[Closed] Bank = boiling p*ss content - GGGRRRRRR!

I think that if the recipient of the money refuses to allow the bank to recover the money, legally the bank can do nothing about it. However you can make a small claim courts claim against the recipient, which you will win.

have a word with the bank. they should help you take legal action.

http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/media_centre/press_releases/-/page/2867/

If funds cannot be recovered through the standard central process customers will be given clear and accurate information on the options they have available to them - such as court action against the recipient.

I guess it's like posting cash through someone's letter box, anyone can leave the money but you can't get someone to break the door down and get it back if you stick it through the wrong box.

Actually I'm not very happy with that analogy but it'll have to do.

If you asked the bank to make a payment and they did a typo and stuck it in the wrong account yes they should have asked the recipient for it and/or refunded it but if you gave them the wrong number.....

At the end of the day, your wife made the error and transferred the money to that person and gave him the money. The bank can't just go in to that persons account and take the money back.

All they'll do is send a letter to that person and ask him to transfer it back.

I would still kick off with First Direct and ask to make a complaint. This sort of story has been making the press quite a bit recently and it wouldn't surprise me if new rules get put in place for it pretty soon.

Yep - I've just been told that by the wife who's been in touch with the bank again after my reaction.
She feels awful but it's easily done - the fact that this is allowed to happen is shocking.
The twunt who's got the money refuses to acknowledge his bank's inquiring.
Do you think we would win if we did a claim? It will cost £25 and our bank says there's no guarantee is winning. If it was it would be a no-brainer. Want to pull this bloke's arms off right now!

MSP has it right.

I'm afraid your bank has done nothing wrong - they transferred money as you instructed, at which point, for all intents and purposes, their role is complete. It relies on the recipients goodwill to get it back - thus it's the recipient that is actually boiling urine, and I'd be fairly annoyed, too.

Edit: Jeez, I'm slow!

paypal gift anyone ?

[i]Actually I'm not very happy with that analogy but it'll have to do.[/i]

It's a very good analogy. It's like you putting cash in an envelope and addressing it wrong, and letting Royal Mail know as soon as the postie put it through the letterbox. They might knock on the door and ask for the letter back, but the person in the house doesn't have to give it.

I suspect any attempt to get the recipients details from the bank are met by a flurry of 'data protection says no' responses too.

I think it's more a problem with the new instant bacs - the old overnight stuff gave a few hours for the bank to reverse the transaction before it was irretrievable.

Personally, I'd take a punt on the extra £25 to try and get it back. If only to give the person who got it a bit of work to do if they want to block it.

Why do banks ask for the name of the recipient if it only goes by the sort and acc no's provided?

[i]I suspect any attempt to get the recipients details from the bank are met by a flurry of 'data protection says no' responses too.[/i]

and rightly so.

[i]Why do banks ask for the name of the recipient if it only goes by the sort and acc no's provided? [/i]

Because it makes customers feel better.

Do you think we would win if we did a claim? It will cost £25 and our bank says there's no guarantee is winning. If it was it would be a no-brainer. Want to pull this bloke's arms off right now!

IANAL, but I think there is some fairly strong case law to support you, "finders keepers" is not supported by law and if you are the recipient of someone else's mistake you should make reasonable attempts to correct the mistake. iirc there have been people who having received large amounts of money by mistake and then gone on spending sprees have also then spent time in prison.

This kind of case won't last IMO - online banking is increasing massively in use, which also increases the chance of customers making errors. Whilst the bank may be legally covered, there's going to be thousands of complaints coming their way from angry customers who've made a simple error... which eventually will force a change in the banks' approach.
Escalate it, tell them you're going to shut your account and take ALL your business away from them if they don't get the money back... that'll cost them more than the £200 to just give you a goodwill refund.

Interestingly (or not), when I make a bank transfer in Hong Kong, the recipient's name shows up when I put the account details in. The bank doesn't ask me for the name, it shows me the name of the account-holder who I'm about to send the money to.

I find this quite reassuring. 🙂

[i]Escalate it, tell them you're going to shut your account and take ALL your business away from them if they don't get the money back... that'll cost them more than the £200 to just give you a goodwill refund. [/i]

Well, unless you're taking large credit or o/d balances away, they probably won't give a to$$ as they're probably making a loss on your account.

