Barclays - ‘I lost my £193,000 inheritance – with one wrong digit on my sort code’

The solicitor could have done the old “I’ve sent you a pound, did you get it?”

1 Like

A solicitor paid me a fair amount last year. I did give them the number on both email and phone, but that was more around security than accuracy. Them taking a trial run at the payment was not something that even came up as a possibility. Probably would have got billed for the extra effort…

1 Like

Real question here is how did 193k not get flagged and their account frozen?

1 Like

At the risk of sounding like a caveman, I’m just going to say that all of this gentleman’s problems could have been avoided if the solicitor had sent a cheque. :scream:

6 Likes

The plot thickens.

2 Likes

It reads to me like he’s trying to blag his innocence (or plead naivety) but doesn’t realise Barclays likely have a recording of the phone call (the “contemporaneous record”). When he says Barclays refused to take it back, it’s more likely they were refusing to let him keep £40k of it – all or nothing.

4 Likes

I could see it was from a solicitor, a Chaps payment, so it had obviously been checked. My nan died three years ago and I thought, what’s going on here, it’s the same place and address where my nan’s solicitors were, so I thought that was it.

And when Barclays wouldn’t take the money back he didn’t contact the solicitor?

2 Likes

The big flaw in his story is revealed on this NS&I web page where it clearly states that the maximum investment is *£50,000 per person.

Is he suggesting then that there are two more people involved in this inheritance mistake?

Unlikely he would trust anyone with £100,000 really, is it?

Dear, oh dear

4 Likes

I dislike Barclays all together; they are a crude bank with financial ties to some horrible stuff that has happened in Human History and are at the moment in a really bad position as a company.

I really don’t understand how they have not lost their banking license and how they are as high as they are on which for best banks.

Off the top of that, it is just my opinion and I might just be really one sided against them :confused: who knows

On topic: I’m really glad the man got his money back. I hope the person who took it and didn’t make an adequate effort to return the money takes a really big look in the mirror and change! That’s all I can say…

3 Likes

As someone who literally does payments for a living… I don’t have time to double check everyone’s bank details for them or to send a £1 payment every time I get a new person to pay. People need to be more careful with the bank details they provide, at least until our banking system improves anyway.

2 Likes

Idk if anyone has heard but Barclays is now working to make Confirmation of Payee a thing. I got a notification in-app

Do you have a screen shot?

We’ll start using CoP by 1 April 2020.

Interestingly you can opt out.

1 Like

Thanks Kieran. I could have googled but Candy Crush :woman_shrugging:

Some other banks might use it before then, so if someone tries to pay you, we may need to confirm the name they’re using is correct

I can see much fun ensuing until all banks implement it

1 Like

Here it is.

1 Like

He’s definitely trying to cover his arse.

He said that’s not my money. I said take all the remaining money, but leave me with the money I’ve spent.

I mean, he straight up admits to spending some of it to clear some of his outstanding debts, and refuses to give it back. Also I’m pretty sure that Barclays wanted to reverse the transfer, and he refused to do that. So giving part of it back simply wasn’t an option (either because of the law, the way the bank system works, or both).

Best case - he saw a windfall and starting paying debts off, before having second thoughts, so bought premium bonds with the rest in the hope of winning the money back he spent and crossed his fingers that no-one would come calling for it before he could cover the shortfall (spoiler, he clearly didn’t manage to cover the shortfall).

That said, I still blame the bank more than him. Human nature is a powerful thing. And not having any form of confirmation of payee and no way of quickly and easily reversing errors is an incredibly shitty system. A system that should’ve been fixed years ago, if not even decades. Just take out the chance for the error to occur, then you won’t even have to worry about how the potential recipient will act.

3 Likes

I think this a regulatory thing. All banks will have to do it by a certain date, just some are rolling it out earlier than others.

Yeah but the thing I don’t understand is that apparently you can opt-out? Does that not ring some alarm bells?

This is useful for people who’s legal name and the name people know them as is very different

Think it would be easier to let people also have an alternative name on the account, so either name would be accepted

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 180 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.