Jon iz teh kewl: who the fark gets 26,000 for free in an account and doesn't alert the authorities?
austin_millbarge: So if the bank accidentally put $100000 in her account she wouldnt have to pay it back, right?/banks are thieves
nucal: She didn't make sure it was ok after the first month?
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).
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.
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.
YodaBlues: Every employer I've ever had requires a voided check to setup direct deposit to verify account information.
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?
ElBarto79: It kind of makes sense, it's not the banks fault you screwed up and they shouldn't have to pay you.
sendtodave: Is this the thread where everyone mocks this woman's intelligence due to her making a simple mistake?Of course it is.
Madman drummers bummers: 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.
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.
BraveNewCheneyWorld: 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.
austin_millbarge: So if the bank accidentally put $100000 in her account she wouldnt have to pay it back, right?
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.
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?
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?
Trixie212: 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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 jackpotOther 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Mar 24 2017 02:43:33
Runtime: 0.356 sec (356 ms)