Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Free Money From ATM - is it really free?

2»

Comments

  • #52
    dotsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭dotsman


    BankMan wrote: »
    If the bank who operates the ATM is not the bank where you have your current account, they wont be debiting you at all - no access.

    Of course they have access. If the customer was given €100, then the bank treats that as a withdrawal of €100. Let's say you are a BOI customer using an Ulster Bank ATM. When you withdraw money from the Ulster Bank ATM, Ulster bank claim that money back from BOI. In this case, the Ulster bank would simply treat it as a €100 withdrawal even if the customer only requested €80.
    BankMan wrote: »
    Dotsman, your talking ****e. The bank cannot insist on immediate repayment on their terms, due to the absence of a credit agreement. You seem to be under the impression that banks are all powerful, mighty entities that can make whatever demands they see fit. I don't condone unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of an obvious error, but lets keep it in perspective.
    But using the example above, the €100 is taken from the customer's BOI account. If the account has insufficient funds, then it goes into an unauthorised Overdraft. The terms of the account as agreed by BOI and the customer would dictate what occurs next. There would be no "I'll pay €5 a month" as suggested above.

    Ultimately, as already said, this is simply treated as a withdrawal of the amount given, not the amount requested. Now given that the ATM was originally in error, the bank may, at their discretion, write off the loss, or allow the customer a certain time limit. But techically, the bank has every right to deduct the full amount immediately from your account.


  • #53
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    ....bailout is on the way.

    Indeed....
    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    ...hence my comment about changing banks. Easily done.

    I'd like to see you try and leave a few hundred euro of a debt without further action being taken.
    jaffa20 wrote: »
    Don't patronise me. I know what i am talking about. If the error was on their side, you have the right to arrange a repayment method. They cannot take the money of you in one lump sum unless you have an account with them and the funds are available, otherwise, you may have spent the money. You are still a customer even though it is a bank.

    So,if a bank makes an error in a transaction then it is up to you to negotiate the terms with them.

    Of course the bank will be reasonable if you play ball with them. A loan or an authorised overdraft facility maybe arranged. Don't be under any illusion that they wouldn't leave you with out a current account (not that that would bother some folk).
    BankMan wrote: »
    Dotsman, your talking ****e. The bank cannot insist on immediate repayment on their terms, due to the absence of a credit agreement. You seem to be under the impression that banks are all powerful, mighty entities that can make whatever demands they see fit. I don't condone unscrupulous individuals taking advantage of an obvious error, but lets keep it in perspective.

    No they can't but they are well entitled to pursue you with legal action.


  • #54
    Overature
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 908 ✭✭✭Overature


    take out all your money, 90 at a time and then close it, so they cant take it away from ye


  • #55
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    dotsman wrote: »
    See below. The money taken from the atm will eventually be taken from your account. If you have insufficient funds, you are into an unauthorised overdraft.

    You still haven't justified how you ended up talking about "arrears".

    They will write to the customer first and give them a chance to rectify the situation. [Stated this several posts ago, repeating it just to be sure you seen it]

    This all assumes the customer is found out.


  • #56
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    stepbar wrote: »


    I'd like to see you try and leave a few hundred euro of a debt without further action being taken.

    You are making the large assumption that this will be found out.


  • #57
    dioltas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,183 ✭✭✭dioltas


    Same happened to a friend of mine a few years back. He got 300 instead of 150 or something. In the end the extra 150 was taken from his account.


  • #58
    BankMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭BankMan


    Dotsman - everything in your last post is factually incorrect. For the good of the thread there's no point in getting into a long running argument about it, but i'd encourage you to check your facts.


  • #59
    dotsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭dotsman


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    You still haven't justified how you ended up talking about "arrears".

    They will write to the customer first and give them a chance to rectify the situation. [Stated this several posts ago, repeating it just to be sure you seen it]
    OK, very simple. When the money is taken from the customer's account, IF they do not have insufficient funds, then they go into an unauthorised Overdraft. They end up paying surcharge interest and/or penalty fees (for any DD/SO's that are missed due to insufficient funds).

