In message <1159449547.871618.201010>,
ajja writes
>Had a call from my building society. They did send forward the letter
>to me. I've paid up too.
>
>End.....
>
There !

In message <c4vmh2lrg0bl0npeqv6s0n3qmjhs8rfvhd>, Chris Blunt
<chris_blunt> writes
>How can the bank be so sure that he owes money to his friend? What if
>he were to claim that money was actually due to him and that his
>friend cancelled the standing order without his knowledge?

This is a valid point. If the remitter was a debtor of the recipient
then after the bank made the erroneous payment then his position hasnt
changed. It would need the bank to go to court to get the dosh off the
beneficiary and then lose the case on this point though.
>
>I don't see how the bank is entitled to make any assumptions about
>what money might have been owing between the two friends.

John Boyle wrote:

> In message <c4vmh2lrg0bl0npeqv6s0n3qmjhs8rfvhd>, Chris Blunt
> <chris_blunt> writes
>>How can the bank be so sure that he owes money to his friend? What if
>>he were to claim that money was actually due to him and that his
>>friend cancelled the standing order without his knowledge?
>
> This is a valid point.

No it isn't. The bank *is not* sure the OP owes money to his friend.
In fact he does not owe money to his friend, he owed money to the bank.
Even if Chris meant to ask how could the bank be so sure his friend
does not owe the OP money, that too is irrelevant.

The friend had previously instructed the bank by standing order to
make regular payments. It is of no concern to the bank whether the
purpose of the payments is to settle a debt or any other purpose, it
simply follows instructions, including, in this case, to cease making
payments.

It made the error of not acting upon the cease instruction, and in so
doing, it erroneoulsy "stole" money from the friend (their customer)
and "gave" it to the OP. The bank has already undone the "stealing"
by reimbursing their customer. It now seeks back from the OP the
money erroneously given.

> If the remitter was a debtor of the recipient
> then after the bank made the erroneous payment then his position hasnt
> changed. It would need the bank to go to court to get the dosh off the
> beneficiary and then lose the case on this point though.

Yes, of course if the remitter (the friend) is a debtor of the OP,
then this doesn't change. The friend would still owe the money to
the OP. But having cancelled the standing order, it must be presumed
that the debtor will make other arrangements to settle the debt.
The creditor has no right to the money erroneously remitted, because
it is not the friend's money, it is the bank's.

The OP is not entitled to the friend's bank's money even if the friend
owes him money.

Ronald Raygun wrote:
>
> Yes, of course if the remitter (the friend) is a debtor of the OP,
> then this doesn't change. The friend would still owe the money to
> the OP. But having cancelled the standing order, it must be presumed
> that the debtor will make other arrangements to settle the debt.
> The creditor has no right to the money erroneously remitted, because
> it is not the friend's money, it is the bank's.
>
> The OP is not entitled to the friend's bank's money even if the friend
> owes him money.

This could lead to a rather bizarre situation though. Consider the OP
had lent the friend money to be repaid over 10 years by standing order.

The friend cancels the standing order but, due to a bank error, the
money continues to be credited.

7 years later the friend "notices" the banks error and demands a refund
which he gets from the bank and then the bank (according to your
arguments above) demands repayment of the banks money from the OP.

But the OP is now statute barred in recovering the debt from the friend
who has not acknowledged the debt exists in the last six years.

Tim.

In message <WN8Tg.26612$r61.25965>, Ronald
Raygun <no.spam> writes
>John Boyle wrote:
>
>> In message <c4vmh2lrg0bl0npeqv6s0n3qmjhs8rfvhd>, Chris Blunt
>> <chris_blunt> writes
>>>How can the bank be so sure that he owes money to his friend? What if
>>>he were to claim that money was actually due to him and that his
>>>friend cancelled the standing order without his knowledge?
>>
>> This is a valid point.
>
>No it isn't.

Yes it is.

> The bank *is not* sure the OP owes money to his friend.

Who said it was?
>In fact

I am answering the 'what if' scenario in the post.

>he does not owe money to his friend, he owed money to the bank.

