To be fair - the error was on the part of the customer who accidentally gave the wrong sort code.
The bank could not it appears (legally)just move the money back out of the wrong account without the account-holder's permission (which was refused).
Nor could the back (legally) reveal the wrong account holder's name.
This is why it's had to go through the court.
What I can't understand is
-
why this huge legal feel could not be claimed back from the person who attempted to keep the money, knowing it wasn't theirs,
-
why that person isn't being prosecuted for theft (or perhaps they are, and that is why their name hasn't been revealed - but there again, it could be a legal confidentiality thing.
Many, many years ago I remember a case where the following happened:
-
Bank transferred huge sum of money (hundreds of thousands) into woman's bank account
-
woman realised immediately she saw it and contacted bank - this isn't my money
-
bank said yes it is
-
woman said - no it isn't, you need to find who it belongs to and give it back to them
-
bank said - we don't make mistakes, you stupid woman - this is your money
The above exchange took place several times over a period of months . The bank insisted they were right and refused to take the money back. The woman thought - "Fair enough, then" and spent it. She bought the sort of things you would buy if you came into a ridiculously large same of money - a new house that you couldn't otherwise afford, furniture to fill it, a couple of holidays etc. Then someone suddenly noticed that they were Lots of Money short, contacted the bank and the bank decided they wanted it back from the woman. All of it. She refused because she didn't have it. The bank took her to court. They lost.
The judge said that the woman had made every attempt to give the money back - she was not a dishonest person. She had tried several times (and thank heavens, had kept the documentation - this was before most people used e-mail); she had repeatedly told them she had no right to the money, and they insisted that it was hers and made no attempt to find the real accountholder.
The only way she could make any reparations would have been by selling the home she and her family now lived in, and then remain in debt to the bank until the rest was paid off. She could only escape that debt by declaring herself bankrupt (which, of course, meant having any personal assets seized as partial debt payment). The judge refused to allow the bank to force that to happen.
He pointed out that had she just kept quiet and spent the money, his decision would have been very different, but she had done her best to alert the bank to their error, and the bank had insisted that it wasn't their mistake. It was the bank's mistake, and they had to pay for it. They certainly ended up paying the customer they'd robbed (there was no onus on this customer to check that money had gone into their account - they were careless, but not unreasonable to expect the bank to look after the account because that was the bank's job). I can't remember what happened about any legal fees the woman incurred, but I imagine they were awarded against the bank.
I remember this because it gave me a warm, rosy glow.