    You are correct in stating that the bank will (or at least, should) write to the customer under these circumstances. The nature of this letter (or possibly phone call) will be that the account is being operated outside the authorised limit and needs to be rectified (Different banks will have different policies regarding these letters). Failure to rectify the account will result in the account being moved into arrears management.

    I'm not saying that receiving too much money from an ATM results in the account necessarily going into arrears. I was just saying that, should there be insufficient funds in the account to cover the extra amount, the customer is embarking on the road that leads to arrears.

    Unless your just being pedantic with the word "arrears" - in that the word technically only applies to missed repayments (ie on a loan, and not an overdraft). However, failure to rectify an unauthorised overdraft leads to a demand for repayment, and thus arrears, should the customer non-comply.
    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    This all assumes the customer is found out.
    Correct, but checking the journal should identify everyone who received incorrect amounts. More often than not, the theft will be discovered.

    And even when it isn't - there's Karma:)


  • #60
    parsi
    Site Banned Posts: 5,904 ✭✭✭parsi


    dotsman wrote: »

    If you owe the bank money, they can demand repayment at any time.

    Always found it strange (and possibly unbalanced and unfair) that when the bank may a mistake and overpay they can sequester the funds immediately but where the bank "make a mistake" and you're overcharged you can whistle for the funds until they're good and ready.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    dotsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭dotsman


    BankMan wrote: »
    Dotsman - everything in your last post is factually incorrect. For the good of the thread there's no point in getting into a long running argument about it, but i'd encourage you to check your facts.
    Wow. "Factually incorrect" you say.

    Wow...


    ...you didn't happen to see dioltas' post before yours? You didn't happen to notice other posters saying the same thing? You haven't noticed a trend here? The bank is likely to be in a position to get the money back, and if they are, they will.

    People on this thread saying that it's not stealing - "Factually Incorrect"
    People on this thread implying the customer will easily get away with stealing the money - "Factually Incorrect"
    Yet, you jump on here attacking me (without a single shred of evidence, or even in a manner that makes that gives the impression you know what you are talking about). Good for you. If you know anybody experienced in banking, I suggest you ask them to explain it to you.

    ATMs do give out too much money. It's rare, but it does happen. In most cases, the bank is able to identify the customers and debit the accounts accordingly.

    Have a nice day:)


  • #62
    dotsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭dotsman


    parsi wrote: »
    Always found it strange (and possibly unbalanced and unfair) that when the bank may a mistake and overpay they can sequester the funds immediately but where the bank "make a mistake" and you're overcharged you can whistle for the funds until they're good and ready.
    It depends on the error. In the case of undercharging you, chances are that the banks has already spent some time investigating before the customer hears of it. Whereas with a customer claiming to have been overcharged, it might be the first the bank has heard of it, therefore need to investigate (not only the specifics of the claim, but also to ensure that the claim isn't fraudulent). They can't just hand out cash to any old person who walks in off the street claiming to have been overcharged.


  • #63
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    dotsman wrote: »
    OK, very simple.

    Condescension or sarcasm? I can't quite make up my mind.
    dotsman wrote: »
    When the money is taken from the customer's account, IF they do not have insufficient funds, then they go into an unauthorised Overdraft. They end up paying surcharge interest and/or penalty fees (for any DD/SO's that are missed due to insufficient funds).

    See, this is the problem I have with your stance and you've finally gone into enough detail about it so that I can haul you up on it.

    You are making the huge leap that the customer has ignored correspondence, buried their head in the sand and allowed themselves to go into an unauthorised overdraft.
    dotsman wrote: »
    You are correct in stating that the bank will (or at least, should) write to the customer under these circumstances. The nature of this letter (or possibly phone call) will be that the account is being operated outside the authorised limit and needs to be rectified (Different banks will have different policies regarding these letters). Failure to rectify the account will result in the account being moved into arrears management.