OK, if you are (for some reason) pursuing this , then why not read the
end of the post to which you are replying.
>Even if Chris meant to ask how could the bank be so sure his friend
>does not owe the OP money, that too is irrelevant.
>
>The friend had previously instructed the bank by standing order to
>make regular payments. It is of no concern to the bank whether the
>purpose of the payments is to settle a debt or any other purpose, it
>simply follows instructions, including, in this case, to cease making
>payments.

eggs, suck, teaching....... etc.,
>
>It made the error of not acting upon the cease instruction, and in so
>doing, it erroneoulsy "stole"

"stole" ? balderdash.
>money from the friend (their customer)
>and "gave" it to the OP. The bank has already undone the "stealing"
>by reimbursing their customer. It now seeks back from the OP the
>money erroneously given.
>
>> If the remitter was a debtor of the recipient
>> then after the bank made the erroneous payment then his position hasnt
>> changed. It would need the bank to go to court to get the dosh off the
>> beneficiary and then lose the case on this point though.
>
>Yes, of course if the remitter (the friend) is a debtor of the OP,
>then this doesn't change. The friend would still owe the money to
>the OP. But having cancelled the standing order, it must be presumed
>that the debtor will make other arrangements to settle the debt.

Why should it be presumed? I see no reason why there should be such a
presumption.

A court would look to see how the remitter was at a loss. If such a loss
did not occur (because there was an outstanding debt) then the bank
would not be liable.
>The creditor has no right to the money erroneously remitted, because
>it is not the friend's money, it is the bank's.

Nice try, but incorrect.
>
>The OP is not entitled to the friend's bank's money even if the friend
>owes him money.
>
Perhaps some case law evidence would help your assertion.

"John Boyle" wrote
> Your building society wouldnt record it
> if they were merely forwarding a letter...

In order to forward the letter, wouldn't the B/S employee
need to look up the address on their computer?
Wouldn't that create an audit trail?

If not, how could the B/S show that their systems were
only being accessed by employees for *valid* reasons?
[DPA issues...?]

In message <uLmdnVmtYvOezIPYRVnytw>, Tim <me> writes
>"John Boyle" wrote
>> Your building society wouldnt record it
>> if they were merely forwarding a letter...
>
>In order to forward the letter, wouldn't the B/S employee
>need to look up the address on their computer?
>Wouldn't that create an audit trail?

It would depend on their systems. If it were a screen only enquiry then
paper audit wouldnt be kept, but if it were a print enquiry then a copy
may be kept, but it wouldnt show why the enquiry was made or, on some
systems, who made the enquiry. The record would not be kept as a record
against the account holder, thereby enabling an easy 'look up', but just
as another entry in a very very long list.

>
>If not, how could the B/S show that their systems were
>only being accessed by employees for *valid* reasons?
>[DPA issues...?]

Why would they need to show that? In an event, Bank & B/Soc staff have a
secrecy clause in their contracts.

John Boyle wrote:

> In message <WN8Tg.26612$r61.25965>, Ronald
> Raygun <no.spam> writes
>
> Yes it is.
>> Who said it was?

Nobody, but Chris asked "How can the bank be so sure that he owes money
to his friend?". I'm suggesting it is irrelevant how sure the bank is
or what it it thinks. Whether the friend owes money to the OP is a
complete red herring.

>>In fact
>
> I am answering the 'what if' scenario in the post.

So? The scenario is "what if OP claims friend owes him money and
friend cancels SO without OP's knowledge". What payment arrangements
friend pursues in order to settle his debt to OP is independent of
the SO originally set up. Friend could have decided he would send
cheques instead, or pay cash, or buy rounds of Guinness.

>>he does not owe money to his friend, he owed money to the bank.
>
> OK, if you are (for some reason) pursuing this , then why not read the
> end of the post to which you are replying.

Why do you think I didn't? What are you referring to?

The OP just keeps getting money fed into his account by SO and
doesn't know that his friend from whom he thinks the payments come has
stopped the SO and that the friend's bank is simply sending money in
error. Surely any money sent in error *always* continues to belong
to whomever sent it.

>>Even if Chris meant to ask how could the bank be so sure his friend
>>does not owe the OP money, that too is irrelevant.
>>
>>The friend had previously instructed the bank by standing order to
>>make regular payments. It is of no concern to the bank whether the
>>purpose of the payments is to settle a debt or any other purpose, it
>>simply follows instructions, including, in this case, to cease making
>>payments.
>
> eggs, suck, teaching....... etc.,

I don't know what you're trying to imply here.

>>It made the error of not acting upon the cease instruction, and in so
>>doing, it erroneoulsy "stole"
>
> "stole" ? balderdash.

No balderdash. The quote marks meant it wasn't proper theft (as with
intention to permanently deprive etc), but merely taking without authority.
Remember the money was originally taken from the former remitter's account
after the SO had been cancelled.

>
> Why should it be presumed? I see no reason why there should be such a
> presumption.

It should be presumed in the absence of any reason to suspect the friend
of planning to defraud the OP of the balance due on his debt.

> A court would look to see how the remitter was at a loss. If such a loss
> did not occur (because there was an outstanding debt) then the bank
> would not be liable.

