Recovering Funds After Bank Transfer Errors

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK The ultimate cookout starts with the ultimate ingredients. At Whole Foods Market, no antibiotics ever burgers and kebabs are prepped and ready to throw on the grill. Fire up a juicy ribbeye. Grab creamy potato salad and savory flatbreads from the prepared foods department, and round it all out with three hundred sixty five brand condiments, chips and dips at everyday low prices Whole Foods Market, makeake your summer sizzle. This message comes from Capital One Commercial Bank Your business requires commercial banking solutions that prioritize your long term success withith Capital onene. Get a full suite of financial products and services tailored to meet your needs today and goals for tomorrow. Learn more at capital. one slash commmercial member FDIC Today in the Money Bx podcast, why rules designed to protect victims from fraud are actually stopping some getting their money back Should you fix your energy bills now And how a disabled man lost five thousand pounds he'd raised for a new wheelchair paying it into the wrong account. But first, in just a few days time, the biggest shake upp to renter's right in rights in a generation comes into force in England It will mean no more than one rent increase a year, an end to bidding wars, and the scrapping of no fault evictions. The Rnter' Rights Act starts on Friday and will significantly change the current system, not just for eleven million private renters in England But also their two point three million landlords. Many argue it's not easy being a tenant or a landlord just now. There are reports of landlords selling up ahead of these new rules. And average rents in England rose by three point four percent in just the last year. That's an average rise of forty eight pounds a month But for many people, just finding a home to rent is tricky, as Joe Krasner heard when she spoke to these young renters in Liverpool currently pay about five hundred pounds just for rent. L there's easily whenever you go to do views L like today I'm going to do a view and I'm probably going to be going there with like or eight different people looking to view the same house. It's very competitive, I would say. It sort of puts you under pressure, I suppose. You're kind of forced into maybe taking a property that you wouldn't really want due to the fact that there's so many people looking at it and you maybe have like a limited time frrame of say even like five days to sort of act on it before somebody else takes it. The first house that I was eying for And I was just really looking forward to have the house, but I didn't get it because it's like about ten people was in the same property for have a view on it. I've been renting the place for just over a year now and we think that they want to sell it soon so they're having the valuation done in the next few weeks. In the place I'm at currently Multiple people applied, so it was kind of just whether the landlord preferred us or other people. Was that a concern to you when you were looking at that property? one hundred percent. Because we were having to leave our last property within like a week. So it was like now or never. The act will also make it illegal to refuse tenants because they have children or receive benefits, give renters the right to ask to keep a pet, and landlords have to consider it, and a switch from fixed to rolling contracts. So what will it mean for tenants and landlords' finances? Rachel Williamson is the director of Policy at the Chartered Institute of Housing, which is a not for profit, professional body Rachel, hello, those people in Liverpool talking about the stress of having ten people bidding for the same home, is there anything in this law that will help in those situations Afternoon, Fisty, you can just hear the stress coming through in the voices currently with that level of competition. There is an undeniable challenge around supply and demand, but the legislation, the Rent' Rights Act will specifically speak to bidding in the sense that the landlord can only ask for the rent as advertised. So you can't start saying, Well who's going to give me the highest amount to secure the property and equally can't ask more than one months rent in advance up frront, which has also been another challenge for securing homes Now under these new rules, landlords will also not be allowed to increase rents more than once a year and then only to the market rate Are rnts actually being hiked more than once a year Yeah, certainly that is some people's experience. know and I think it will make a big difference for tenants to go into the tenancy knowing that that their rent is set and that if they need a challenge, if they feel it's being you put up more than open market rent, they can challenge for a reasonable fee. It's forty seven pounds to put an application into the first tier property tribunal if you feel and you've got evidence that that's going above the market rate. So I think tenants can have more security about how long they can be in their home, open ended, as you say, and also the fact that their rents is set How are landlords expected though to work out the market rate? What's the mechanism? So the guidance is they need to be looking at, if you like in the same information that tenants could be looking at. So right move, Zpler, you when you're looking out at what you're seeing similar properties being let for. So there's an element of discretion, of course, with that. and the first property tribunal, if they do hear cases will need to be looking at that same evidence. I think the key thing to note is if you are a tenant that feels and you feel you've got evidence that the rent is proposed to increase be above market rate. as I say, it's easier to make to put an appeal in. and also the tribunal won't be able to increase your rent above what the landlorders proposeed, which until this legislation change could happen so you'll have security to know it can't increase beyond what's proposed. The biggest change, of course is probably that end to no fault evictions. How is that going to work So that is a big change and that's bringing us into line with Scotland, where they ended no fault evictions in twenty seventeen. So until this change on the first of May, landlords at the moment can give notice without needing to give a reason. And of course, they might sometimes have reasons and there is a separate mechanism for that, which is called a seection eight, but sometimes they'll use the section twenty one because it can be quicker. But by ending no fault evictions, you can't be asked to leave unless there are very clear grounds such you haven't paid your rent period of time you might have committed anti social behaviour, the landlord wants to move back in or move a close family member back in, or they want to sell the home. Otherwise you should be confident that that is your home as far as you're concerned. Well the National Residential Landlords Association says its landlords let high quality private rented accommodation and that it's supporting them as these new rules come in. It also says this act should be implemented in a way that doesn't drive them out of the market. And here's what a landlord called Paul told our colleagues at you and yours earlier this week I have seven properties and they've all all of tens have been issued with unfortunately section twenty one notices to be out