Guardian: Bounced into a nightmare

Bounced into a nightmare

Drawing a considerable sum against a bad cheque - an HSBC customer recounts her misery to Miles Brignall

Saturday February 5, 2005 The Guardian

Most people would expect a bank that advised a customer it was safe to withdraw a sum against a cheque which later bounced would assume financial responsibility for the error - but they'd be wrong.

As Jobs & Money can reveal this week, some banks will pursue their customers through the courts and cripple them financially as a result of errors made during the clearing process. An example of how the cheque clearing process can go terribly wrong for bank customers is graphically illustrated by the case of Marilyn Sulley.

The Epsom-based single mother of three now faces having to sell her house to repay a debt of £17,000 after her bank HSBC allowed her to draw against a cheque which then bounced.

Ms Sulley's battle with the bank started in July 2002 when she was approached by one of her then boyfriend's relatives, who said she was going through a difficult divorce. She asked whether Ms Sulley would mind if her boyfriend paid a cheque into her account and to pass on the cash when the cheque cleared.

Although initially sceptical, the secretary, who works at Epsom Business Centre, agreed to do it after being told that the money would be used to help a single mother.

"Looking back on it, I realise that I was the subject of a sting. I was concerned about helping this person, but thought that as long as I waited for the cheque to clear, there was no risk to myself. How wrong I was," she says.

On Tuesday (July 2), her boyfriends' relative paid a cheque for £12,886 in to an HSBC branch in Walsall in the West Midlands. They had asked to be given £10,000 in cash and a cheque for the rest once the cheque had cleared.

The next day she contacted her branch in Epsom to say that she would be withdrawing the cash once the cheque had cleared, and asked when that would be. She was advised that would happen on Thursday or Friday.

On the Friday morning she telephoned to check the cheque had cleared and when she was told that it had, she arranged to go in later that morning.

"I knew all the cashiers at the branch because I do the business's banking there. I asked them to double check it had cleared and when told again that it had, I took out £10,000 and handed it over to the relative.

"You have no idea how I felt when I got a letter the following morning to say the cheque had bounced - I felt sick and went into a state of shock".

"All my attempts to get the money back failed. I know I was stupid, and fell for a sob story, but what I wasn't prepared for was the attitude of HSBC, who have treated me as though I stole the money," she says.

Her bank account was quickly frozen and all lines of credit were withdrawn. The bank initially tried to get her to take out a loan to repay the money, and when she refused, the staff said they would sue to get it back

For two years HSBC repeatedly threatened to take her to court to recover the money but kept halting proceedings prior to the court date.

Finally in October 2004 - two years after the event - she was summoned to a hearing in Guildford.

"I left early in the morning to be there for 10am but when I got there I was told the case had been moved to Berkshire, and to get a cab over there. When I explained that I had no money I was told to get £50 out at the cash machine - but, of course, my account was frozen."

She was offered the chance of the HSBC legal team, and the court staff coming back to Guildford but warned it would add considerably to her costs if she lost. Despite asking for it to be adjourned, the case was heard in her absence in Reading.

The court found in HSBC's favour and a charge was put on her house. By this stage that debt with legal costs had risen to £15,700. She appealed in December, but says without legal representation, stood little chance against HSBC's barrister.

"I now accept that I should have been represented in court. Legal aid is not offered in such cases and I just didn't have the money as I already had this huge debt hanging over me. I paid a solicitor £250 to help to prepare my written statements but I couldn't afford any more.

"When I appealed in December, I sat sobbing throughout the proceedings. The judge expressed some sympathy for my plight but said the law on the subject was clear," she says.

The case appears to have rested on whether Ms Sulley was told when she took the money out that the cheque had cleared for "interest purposes and withdrawal but could still be returned unpaid". HSBC told the court this was what happened.

However, Ms Sulley is absolutely adamant that she was not given this warning at any of the three occasions when she asked whether the cheque had cleared.

"If they had told me that there was any chance that the cheque could be returned unpaid I would not have taken out the money, it's as simple as that. I had nothing to gain by doing so - I was simply trying to do this woman who I had only met three times a favour."

In a statement HSBC said: "We treat cases like this on their individual merits. In a case where we feel the customer was a genuine victim of fraud, not negligent and where we feel our staff have given misleading information upon which the customer acted we will generally (and have) taken on the loss.

"In this case, though, we (and the court, on two occasions) are confident that our staff gave the correct information. In addition, we have made efforts to help Ms Sulley repay the amount owed in a way that is most manageable for her - and she has rejected all these attempts."

A spokeswoman also said the bank was surprised that Ms Sulley had not reported the incident to the police.

She says she has. "I did talk to some policeman friends about it informally but was told that without a forwarding address, there wasn't a lot that they could do.

"I cannot begin to describe how awful this has been. I have been bullied by the bank staff, called a liar, and I've even been on antidepressants.

"It now it looks as though I am going to have to sell my house. The debt now stands at £17,069 and is growing every day."

formatting link
tml

Reply to
kuacou241
Loading thread data ...

I thought that a cheque could still be bounced several weeks after it has "cleared" in cases of fraud, such as in 419 type scams.