Eh? "The remitter" is ambiguous. In the case of an orderly SO, the
remitter is the account holder. In the case of an erroneous funds
transfer, the remitter is the bank. The bank does not owe the
recipient any debt. The debt (if any) owed by the true debtor is
owed irrespective of the involvement of his banker, and his banker is
not responsible for him.

>>The creditor has no right to the money erroneously remitted, because
>>it is not the friend's money, it is the bank's.
>
> Nice try, but incorrect.

Why? The creditor has no contractual arrangement with the debtor's
bank, and therefore said bank *cannot* be responsible to the creditor.

>>The OP is not entitled to the friend's bank's money even if the friend
>>owes him money.
>
> Perhaps some case law evidence would help your assertion.

You must be joking. There's no need for case law. It's obvious that
the bank is just acting for the friend and so is responsible only to
the friend.

In message <CNATg.27215$r61.19312>, Ronald
Raygun <no.spam> writes
>
>Nobody, but Chris asked "How can the bank be so sure that he owes money
>to his friend?". I'm suggesting it is irrelevant how sure the bank is
>or what it it thinks.

I agree with that bit. The 'valid point' i was referring to was the
'what if he were to claim the money......" not the 'how can the bank be
sure.. etc.,'

The situation would only be resolved if it went to court.
> Whether the friend owes money to the OP is a
>complete red herring.

No, if it went to court the case would turn on this very point.
>
>>>In fact
>>
>> I am answering the 'what if' scenario in the post.
>
>So? The scenario is "what if OP claims friend owes him money and
>friend cancels SO without OP's knowledge". What payment arrangements
>friend pursues in order to settle his debt to OP is independent of
>the SO originally set up. Friend could have decided he would send
>cheques instead, or pay cash, or buy rounds of Guinness.

I prefer the last one of those scenarios, but if there is a
debtor/creditor relationship then the remitter's position has not
changed because of the erroneous payment and he has not lost out.
>
>>>he does not owe money to his friend, he owed money to the bank.
>>
>> OK, if you are (for some reason) pursuing this , then why not read the
>> end of the post to which you are replying.
>
>Why do you think I didn't? What are you referring to?

The case law.
>
>The OP just keeps getting money fed into his account by SO and
>doesn't know that his friend from whom he thinks the payments come has
>stopped the SO and that the friend's bank is simply sending money in
>error. Surely any money sent in error *always* continues to belong
>to whomever sent it.

Well at least youve moved on from claiming it was the bank's money!

>
>>>Even if Chris meant to ask how could the bank be so sure his friend
>>>does not owe the OP money, that too is irrelevant.
>>>
>>>The friend had previously instructed the bank by standing order to
>>>make regular payments. It is of no concern to the bank whether the
>>>purpose of the payments is to settle a debt or any other purpose, it
>>>simply follows instructions, including, in this case, to cease making
>>>payments.
>>
>> eggs, suck, teaching....... etc.,
>
>I don't know what you're trying to imply here.

I know all that.
>
>>>It made the error of not acting upon the cease instruction, and in so
>>>doing, it erroneoulsy "stole"
>>
>> "stole" ? balderdash.
>
>No balderdash. The quote marks meant it wasn't proper theft (as with
>intention to permanently deprive etc), but merely taking without authority.

That would imply that the bank still has the funds, which it hasnt.

>>>Yes, of course if the remitter (the friend) is a debtor of the OP,
>>>then this doesn't change. The friend would still owe the money to
>>>the OP. But having cancelled the standing order, it must be presumed
>>>that the debtor will make other arrangements to settle the debt.
>>
>> Why should it be presumed? I see no reason why there should be such a
>> presumption.
>
>It should be presumed in the absence of any reason to suspect the friend
>of planning to defraud the OP of the balance due on his debt.

'should'? why? In any event the pint is irrelevant. As already said, the
point only comes into play if it went to court.
>
>> A court would look to see how the remitter was at a loss. If such a loss
>> did not occur (because there was an outstanding debt) then the bank
>> would not be liable.
>>>The creditor has no right to the money erroneously remitted, because
>>>it is not the friend's money, it is the bank's.
>>
>> Nice try, but incorrect.
>
>Why? The creditor has no contractual arrangement with the debtor's
>bank, and therefore said bank *cannot* be responsible to the creditor.

Who said it was? I am not.
>
>>>The OP is not entitled to the friend's bank's money even if the friend
>>>owes him money.
>>
>> Perhaps some case law evidence would help your assertion.
>
>You must be joking. There's no need for case law. It's obvious that
>the bank is just acting for the friend and so is responsible only to
>the friend.
>
I agree. That isnt the point though is it?