This arose after she complained to the Financial Services Complaints agency that the Bank had promised to “refund” her within 7 days but hadn’t done so. For a start it couldn’t “refund” her as it had not been the recipient of the mistaken payment. What it had promised was to try and get her money back, a generous gesture it was not obliged to offer, and that if it succeeded, she’d have it inside a week.
In the event the Bank had been unable to retrieve repayment from the accidental payee, thus her complaint.
The Bank had absolutely no obligation to this woman. However, it had generously tried to help by approaching the payee who’d refused to return the accidental payment. There was nothing more the Bank could do.
I imagine usually in such cases of accidental payments the intermediatory role offered by Banks works as most people on the receiving end of mistaken payments would readily return the money. Not to do so constitutes theft.
Here’s what bothers me about this. The woman freely admitted she made a mistake. However, she wants someone else to pay for it. It’s so very contemporary New Zealand. In making this token payment the Bank erred badly as it simply encourages others as half-witted as this woman to try and make someone else pay for their blunders.
Banks have always been popular whipping boys, most recently for alleged excess profits. Analysis showed that by normal criteria their profits here are not excessive. It’s time they took a tougher line and simply stuck to their depositary and lending business.
Banks act as depository for people’s money and as a financier to the public with loans. Yet some stupid people persistently demand things of them outside these roles.
Sir Bob Jones is a renowned author, columnist , property investor, and former politician, who blogs at No Punches Pulled HERE.
I imagine usually in such cases of accidental payments the intermediatory role offered by Banks works as most people on the receiving end of mistaken payments would readily return the money. Not to do so constitutes theft.
Here’s what bothers me about this. The woman freely admitted she made a mistake. However, she wants someone else to pay for it. It’s so very contemporary New Zealand. In making this token payment the Bank erred badly as it simply encourages others as half-witted as this woman to try and make someone else pay for their blunders.
Banks have always been popular whipping boys, most recently for alleged excess profits. Analysis showed that by normal criteria their profits here are not excessive. It’s time they took a tougher line and simply stuck to their depositary and lending business.
Banks act as depository for people’s money and as a financier to the public with loans. Yet some stupid people persistently demand things of them outside these roles.
Sir Bob Jones is a renowned author, columnist , property investor, and former politician, who blogs at No Punches Pulled HERE.
4 comments:
Sir Bob - add to your commentary, about the numerous Elderly within NZ who have been taken for a ride, with online & telephone financial scams and not knowing what to do have reverted to Family (or a friend if family not available), who then approached the Bank involved, and so the " circle of problems continues", because someone informs the NZ MSM, who write a article on the subject, only to get told several other elderly have "been taken for a ride by scammers".
Can I use a statement from this commentary - (quote) " Yet some stupid people persistently ..." and it stems from not being "switched on", when it comes to matters Financial.
even dumber ones are the cases where one had paid online scammers willingly & happily, despite banks explicitly warning then - yet their family expects that banks should refund them because they should have been more 'stern' in their warning. unfortunately, ombudsman askes the bank to pay & they do, just to avoid bad publicity. no wonder everyone loves the concept of a 'nanny state'!
Agreed Bob, however surely equal fault should also apply to the recipient of the money? He or she has behaved poorly, to say the least and, as you suggest, this is plain theft - albeit not planned. Such people should be prosecuted if they don't return the funds readily.
if it is illegal to receive unexpected funds in your bank account, then i'm sure there is a law on the books to imprison that recipient. i didn't think so.
how is this different from someone sending you a bundle of cash by post and later coming over and asking for it back as they had the address wrong?
i understand the morality of the argument, but not the legality.
why can't banks enforce a rule to indicate that any transaction can only be done between two parties which are known to each other - if tinder can do it, why can't they?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.