The claim is surely against the drawer of the cheque rather than the bank. They are not called "refer to drawer" cheques for nothing!

Some companies will cash cheques, but they take a hefty comission to cover the obvious risk, so she should have taken a grand or two out as comission (so long as she could take on the risk of loosing the 10k).

Reply to
Adrian Boliston

It indeed bounced against the original depositor, who has recourse against the drawer. If she can find her.

The problem with the story is that nobody seems to be looking very hard for the fraudsters. Boyfriend with phony name? Stolen chequebook? Since when does the victim get to decide whether there is a police investigation of grand theft?

Reply to
sufaud

Yes, not informing the police was not a good move.

But why didn't her branch mention Special Clearance for such a large amount?

Reply to
Doug Ramage

I had a similar experience with a BACS payment for ~2000. I was told by bank staff that the payment had cleared and that it could not be taken back or returned unpaid. Several days later the money was recalled without any notice whatsoever. I complained but was told that I'd mis heard them when I'd queried. That's rubbish because I checked and double checked and the cashier had confirmed that the money couldn't be taken back after 3 days - so much for "clearing".

The clearing process is in fact completely opaque and many bank staff don't understand it.

Geoff

Drawing a considerable sum against a bad cheque - an HSBC customer recounts her misery to Miles Brignall

Saturday February 5, 2005 The Guardian

Most people would expect a bank that advised a customer it was safe to withdraw a sum against a cheque which later bounced would assume financial responsibility for the error - but they'd be wrong.

As Jobs & Money can reveal this week, some banks will pursue their customers through the courts and cripple them financially as a result of errors made during the clearing process. An example of how the cheque clearing process can go terribly wrong for bank customers is graphically illustrated by the case of Marilyn Sulley.

The Epsom-based single mother of three now faces having to sell her house to repay a debt of 17,000 after her bank HSBC allowed her to draw against a cheque which then bounced.

Ms Sulley's battle with the bank started in July 2002 when she was approached by one of her then boyfriend's relatives, who said she was going through a difficult divorce. She asked whether Ms Sulley would mind if her boyfriend paid a cheque into her account and to pass on the cash when the cheque cleared.

Although initially sceptical, the secretary, who works at Epsom Business Centre, agreed to do it after being told that the money would be used to help a single mother.

"Looking back on it, I realise that I was the subject of a sting. I was concerned about helping this person, but thought that as long as I waited for the cheque to clear, there was no risk to myself. How wrong I was," she says.

On Tuesday (July 2), her boyfriends' relative paid a cheque for

12,886 in to an HSBC branch in Walsall in the West Midlands. They had asked to be given 10,000 in cash and a cheque for the rest once the cheque had cleared.

The next day she contacted her branch in Epsom to say that she would be withdrawing the cash once the cheque had cleared, and asked when that would be. She was advised that would happen on Thursday or Friday.

On the Friday morning she telephoned to check the cheque had cleared and when she was told that it had, she arranged to go in later that morning.

"I knew all the cashiers at the branch because I do the business's banking there. I asked them to double check it had cleared and when told again that it had, I took out 10,000 and handed it over to the relative.

"You have no idea how I felt when I got a letter the following morning to say the cheque had bounced - I felt sick and went into a state of shock".

"All my attempts to get the money back failed. I know I was stupid, and fell for a sob story, but what I wasn't prepared for was the attitude of HSBC, who have treated me as though I stole the money," she says.

Her bank account was quickly frozen and all lines of credit were withdrawn. The bank initially tried to get her to take out a loan to repay the money, and when she refused, the staff said they would sue to get it back

For two years HSBC repeatedly threatened to take her to court to recover the money but kept halting proceedings prior to the court date.

Finally in October 2004 - two years after the event - she was summoned to a hearing in Guildford.

"I left early in the morning to be there for 10am but when I got there I was told the case had been moved to Berkshire, and to get a cab over there. When I explained that I had no money I was told to get 50 out at the cash machine - but, of course, my account was frozen."

She was offered the chance of the HSBC legal team, and the court staff coming back to Guildford but warned it would add considerably to her costs if she lost. Despite asking for it to be adjourned, the case was heard in her absence in Reading.

The court found in HSBC's favour and a charge was put on her house. By this stage that debt with legal costs had risen to 15,700. She appealed in December, but says without legal representation, stood little chance against HSBC's barrister.

"I now accept that I should have been represented in court. Legal aid is not offered in such cases and I just didn't have the money as I already had this huge debt hanging over me. I paid a solicitor 250 to help to prepare my written statements but I couldn't afford any more.

"When I appealed in December, I sat sobbing throughout the proceedings. The judge expressed some sympathy for my plight but said the law on the subject was clear," she says.

The case appears to have rested on whether Ms Sulley was told when she took the money out that the cheque had cleared for "interest purposes and withdrawal but could still be returned unpaid". HSBC told the court this was what happened.

However, Ms Sulley is absolutely adamant that she was not given this warning at any of the three occasions when she asked whether the cheque had cleared.

"If they had told me that there was any chance that the cheque could be returned unpaid I would not have taken out the money, it's as simple as that. I had nothing to gain by doing so - I was simply trying to do this woman who I had only met three times a favour."

