Standing order - Banks passing personal details to other banks - Can they do this

I am sure that deep down in their T&C's they can under certain circumstances. This seems like one of those circumstances.

Send the money back (you agree it was in error) and move on.

I have no issue in doing this whatsoever when (and only when) my building society write to me requesting that I do this. I am not going to deal with my friend's banking provider as in my view they have no business in writing to me in the first place as I am not their customer.

My arrangement is with my building society and not with my friend's bank. I have had no dealings with them for many years, and have no intention of starting any dealings with them again.

BTW we're not talking about very much money here, I just object to a third party writing to me direct.

OK, I might have misunderstood all the facts.

Write to the other bank telling them to correspond with you through your building society - pointing out that you have no relationship with them and no way of knowing that they are not in fact perpetrating a fraud. This seems the most sensible way forward. Await a letter from your building society.

You then have to deal with your Building Society about the disclosure of your personal details - which I suspect they will argue was warranted. Depending upon the terms and conditions connected to your account you could dispute this and ultimately take the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office

Just spoken to these guys. Seems my building society were in breach, as were his for writing to me too.

Your building society has no business asking you to do this.

I think you are mistaken. That you are not their customer is irrelevant. The point is that you owe them money (because you owed it to your friend and they have already reimbursed him) and so they are perfectly entitled to ask you for it back. They can only ask

*you* for it, they can't ask your building society for it, because your BS could only act on your instructions.

You have no right to object to a creditor writing to you. You do have a right to object to your building society passing your contact details to them.

What should have happened is, your friend's bank should have written to you care of your building society, and your building society should have forwarded their letter to you.

What you should do now is not pretend the bank haven't got your address. The damage is done and it's not really the bank's fault. Just pay them the money and that gets them out of the picture.

Your BS, though, is still very much in the picture and you should make a formal complaint to them for breach of confidence. I don't know if it's a Banking Code violation, but it certainly seems as though it's at least a Data Protection violation.

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

Your building society most definitely can NOT tell the remitter's bank anything about you, despite what other posters say. The only occasions this can be done is when it is in the public interest (i.e. grassing up a thief), or by court order.

What normally happens in circs like this is that the remitting bank write you a letter but send it to your bank or b/soc and ask them to send it in to you. This preserves confidentiality. The other bank are quite entitled to write to you this way.

Can you look at the letter and see how it was addressed. Is you address on the letter as well as the envelope? If se then your b/soc must have disclosed the details UNLESS they are one of those small b/socs who aren't main clearing agents who maintain an account at the same full clearing bank as the remitter, in which case it is conceivable, but unlikely that in effect you both banked at the same place.

Finally, could it be that the remitter wrote your address on the original standing order instruction but has forgotten.

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

No, they have every right. after all you have got their money.

Ah! Perhaps they know you. Could this be how they got your address, i.e. they already had it?

Well you are wrong to object. The creditor is perfectly entitled to do so.

Are you sure your friend's bank actually wrote the address on the envelope. It would be normal practice for your friend's bank to send the letter to your bank and ask your bank to forward it on to you.

A more interesting question is whether you can be called on to repay the money.

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?

I don't see how the bank is entitled to make any assumptions about what money might have been owing between the two friends. The only thing that is known for certain is that they made a mistake.

Whichever way this is resolved, I hope they are going to let the bank know that they will be making a charge to cover their costs for their work involved in sorting out this bank's mistakes.

Chris

I have just spoken with my Building Society and they have had no contact from my friend's bank whatsoever.

The letter has come direct from his bank, dated the 25th and was recieved on the 27th. It is interesting that it was addressed to me on the envelope, but the letter is to me C/o the building society. There is no way that it got to my Building Society on Tuesday and was posted out the same day especially as they have confirmed that they have not had any contact from anyone other than myself regarding this issue.

I have a call into the person that wrote the letter, and I am waiting him to return it.

x-no-archive: yes

would your address details be on the original standing order form, maybe?

most forms I have ever setup require that info - probably to confirm the bank details are right, or needed under money laundering laws..?

you could ask for a copy, though as a 3rd party they may get heavy pn your DPA ass.. pay the money back already.

Have you considered that your friend may have disclosed your address to the bank?

Had a call from my building society. They did send forward the letter to me. I've paid up too.

End.....

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

why on earth not? In the days when banks were accustomed to forwarding mail the rules said it HAD to go the same day it was received and it had to go 1st class.

Your building society wouldnt record it if they were merely forwarding a letter. Least of all would they know if it was 'regarding this issue'. If they answered along the lines 'we have had no contact from the remitting bank about this issue' then that is an answer to the wrong question.

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

There !

In message , Chris Blunt writes

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.

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.

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.

Yes it is.

Who said it was?

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

OK, if you are (for some reason) pursuing this , then why not read the end of the post to which you are replying.

eggs, suck, teaching....... etc.,

"stole" ? balderdash.

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.

Nice try, but incorrect.

Perhaps some case law evidence would help your assertion.