As If You Would!

[RMPNCO]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7833145.stm

Crowds queued at a cash machine in Manchester which gave double the amount of cash requested.

Word spread quickly about the error at the machine at the BP garage on Barton Road in Stretford on Thursday.

The giveaway went on for about six hours before the fault was reported to Nationwide building society.

The firm said it was "disappointing" that no-one reported it earlier.
;D

[puffin]

The spokesman for the cash dispenser said that if it happened to you take the cash and run because people who repeated their withdrawals to exploit the mistake could be traced and would be required to repay all overpayments in full... including the first one.

It doesn't pay to be greedy.

[Scooby Do]

Jan 16, 2009 18:54:39 GMT puffin said:

The spokesman for the cash dispenser said that if it happened to you take the cash and run because people who repeated their withdrawals to exploit the mistake could be traced and would be required to repay all overpayments in full... including the first one.

It doesn't pay to be greedy.

6 hours, how much was in the M/c?

[Victor Meldrew]

The firm said it was "disappointing" that no-one reported it earlier.

I don't know what they're talkng about. It was reported immediately.

The person who discovered what was happening, reported it to his missus, his family, his friends, his next door neighbour.....

people who repeated their withdrawals to exploit the mistake could be traced and would be required to repay all overpayments in full... including the first one.

Yeah right. I believe that, despite the best efforts of certain Ministers to take away all our civil liberties, the old maxim of being innocent until proven guilty is still alive and well? How then, can they take money off people on the assumption that they were paid twice the amount their records were showing? They'd have a job proving that in a court of law.

[puffin]

If the machine had that particular fault over a period,and the person made repeated withdrawals from that machine during that period, I don't think any court would have any problem making the connection.
They rarely persue anyone when ha machine defaults if they make just one withdrawal, but repeated withdrawals would show a deliberate attempt to take money they weren't entitled to.

[Victor Meldrew]

I don't think any court would have any problem making the connection.

So they take the bloke to court, and he says "no guv, it never paid me out more than I asked for".

"So why did you make so many withdrawals then?" would be the obvious question.

"I owed money to several mates, and as I bumped into each one, I decided to withdraw money to pay them back" he says, and he brings his mates in to back up his story. He has evidence, albeit dodgy, the bank has a gut feeling. It isn't difficult for someone who isn't completely honest to come up with reasons why they needed to make several withdrawals in quick succession.

On the basis of innocent until proven guilty, who would the court have to side with? The bank can make the connection. Logic says they will probably be correct in making that connection, but it is only an assumption which they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt.

[Foxy1]

does this argument work conversly?

"I sent the money but the cheque got lost in the post? Not my fault gov, don't charge me for late payment". Not likely!

[Victor Meldrew]

Actuall Foxy, far from that being the converse situation, it completely backs up the point i was making.

Given your situation, the reasonable approach, and one which is adopted by most businesses, would be for the company to chase up the debtor, and send a communication warning late payment charges will be incurred within a short timescale. The reason they do this, is precisely for the point I made. They cannot prove a claim that a cheque was sent and was lost in the post was not true. They therefore give you the opportunity to contact them and make arrangements to replace the lost payment. In fact, I think it would be very harsh for a company to impose a late payment charge without giving the debtor the chance to explain why payment is late and make amends.

The simple rule here is that you cannot prove that something didn't happen.

In the case of this ATM, the bank knows what's happened, but nowhere in their records does it back up their claims. In short, they have no hard evidence to prove it. For instance, do they know the machine paid out double the amount every time, or just some of the time? Can they therefore be certain that if someone took a total of, say, £200 from that machine in four installments, that it paid out £400? No, it may have paid out £300 because only two attempts paid out double. Or £250 if only one attempt was successful. In other words, they can't substantiate a specific amount to a claim, so I don't see they'd have much chance of proving their case.

[Foxy1]

I agree with you 100% Victor - it was the bank's mistake and they should be liable.

From the article it appears that not all amounts paid out double - so they cannot tell who got more than they keyed in

How much cash does one cash machine hold? I'm sure i can think of far bigger losses banks have incurred recently

[Libby]

I wonder how many of us have had more cash paid out of a cash machine than the amount we keyed in?! Has it happened to anyone?! Would you tell the bank about it?!

[feral]

I wonder how many of us have had more cash paid out of a cash machine than the amount we keyed in?!

I live in hope

[Woolf]

When I get cash from an ATM, I always fan and count it in the recessed area near the screen.
This is so that the camera inside can see how much I actually got out of the machine

For a long time ATM's were prone to not dispensing the correct amount.
However in those cases it was very hard to prove the machine had made a mistake.
A couple of years ago the Banks ombudsman changed the rules to make it easier to complain and get the money back.

As to how much the ATM's hold, filed to capacity about £250,000. Most are never filed to capacity except at long bank holidays

[fastkat]

To be honest, I would be truthful and report the fault. Sorry to be good a citizen...

[Libby]

Me too kitty, i would always be worried about that phonecall from the bank . . . it's not worth the hassle!