In a statement HSBC said: "We treat cases like this on their individual merits. In a case where we feel the customer was a genuine victim of fraud, not negligent and where we feel our staff have given misleading information upon which the customer acted we will generally (and have) taken on the loss.

"In this case, though, we (and the court, on two occasions) are confident that our staff gave the correct information. In addition, we have made efforts to help Ms Sulley repay the amount owed in a way that is most manageable for her - and she has rejected all these attempts."

A spokeswoman also said the bank was surprised that Ms Sulley had not reported the incident to the police.

She says she has. "I did talk to some policeman friends about it informally but was told that without a forwarding address, there wasn't a lot that they could do.

"I cannot begin to describe how awful this has been. I have been bullied by the bank staff, called a liar, and I've even been on antidepressants.

"It now it looks as though I am going to have to sell my house. The debt now stands at 17,069 and is growing every day."

formatting link

Reply to
Geoff

because the perp paid the check in themselves.

The victim's first interaction with the bank was when they asked when it would clear.

tim

Reply to
tim

Is that a quick way to pass the "Is this cheque fraudulent?" stage? If not, then presumably the bank on which it's drawn will still seek the return of the funds.

Suppose Bill pays John's cheque, drawn on National Bank, into his account at Westchester Bank, and gets his branch to confirm that it's "cleared for value". Subsequently, National Bank decides that the cheque was fraudulent and seeks the return of the funds. What role does Westchester Bank play in this -- does it NEED to cooperate in the return, and if so on what evidence does it decide to play along? Crucially, does it need to believe that Bill was an accomplice in the fraud?

Matti

Reply to
Matti Lamprhey

Apologies - I had overlooked the fact that she had not paid the cheque in herself.

Reply to
Doug Ramage

In message , Matti Lamprhey writes

If a collecting banker asks the drawee if a cheque is 'paid' (this is the only word that will work) then once the drawee has said 'the cheque is paid' thats it, it cant go back on it. The drawee can refuse to answer if it likes or ask the collecting bank to call back after 3.30.

This whole thread goes back to many threads in this group in which posters confuse the words 'cleared' with 'paid'.

Reply to
john boyle

In message , Geoff writes

Sadly this is true. At one time you had to have been working 'round the back' for quite a while then sent on a two week training course to be a cashier before you were let near customers, now you start on a Monday morning and by 9.30 your on the counter snapping at customers.

Reply to
john boyle

This doesn't answer my questions! I know about the ambiguity of the simple "cleared", and "cleared for value" is how the APACS site seems to term the crucial event.

Matti

Reply to
Matti Lamprhey

Whenever I get a commitment from anyone by telephone I follow it up with a letter memorialising the conversation.

Bugs a lot of them to get pinned down ... if they don't deny the conversation, after a reasonable time the letter is convincing evidence of what was said.

On the other hand, the Government is not responsible for the errors of its agents...

Reply to
kuacou241

A check is *never* immune to being returned. When it suits the banking system. I suppose that a banker's draft is good and cleared funds; and so are certain wired funds (SWIFT?) but BACS are retrieved all the time when salaries are paid in error, and there's a direct debit "guarantee scheme" when consumers know enough to scream and demand their rights.

Cash is good. But with the largest note being £50 it's a nuisance. Which is the point of making it the largest note in circulation.

What the subject of the article didn't realise -- AND HER BANK SHOULD HAVE TOLD HER FORCEFULLY -- is that she was MONEY LAUNDERING.

They should have refused the transaction. Just as some bank managers refuse to send money to Nigeria without clear and convincing evidence it's not a 419 scam.

Reply to
kuacou241

That's all well and good, but it doesn't answer any of my questions.

Matti

Reply to
Matti Lamprhey

AIUI the ML act forbids the bank from telling the depositor that they have a ML suspicision that they will be reporting.

If banks refused to accept suspected proceeds of ML, the authorities would find it harder to catch people.

tim

Reply to
tim

In message , snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com writes

The chances of the bank staff having used words of this nature are so slim as to be non existent, and a judge, or judges, should be aware of this from their own experiences.

There is no way the bank should have won this, unless they could provide tape recordings of bank staff using words to this effect on many occasions.

One way of winning this would have been for Ms. Sulley to arrange for several HSBC customers to ask the question of the bank, and to give evidence.

Reply to
Richard Faulkner

I will check LexisUK on this when I get the chance. Meanwhile I can only say that I have been interpolated whenever I have deposited a substantial sum. To the point that I make it a point of e-mailing by banks before the funds are transmitted or deposited.

Reply to
Axqi

interpolated, the mind boggles.

Just being questioned proves nothing, it just helps the bank decide what to put on the form.

The banks are in no position to decide on the basis of questioning their customer whether there is a ML offence taking place:

1) few crims are going to be honest, they'll make up a plasuable reason. 2) Just because the source of the funds are legitimate does not mean that there is no potential for a ML offence

tim

Reply to
tim

"tim" wrote

What were you thinking of here?

Reply to
Tim

"Axqi" wrote

Did it hurt? :-((

Reply to
Tim

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.