don't think I can take any sides here.  Morons all around.
 
2013-02-12 10:16:32 AM

rockforever: I'd say, it would be pretty difficult and annoying to have to find all that money for the bank to have to do that. On the other hand if it was the bank that was missing the money, they'd get it back regardless.


And how, exactly, would they get it back?  Magic?  No, what they would do in order to get it back would be to hire a lawyer and turn them loose on whoever had the money.  And that's exactly what Sally is going to have to do if she want's to see any of this cash.
 
2013-02-13 08:50:10 AM

SkunkWerks: Here's another story in which I don't know who to root for.

The woman?  Yes, I know, she let her husband handle the money.  It's old-fashioned and quaint.  Yet, if I were hubby, I'd feel more cherished if my wife helpd me discover such errors.  I didn't marry Stupid for this reason.

The bank?  Aside from the whole matter of not being able to get it back because the recipient refused. there's this passage:

FTA: The fact she correctly entered her surname as the intended recipient at Nationwide, alongside the correct sort code, counted for nothing. When banks transfer money, they use only the sort code and account number - it turns out that account names are irrelevant.

I despise filling out forms.  Most times there are many forms, and about half of each duplicates half of the information asked for in the next.  The redundancy is irritating to me, yet I try to calm my nerves with the notion that redundancy serves a purpose- that when one or more of these don't match, someone will sound an alarm.  Apparently this bank collects valuable information, but does not USE it for anything meaningful.


Yeah, I don't think I can take any sides here.  Morons all around.


If you put cash in an envelope and write the correct name and address you want it to go to but put the wrong house number then it will go to the wrong house. How would the post office be liable? Or be able to get it back?
 
Displayed 27 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report