See, what I don't get about this is whenever I do a bank transfer I have to enter the name that the account is held in. I'd bet it's a multi-million-to-1 chance that the account to which the £203 has been erroneously deposited has the same name as the one that should have received it. It's exactly the same as me finding a £203 cheque made payable to A. N. Other on the street and the bank honouring it when I pay it into my account. Which wouldn't happen.

The Flying ox - they don't cross reference the sort code and account account and the recipient name when you do the transfer. You can put anything down. The ask for a recipient name so you know who you've transfered the money when you check your statement and so you know which bill payment to select next time.

[i]whenever I do a bank transfer I have to enter the name that the account is held in[/i]

But the name isn't used, it's only really there so the bank can put "Payment to [name]" on your statement/transaction history.

Think about it, you want to make a payment to your friend John Smith. His account at, say, HSBC, could be in the name of 'Mr John Smith', 'John Smith', 'Mr J Smith', 'John and Barbara Smith' and you'd have to know and give exactly the right account name. The chances of that are slim.

Sort code and account number uniquely identify a single account, which is why they're used (sometimes with a reference number for building society accounts)

What no one has answered. If the OP goes down the small claims route, would the bank supply him with the other parties details ?? If the won't where would you go from there.

You'll win in court - it's a claim for monies paid under a mistake of fact. Case law is quite clear that the inadvertant recipient of money is under a duty to account for it.

However, whether the chap still has the money is another matter...

I would write to OP's bank seeking disclosure of his details - if they cite "data protection" say you're entitled to disclosure under s35 of the Data Protection Act and if they don't pony up you're entitled to seek what is known as a 'Norwich Pharmacal' order, or possibly even an application under the Banker's Books Evidence Act 1879. 😉

As a trainee solicitor, I once had the task of sending the money to a bunch of people who'd just sold their company. I had been up all night, and the particular finance task involved filling out a large number of forms freehand (because our cashier was not going to deal with multiple transfers which were set out on a spreadsheet, that would have been excessively straightforward).

About GBP20million was moving I think.

Needless to say, one of the account numbers I scrawled on one of my forms in my sleep-deprived state was highly ambiguous, the cashier guessed it the wrong way and a few million quid disappeared into the banking system. It did not emerge for 4 days. The chap who was meant to be receiving the money called me several times from a Bentley dealership during those days. He was always civil, but quite upset.

🙂

[i]If the OP goes down the small claims route, would the bank supply him with the other parties details ?? [/i]

No, not without a court order.

[i]If the won't where would you go from there. [/i]

Keep pressing the bank to press the other bank to contact the customer to ask for the money back, but not have too much hope for getting the money back.

EDIT: Maybe I'm wrong, Jakester seems to know his stuff

I remember seeing something about this a while back - or it might have even been hearing about it on Radio 2 on the drive home. Can't remember. Anyway....

I am sure they said that there is some identifier with credit cards that means the wrong numbers won't work together; i.e. if you get one number wrong, there is some kind of 'code' in the number that recognises you've made a mistake.

With debit cards it is possible to do this, but it hasn't been put in place. Whoever it was that was talking about it said that there is basically no reason why it can't be implemented to provide protection for just this circumstance, but it hasn't been.
They also said that no cross check is made of the name at all.

Escalate it, tell them you're going to shut your account and take ALL your business away from them if they don't get the money back... that'll cost them more than the £200 to just give you a goodwill refund.

Seems a bit unreasonable to expect the bank to cover your losses when they acted according your instructions.

Read 87/04

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/87/87-banking-complaints.htm

And

[url= http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/files/payments_council/misdirected_payments/code_of_best_practice_misdirected_payments_for_payment_service_providers.pdf ]code of practice[/url]

Do (the unwitting recipients) share your name?

I sent £600 by mistake to a guy on here a long time ago. I was buying a car and a pram and got the accounts mixed up (it was a crap car). Fortunately he understood and transferred the money back whilst I collected the pram!

Then the car blew up 15 minutes after collecting that...

Think about it, you want to make a payment to your friend John Smith. His account at, say, HSBC, could be in the name of 'Mr John Smith', 'John Smith', 'Mr J Smith', 'John and Barbara Smith' and you'd have to know and give exactly the right account name. The chances of that are slim.