    Again, you're making assumptions that the person has ignored everything and also doesn't have enough in the account to cover the over-dispensing.
    dotsman wrote: »
    I'm not saying that receiving too much money from an ATM results in the account necessarily going into arrears. I was just saying that, should there be insufficient funds in the account to cover the extra amount, the customer is embarking on the road that leads to arrears.

    Good, I think I'm getting somewhere with you.
    dotsman wrote: »
    Unless your just being pedantic with the word "arrears" - in that the word technically only applies to missed repayments (ie on a loan, and not an overdraft). However, failure to rectify an unauthorised overdraft leads to a demand for repayment, and thus arrears, should the customer non-comply.

    I'm not, just hauling you up on using the term.

    dotsman wrote: »
    Correct, but checking the journal should identify everyone who received incorrect amounts. More often than not, the theft will be discovered.

    And even when it isn't - there's Karma:)

    Whaddya know, banks aren't all powerful, all seeing entities that see everything. I'm glad to see you finally admit that it may not be discovered.

    Look at the situation they're in now, they didn't have clairvoyance enough to see that, did they? :pac:


  • #64
    dotsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭dotsman


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    Condescension or sarcasm? I can't quite make up my mind.
    Well, let's just say it's not sarcasm!


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    See, this is the problem I have with your stance and you've finally gone into enough detail about it so that I can haul you up on it.

    You are making the huge leap that the customer has ignored correspondence, buried their head in the sand and allowed themselves to go into an unauthorised overdraft.
    But I never stated that they definitely would! I was saying that that is what lay at the end of the road if they were to follow the advice being given by certain posters here.


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    Again, you're making assumptions that the person has ignored everything and also doesn't have enough in the account to cover the over-dispensing.
    As above. For me, the most likely thing to happen is that the full money comes out of their account and life moves on. But if they don't have sufficient funds and if they try to close their account etc as some people were advising, then this is how it would end up.


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    Good, I think I'm getting somewhere with you.
    I'm not that sort of guy. sorry:)

    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    I'm not, just hauling you up on using the term.
    Pedantic


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    Whaddya know, banks aren't all powerful, all seeing entities that see everything. I'm glad to see you finally admit that it may not be discovered.

    Look at the situation they're in now, they didn't have clairvoyance enough to see that, did they? :pac:
    Never said they were!


    OK, I've answered all your queries. Can you answer just one of mine? Are you encouraging a person (be it th OP or any other person who reads this and might end up in the same situation as the OP) to steal money?


  • #65
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • #66
    BankMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 143 ✭✭BankMan


    Dotsman you seem to be determined to bring this down to mudslinging level. I didn't attack you, I tried to correct your statements. As my name suggests, I require no explanation regarding banking issues.

    I must congratulate you on your condescension though - it's so delicious I could eat it without salt. :cool:

    In the unlikely event that you realise you need to get a life, feel free to ask someone to explain to you what to do with it etc.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    dotsman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,636 ✭✭✭dotsman


    BankMan wrote: »
    Dotsman you seem to be determined to bring this down to mudslinging level. I didn't attack you, I tried to correct your statements.

    Really???
    BankMan wrote: »
    Dotsman, your talking ****e.
    BankMan wrote: »
    In the unlikely event that you realise you need to get a life, feel free to ask someone to explain to you what to do with it etc.

    Now, that's some correcting:rolleyes:

    BankMan wrote: »
    As my name suggests, I require no explanation regarding banking issues.
    One doesn't require a degree, numerous IBI certifications, and many year's banking experience to pick a username.

    Welcome to the ignore list buddy (you're the first person I've ever had to do this for!)


  • #68
    stepbar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    You are making the large assumption that this will be found out.

    I would'nt be under the impression that it wouldn't TBH.


  • #69
    KillerShamrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭KillerShamrock


    Hmm think this thread has gone well off course and maybe be heading to a flaming war mods should close it i think.


  • #70
    BuffyBot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,924 ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    Indeed. Play nice people.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement