Not correct. I've been through this process. YOUR bank might not do anything, but generally UK banks can and will do something and have a process for disputed payments. I don't know why you keep insisting that's not the case because I know for a fact that it is. Please explain why you're disputing this - if you work for a bank let us know which one so we can avoid it.
Well, I am going to reply because there is no reason for the bank to get involved. Based on what the OP says he entered into a contract willingly to buy a boat on the basis that the seller said "it is yours when you pay the deposit". He has already established that the boat exists and the seller was the owner.
And how will the bank flag the account as part of a scam if nobody contacts them? You have no understanding of this at all.
It might be pure speculation. It’s also possible there were terms of the purchase that the OP failed to conform to which entitled a legit seller to keep it, BUT I’m pretty confident it’s a scam and the OP either doesn’t realise it or won’t admit it. Anyone who sends a £500 deposit to a stranger with nothing in writing is probably not the best equipped to do the due dilligence necessary to ensure it’s not a scam.
He hasn't received the answer he wanted (that he can trot down to the boatyard and claim the boat as his own) so the thread is of no further use to him.
Lustyd (and Ylop) I'm following your argument but you are missing a crucial thing. To invoke the process where your bank looks into and moves to freeze (or whatever) a potentially misdirected/lost payment, you must represent to your bank that you believe the payment to have gone missing. In this case, that would involve lying, for pecuniary gain, which someone above will tell you is a criminal offence. If you tell the truth to your bank, which (in these circumstances) is that you think the money went to the right guy but it later turned out that that guy breached a contract or is even a fraudster/criminal and you'd just love to have your money back please, your bank will not get involved. Nor should they because as said above, they did exactly as instructed. See #125 above and plenty of other posts.
)I am just amazed that you can make all this up when there is absolutely nothing in what the OP says to suggest that it is a scam, or that the money has gone to the wrong place. You are just guessing that the OP does not know who the seller is - He actually checked with a reliable third party (the harbour master) who confirmed that the seller did own the boat that was offered for sale.
OP said the vendor stopped responding so it's reasonable to assume that the deposit didn't reach the vendor in this instance. OP did not say the vendor received or acknowledged receipt in any way.
Right back at you. Everything you've said has been based on made up information. You clearly don't realise that, but that's between you and your therapist to work out.
I agree with you an approach in person by the OP to his bank is not going to be met with a return of his £500 which is why he needs plod to ascertain that he has been defrauded of his money and even then I think it unlikely unless his and the recipients bank will work together that he will indeed get his money back via that route. My primary concern is and again I agree that it is to be proven, that if the funds have been misappropriated the seller should be pursued in the criminal courts, if nothing else but to stop a repeat and perhaps expose previous cases of fraud.Lustyd (and Ylop) I'm following your argument but you are missing a crucial thing. To invoke the process where your bank looks into and moves to freeze (or whatever) a potentially misdirected/lost payment, you must represent to your bank that you believe the payment to have gone missing. In this case, that would involve lying, for pecuniary gain, which someone above will tell you is a criminal offence. If you tell the truth to your bank, which (in these circumstances) is that you think the money went to the right guy but it later turned out that that guy breached a contract or is even a fraudster/criminal and you'd just love to have your money back please, your bank will not get involved. Nor should they because as said above, they did exactly as instructed. See #125 above and plenty of other posts.
And that's exactly how it should be. When we receive money we don't want whoever paid it to change their minds and be free to ask for it back. Otherwise how would any honest folk ever know for sure that clean money in our bank accounts is free from clawback and available to spend? You can't run a country like that.
Sheesh this thread is hard work, even though the situation is so simple (that comment not aimed at Tranona, Ari, Greg2, etc
No.
Unless it can be proven to be fraud and the money is still in the other account.
Vendor says "Mr Mashy and i made a verbal agreement that he would pay a non refundable £500 deposit and would pay the balance within 48 hours, or the boat would be sold to the next interested party. The balance was not paid withing 48 hours and i sold the boat to someone else"
That is indeed an issue and it would perhaps hinge on the sellers history and had he a history of similar events and payments. Hence the need for plod. My very first post suggested that he could use a similar defence.
Who are going to say 'civil matter, nothing to do with us'.
Which takes us back to my original point that Plod are not doing the job they are supposed to do for the people they are supposed to be doing it for. Plod and the NHS and allocation / management of resources is long overdue for review.
My guess is a lot has to do with the high taxation rates, ie the 60% band if you earn £100k-£125k. Which a lot of senior police, doctors etc do. I went part time and gave up doing any overtime at work before I retired because of this. Coupled with the (now abolished) falling pension LTA etc, high earners were being caned.
He didn't say much of anything. I'm not sure why you're all assuming your imaginary information is better. I didn't even say that was the case, I said it's a good way to officially document what IS the case. Either way, if it's a scam, the banks are the ones collecting the information the police will use, so need to be told in order to flag an account. It's idiotic to not get them involved as early as possible. The police don't care unless you have some information, and there's no route to information here without involving the bank.
