"I lost £193,000 but the bank offered me £25 in compensation"

[chomalungma]

www.theguardian.com/money/2019/dec/07/i-lost-my-193000-inheritance-with-one-wrong-digit-on-my-sort-code

I don't even know where to start with this.
A solicitor was sending an inheritance to a client. The client gave the right details, but the wrong sort code.

The bank transferred the money. The mistake was realised but the bank was unable to get the money back and the person who got it started spreading it around and refused to refund it,

Turns out that one of the solutions is to ensure that the name matches the account as well. This is all to do with bank transfer fraud.
This won't happen until March next year.

In the meantime, he went to court to force the bank to reveal the name of the customer. Barclays fought it - but eventually they had to. He did eventually get the money from the customer via the court.

The bank refused to pay the legal fees for what the client had to do. But when contacted by the Guardian, they did. All £46,000 of them.

It's too easy to make transfer errors - even if you check carefully. Banks should check carefully to ensure that the bank account is the same name as expected and there should be a system if money is put in the wrong account and the bank knows there's been an error.

When i transfer money to a new recipient (much smaller amounts than £193k) I send £1 first, once they confirm receipt I send the rest.

Yes I do that too for transfers, just didn't think to do it for a standing order. Definitely learnt my lesson though!

So the recipient is now in the news saying that he DID try to return the money. That is, after he spent a fair bit in the space of four days then put the rest in premium bonds.

Ay, of course you did. Of course you did.

Not quite on the same scale but many years ago now, my aunt was sent the wrong cheque book. She had a fairly common surname and was sent the cheque book belonging to another Mrs J Bloggs who had an account at the same branch. Obviously the account number was wrong but she didn't notice. It was in the days before cash machines and when you only got a bank statement monthly in the post so she had used quite a lot of the cheques before the error came to light. Naturally she was happy to reimburse the other Mrs Bloggs, but the bank were apparently quite nasty about it and tried to say she was responsible for fees incurred because the other Mrs Bloggs was overdrawn as a result of my aunt's spending. They said it was her fault for not checking that the account number was correct. Technically I suppose she should have, but seriously, if you requested a new cheque book and one came to your correct address, with your correct name on it, would it occur to you that it might not be yours? They backed down in the end I believe, and didn't charge any fees but both Mrs Bloggs' were very unimpressed. So this is not just a problem of the digital age!

I'm buying a house and my solicitors have sent me a letter telling me that when I transfer money to them for the sale, I should do it face to face in the office or by telephone to avoid someone scamming me, and they then go on to say, in quite insultingly large letters, that it's not their fault if I get defrauded or pay the wrong person

Why is it insulting? It's a real danger that people are scammed like this. We almost changed our details due to something similar at work, luckily there was an authorisation path and we didnt.

www.datamills.co.uk/2018/12/beware-the-change-of-banking-details-email-scam/

I found it insulting because I never questioned that it would be my fault if I made a payment to someone without checking first. Especially if you are talking over a hundred thousand pounds. I will be going into their offices and making the payment in person whilst talking to them.

I certainly wouldn't be blaming someone else.

I certainly wouldn't be blaming someone else

Unless you are their only client or they have wtitten a bespoke letter just for you it's not a personal slight on your intelligence.

Better they warn everyone to save on person from fraud surely, why would you be insulted by that?

I was being a little flippant in my post. Letters, however large, really can't be insulting, you know.

The maximum you can buy in premium bonds is £50,000 so I think he’s not quite telling the truth