You could pay a cheque made out to John Smith into any of those aaccounts. There is no reason way the same fuzzy logic name matching couldn't be done with transfers to catch cases of mis-typed sort or account codes. The chances of the same/similar names on mis-typed accounts would surely be rather slim. Boarder line matches could be flagged for 'human' verification. The fact that the no name cross check is performed seems incredulous.

Though a name check wouldn't help in the situation I had. Someone bought a van from me and transfered the money across. Months later they went to send someone a couple hundred quid and mistakenly selected me from their list of previous payees. So in the end there is no accounting for all human errors. However the bank could not tell me the account/sort codes to transfer the money back, only the name of the sender.

[i]Seems a bit unreasonable to expect the bank to cover your losses when they acted according your instructions.[/I]

Exactly.

The lesson is; it's your responsibility to make sure that the details you give are correct.

You could pay a cheque made out to John Smith into any of those aaccounts.

Could be talking out of my bum tho.

OP, why is the bank liable for you sending the money to the wrong place ? If the other person/bank won't return it why should First Direct be liable for your error ? It's tough but why should the bank's shareholders be out of pocket ?

I would keep pressing but a repayment will be a goodwill jesture rather than a legal obligation.

They might knock on the door and ask for the letter back, but the person in the house doesn't have to give it

opening mail addressed to someone else

Read 87/04

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/87/87-banking-complaints.htm

See also 87/02 - bank mistakenly makes payment, demands money back, bank's claim is upheld. One rule for banks, another for customers.

[i]I suspect any attempt to get the recipients details from the bank are met by a flurry of 'data protection says no' responses too.

and rightly so.[/i]

There's an exemption in the DPA (s35) where the information is required in connection with a court case.

If the bank refused, OP would have to obtain a Norwich Pharmacal order to force disclosure. This costs a bit but costs would probably be awarded against the bank.

DrJ - Member

See also 87/02 - bank mistakenly makes payment, demands money back, bank's claim is upheld. One rule for banks, another for customers.

It does seem like a bit of this is going on, tbh.
Quite often on here, people pop up saying old employee mistakenly paid me another month's salary, or Amazon have sent me 2 off an item, but I only ordered one and the general response is "they've made a mistake, pay/send it back".

But here, a genuine mistake has caused the OP's wife to send money to someone it shouldn't have gone to. The banks are the device by which money is transferred and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that mistakes will be made. There should be a system in place to retrieve that money from the account that it went to.
Surely the receiver who is now sitting on £200 that they aren't entitled to should be made to pay the money back, given that it's not their money?

I really don't know why we don't use IBAN in the UK, it adds another level of checking so this sort of thing couldn't easily happen by just transposing one digit.

I really don't know why we don't use IBAN in the UK, it adds another level of checking so this sort of thing couldn't easily happen by just transposing one digit.

Amen to that. And maybe First Direct could enter the real world by allowing their customers to make online transfers using BIC/IBAN.

Ouch - unfortunate and expensive mistake!!
One (well two) question: How do you know it is a man, who won't give it back? Could it be that it has been transferred to some dormant account or similar?
RM.

[i]I really don't know why we don't use IBAN in the UK, it adds another level of checking so this sort of thing couldn't easily happen by just transposing one digit. [/i]

Because the whole banking sector operates around sort code and account number, and to change that would be MASSIVE. Not saying it's not a good idea, but the impact is huge.

Not saying it's not a good idea, but the impact is huge

Other countries seem to have managed.

[i]Other countries seem to have managed[/i]

Most other countries don't have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

Again, I'm not saying its not a good idea, but it's big change given the alternative is to simply take care when you're inputting payment details.

There is a good reason why the system works as it does. If it was very easy for people to claim money back from claiming transfers were done in error then this would become a back door to people claiming all sorts of money back when in dispute for something (disputes being possibly genuine or not).

Banks have no place getting involved in disputes over payments so the system must work one way or another and it is only fair to let it work against those that make the error in the first place.

PS adding more numbers or details would not alter the fact that people will make mistakes.

Most other countries don't have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

The whole of the euro zone managed it in the last 12 months, it is laughable to claim that the UK's banking system is somehow more sophisticated than the rest of europe.

Most other countries don't have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

Hmmmm, I have an account in a European country and their banking system and customer care/accessibility to people who talk sense (in a language that isn't theirs) makes my UK bank look like they have been at it for a matter of weeks, not 100 years.....

Admittedly I pay for the privilege but the difference is worth paying for.

uwe-r - Member

Banks have no place getting involved in disputes over payments so the system must work one way or another and it is only fair to let it work against those that make the error in the first place.

PS adding more numbers or details would not alter the fact that people will make mistakes.

The system should be robust enough to flag up errors in the number that has been entered, as it does for credit card numbers.
It's just not in the interest of the banks to make this system more robust.

Regarding adding more numbers or details not altering the fact that people will make mistakes, you are correct.
But wouldn't it be useful to have error detection built into the numbers (as it is with credit cards) to detect whether the numbers are correct or not, rather than have the attitude of "tough, you got it wrong"??

I found this article that explains how it works for credit cards:

https://plus.maths.org/content/take-break

It claims that the current system for credit cards can detect 97.8% of errors and adding a second check digit (instead of the one that exists in current credit cards) could not only detect the error, but correct it.

I am sure they said that there is some identifier with credit cards that means the wrong numbers won't work together; i.e. if you get one number wrong, there is some kind of 'code' in the number that recognises you've made a mistake.

That would be the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhn_algorithm ]Luhn algorithm[/url].

Do UK banks really not use a control digit to validate numbers? All Spanish banks do! Although they're all moving to IBAN, which is basically the same as the previous account number with an "ES" on the front.

Most other countries don't have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

Spanish banks are pretty good - there's [b]very[/b] little I have to do in person these days. In that sense it's changed massively over the past 10-15 years.

The system should be robust enough to flag up errors in the number that has been entered, as it does for credit card numbers.
It's just not in the interest of the banks to make this system more robust.

Only because it would cost them money to change. There's no sinister motivation, problems like the OP's just cost them money.

mogrim - Member

[i]The system should be robust enough to flag up errors in the number that has been entered, as it does for credit card numbers.
It's just not in the interest of the banks to make this system more robust.
[/i]

Only because it would cost them money to change. There's no sinister motivation, problems like the OP's just cost them money.

Yes, of course. The bank don't make money out of it, but it would cost them money to change the system so there is no incentive for them to do it.
But wouldn't it be nice if they just did it to help their customers out and avoid these kind of mistakes ever happening?

There was NOT an error in the account number. Most transfers require just an account number and a sort code - provided both of those are legitimate then the transfer is made.

OP you may have a push back if you also provided an account name and that didn't match

Of course there was an error in the account number. The problem was that the wrong account number was also a valid account number. As others have said it's possible to create account numbers that cannot be transformed into other valid account numbers by making a simple error, but banks can't be arsed to do that.

The addition of the account name does help prove it was a mistake. Shame it is not used as a check but it could get irritating if people spell a name wrong or miss out an initial etc. It would be nice if you put in the details and it checked and came back with "account in the name of...." For you to confirm but I guess this had privacy concerns.

There is a basic validation that checks whether the sort code and the account number are a valid pair, its called a modulus check.

But as the OP's wife has discovered it will only flag if the account number is invalid for the sort code , or the sort code is invalid for the account number. If the acc number you happen to type erroneously happens to pass a modulus check, you're stuffed.

http://www.albany.co.uk/knowledge-centre/bank-account-validation-the-basics/

Moral of this story : before hitting submit, check, check and check again.

By the way - all cheques are cleared by hand , so there is a person checking that who the cheque is written out to , is the same as the account it is being attempted to be paid into. Automating this is more complex than you could possibly imagine (unless you've been trying to do it)

Of course there was an error in the account number. The problem was that the wrong account number was also a valid account number. As others have said it's possible to create account numbers that cannot be transformed into other valid account numbers by making a simple error, but banks can't be arsed to do that.

This error has nothing to do with First Direct, the OPs issue/case is with the receiving individual. The OP deliberately sent the money to the account number he specified.

[i]By the way - all cheques are cleared by hand , so there is a person checking that who the cheque is written out to , is the same as the account it is being attempted to be paid into. [/i]

They're really, really not.

The person handling the initial deposit (say a bank branch clerk when you hand over the cheque(s) and the paying slip) should check that the cheques being deposited are in the name of the account being credited, that the total of the cheques equals the deposit amount, that they're in date, that they're signed, that the amount in figures matches the amount in words etc etc.

In reality, they will check the amount and probably the name. Probably. If it's a massive wad of cheques against a single credit, like, say, from a business, they will check they all add up to the right total and they might, might, just might, check they're all made payable to the right person.

Once the credit has been accepted, from that point it's all automatic; the cheques go into the clearing system and debit the drawing accounts two days later. If they're over a certain amount (say £5-10k), the drawing bank may check the signatures, dates etc when they get the cheque, but, again, they probably won't.

Basically, given the volume of cheques being processed, it's cheaper to sort out problems and complaints as and when they occur, rather than check every, er, cheque.

This error has nothing to do with First Direct, the OPs issue/case is with the receiving individual. The OP deliberately sent the money to the account number he specified.

Yes of course, and as has been said, this is a possibility because banks choose not to make account numbers in such a way that mistakes are harder to make.

If the acc number you happen to type erroneously happens to pass a modulus check, you're stuffed.

Dunno about a modulus check, but it's not so hard to include a check that makes it difficult to type in a wrong but valid number. The simplest way would even be to duplicate the "root" account number, so your old account number is 1234, your new one is 12341234, so mis-typing a single digit will not give a valid number. That's an immensely trivial example, but it illustrates the point.

At the point where the receiving party is informed that the money is not theirs(ie property belonging to another), sent in error, and they decide to keep it. They have appropriated it (assumed ownership) with the intention of permanently depriving you of the money. This matches the legal definition of theft. Try your local constabulary.

[i]this is a possibility because banks choose not to make account numbers in such a way that mistakes are harder to make[/i]

Yeah, well, maybe, but to be honest it's an argument I don't really buy. It's the requestor's responsibility to make sure that the instruction they give is accurate, and the bank's responsibility to act on that instruction accurately.

I'll bet a few quid that the process to input the payment details went something like this:

"Please enter the sort code and account number"

[i]*this is where you put the details in, carefully, and check them, before clicking the 'Continue' button*[/i]

"Please confirm the details are correct"

[i]*this is where you can double check the details on the screen, which you gave, are correct, before clicking the 'Finish' button*[/i]

There's then probably similar steps whan making the actual payment. Plenty of opportunity to check that the details are correct.

Also, we're talking about entering a six-digit (probably split into 3 pairs of two) and an eight digit number accurately, so, with the most cursory level of concentration and checking on the part of the person entering the detail, the scope for making and/or not spotting an error should be pretty small.

julians - Member

But as the OP's wife has discovered it will only flag if the account number is invalid for the sort code , or the sort code is invalid for the account number. If the acc number you happen to type erroneously happens to pass a modulus check, you're stuffed.

Well, not really. If you try and send to an impossible, nonmodulus account, it'll not go anywhere. If you send it to a possible but not valid account number, it'll be sent to that bank but it won't go to an account- the bank will usually return it automatically (but not always, sometimes it needs a wee intervention) It's a hassle but it's not really a problem.

It's only if you manage to type in a wrong number that's also a valid account that you have a problem, and that's unlikely- most possible account numbers aren't in use. And of course modulus checking can never pick that up because it requires a real account.

Cheques aren't manually cleared. Though there's often a check at point of deposit.

The problem with namechecking is varied. For example- you might do a transaction but want money paid to someone else's account. You might be known by different names. So there's legit and everyday reasons why there would be mismatches in name. There's also a lot of scope for everyday errors- names or references in the wrong place. That's a lot more common than getting an account number wrong (and it being an active account).

But mostly, it's just down to the fact that there are billions of electronic clearing transactions every year, so it's just impractical.

Hey, it's my banking buddy 🙂

darkplunger - Member
At the point where the receiving party is informed that the money is not theirs(ie property belonging to another), sent in error, and they decide to keep it. They have appropriated it (assumed ownership) with the intention of permanently depriving you of the money. This matches the legal definition of theft. Try your local constabulary.

Er, not quite. The recepient needs to have appropriated the money [b]dishonestly[/b] to fall within the statutory definition of theft.

If they take no steps to return it, that's not the same as actively spending it. They are likely to be a constructive trustee (i.e. holding the funds for the OP) but until they spend it it's arguable they haven't appropriated it, just received it.

That's why those people that end up with £64trillion in their accounts because some numpty pressed a 3 instead of a 4 don't get pinged for stealing the nation's finances when they hand it back.

[i]If they take no steps to return it, that's not the same as actively spending it. They are likely to be a constructive trustee (i.e. holding the funds for the OP) but until they spend it it's arguable they haven't appropriated it, just received it. [/i]

As Father Ted said, the money was just 'resting' in his account

I would view this differently. Initially the money arrived in the recipients account by mistake. There is no dishonesty at this point. However if it can be proven that the recipient has been informed that this money has arrived in his account in error and is the property of the sender and yet he still decides to keep it then he is certainly appropriating it and it could easily be argued that this is a dishonest act. Whether he spends it or not is surely irrelevant.

They're really, really not.

The person handling the initial deposit (say a bank branch clerk when you hand over the cheque(s) and the paying slip) should check that the cheques being deposited are in the name of the account being credited, that the total of the cheques equals the deposit amount, that they're in date, that they're signed, that the amount in figures matches the amount in words etc etc.

ok, now your being pedantic about the difference between clearing and 'bankers duties'. those checks (bankers duties) are still part of the overall clearing process and its done by 'hand' , ie a human has to check these elements before passing the cheque onto the next stage of the process.

anyway - not going to have an argument on the internet about this - the point I wanted to make is that fully automating the clearing process (ie from customer handing it in, to money appearing in the correct account) for cheques is massively difficult, and checking names on electronic transfers would be fairly difficult , but not quite as hard for similar reasons.

Fair enough, the point I was trying to make that, even with cheques, the names aren't really checked, even if they're supposed to be.

[I]fully automating the clearing process (ie from customer handing it in, to money appearing in the correct account) for cheques is massively difficult, and checking names on electronic transfers would be fairly difficult , but not quite as hard for similar reasons.[/i]

Agreed

Most other countries don't have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

Hahahahahahahaha Running on cobbled together IT systems that fall over for days at a time. I don't think so.

A lot of differing opinions there thanks 😉

Me and the wife were talking about it last night - it had been ages since we'd heard anything off our bank.
She called today are we found out our fate.
On further questioning it turns out Fist Direct have known this since March 10th...no one told us. That's pretty poor.
An employee she spoke to said he'd be pretty upset too with the outcome and the lack of communication from our bank. They are reopening the case and getting back in touch with 'his' bank - RBS.
Might be months again before we hear anything but things are in motion at least.

I know a lot of you have your opinion (thanks jambalaya) - we know WE made a very easy error to make.
At seems crazy that in spite of EVERY party involved knowing the situation, the system doesn't allow for it to be put right...will update as and when/if anything happens.

Not quite as pissed off as I was earlier, but at the same time I'm not holding my breath.

Most other countries don't have as sophisticated a retail banking sector as the UK.

It can hardly be called sophisticated when there is no mechanism to get the OP their cash back...

It can hardly be called sophisticated when there is no mechanism to get the OP their cash back...

There is a mechanism, it's just not as easy to use as Paypal disputes, and for very good reason.

rascal - Member

the system doesn't allow for it to be put right...

The system does- just not the banking system. And with good reason, you need to be able to depend on the fact that money in your account will stay there.

The system does- just not the banking system. And with good reason, you need to be able to depend on the fact that money in your account will stay there.

Yep. Imagine if extracting money could be automated, imagine the OP would be more upset if someone's error meant a large sum of money was 'reclaimed' from his account by mistake rather than the correct account. It could cause significant issues!

Good luck. We had a similar problem a few years ago, it took a couple of months or more to sort out and it was much simpler than your problem.

My partner paid for his mates stag do on his credit card and collected the money from all who attended, so it was quite large around £1k. When he came to pay his bill he already had his credit card set up with his bank, unfortunately, he also had my credit card info set up with his bank (both were Tesco). My details were from an old card that he'd put something on before he got his own card. He never checked the details when he made the payment and paid it against my card. We realised what he'd done quite quickly and he phoned Tesco, but they said he needed to speak to his bank to stop the payment, his bank said they couldn't stop it and he needed to speak to Tesco.

Anyway, despite us both talking to Tesco on the same telephone call and on numerous occasions it still took far too long to sort out. The money eventually made it from a defunct account to my account but put me in credit. We had to pay Tesco again to clear his card otherwise he'd be charged a missed payment /interest. When they eventually took it off my account and paid it back to him, they charged me interest as they treated it as a cash payment or something. This also took ages to correct.