by the end of this month But what it is is that An inadvertent mistake would wipe me out financially. I could be fined for a dampn property aing up to twenty five thousand pounds. A my age I cannot take that risk of one small mistake L can now Rachel the government says there'll be fines of up to forty thousand pounds for landlords who break the new rules and that this is about backing renters so they've got peace of mind in their own homes. Have we seen a flood of landlords then leaving the market before this comes in There is certainly evidence, as you heard just there in that example of some landlords I think, looking at the legislative chain and perhaps thinking maybe this isn't for me now going forward. But there's also plenty of examples of landlords choosing to stay in the market and in certain occasions buying up the properties that others might be choos to sell. I think the key thing to stress is if you are a good landlord and if you're paying attention to the information you need to be following and there's lots of great guidance on the goovern UK website and certainly on the NRLA website which is there to support landlords, you shouldn't really need to worry too much. yes, up to forty thousand pounds, but that's for repeated or continuous breaches. you really have to be getting a lot wrong and I think knowing you're getting things wrong to be in that place It's up to seven thousand pounds for a first breach and the minimum would be three thousand. but there's an awful lot of information there. and there is an investment in time, of course to make sure you're across it. but you do need to recognise that that's part of your responsibility as a landlord to be up to date with the legal changes. and there's been some time for people to get ready and other changes being introduced by the legislation are being phased in, so there's a bit more to come a period of time, so some changes to be ready for the first of May. which we willll no doubt cover. There has been a lot of political debate on this with a lot of different views. It is of course, a flagship labour policy. The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the changes to no fault evictions. The Green Party says it's a huge step forward, but it wanted rent controls. The consonservatives say some elements are unworkable in practice risk forcing responsible landlords out of the market, and Reform UK says it's a disaster for renters and that it would repeal the new law. away from the politics, back to the hard cash. Will tenants, Rachel, feel more financially secure as a result of this act I think they'll certainly feel more secure in instance, they could be more confident that the home they've let is their home subject to the conditions that we set out earlier. At the moment or until this change, we know around one in ten renters move because their landlord effectively serves notice. and that moving, of course, is expensive, there's all sorts of costs involved. And if you've got children, that might mean you're having to move outside of the area that your school is in. has all sorts of knock on implications. So there's financial associations with that. But I think it's important to stress it doesn't directly speak to affordability. There is a bigger issue of the cost of housing in this country as we housing crisis. So there's a bigger issue at play still. Rachel Williamson, thank you very much. There is, of course, a lot more we could say. We will be returning to this in Wednesdayays's Money boox live. Get in touch if you've got thoughts. Moneybx at bbc. co. uk or send us a voiceem note on WhatsApp Od three hundred six seven hundred eight three one eight three New rules design rules designed to protect victims from fraud are actually c The ultimate cookout starts with the ultimate ingredients. At Whole Foods market, no antibiotics ever burgers and kebabs are prepped and ready to throw on the grill. Fire up a juicy ribbeye. Grab creamy potato salad and savory flatbreads from the prepared foods department, and round it all out with three hundred sixty five brand condiments, chips and dips at everyday low prices Whole Foods Market, Make your summer sizzle. This message comes from Capital One Commercial Bank Your business requires commercial banking solutions that prioritize your long term success withith Cital one Get a full suite of financial products and services, tailored to meet your needs today and goals for tomorrow Learn more at capital. one slash commercial. meber FDIC ing some people their right to be reimbursed their cash. That includes one victim we're calling Sarah, who told our reporter Dan Whitworth she had twenty thousand pounds stolen through a sophisticated investment fraud. But because of a rule that gives a thirteen month time limit, she's not getting most of it back. Dan. No, and she's not fliss and Sarah's casey's awful. And she talked me through the moment she realized all her money had been stolen It's an undescribable feeling is that it's called pit of your stomach feeling where you just physically feel sick. And you just think, I can't believe this. It's just It's devastating. You can't describe that you feel that you've trusted in something And then the rug has just literally been pulled out from underneath you. Now if she'd realized within thirteen months of the last payment, Sarah would have been protected by what's known as mandatory reimbursement requirement. It's basically a set of rules that obliges banks to refund innocent victims of fraud. It was described as a game changer when it was introduced a couple of years ago. and the idea is that if liability for money being stolen through this type of push payment fraud When victims are tricked or groomed into transferring money to criminals, if that liability rests with the banks, then they'll be incentivized to massively toughen up security to stop it being taken by criminals in the first place. But Sarah didn't qualify for that? No exactly, because it was seventeen months before she realized that her money had actually been stolen Now she says her bank told her there was nothing it could do about reimbursing her money It seems really unfair that when you're not actually expecting to get anything from these investments within twelve months at least, that you literally then have only a couple of weeks to work out whether there's a late payment, whether it's fraudulent, whether it's something going on and already you've passed the date. If the timing is critical. And with this particular kind of investment, you often only have a payment after a year. they don't tend to be regular things that you can pick up on all the way through National Trading Standards says that thirteen month time limit for victims to tell their banks they've had money stolen needs review, reform or removal. What's the government said? R right, so the Home Office pointed me to the payment systemstems reggulator, which introduced these rules. Now it told me it expects firms to support customers and that these rules are only a minimum standard for banks, which obviously should consider the individual circumstances of each claim. Andother many cases like Sarah's. Well, UK fininance, which speaks for the banks, it told me only a small number of cases are ever affected by this thirteen month deadline, and customers can always complain to the financial Ombudsman serervice if they're unhappy. But Will Ailes, he's the co founder of Refundee, that's a claims management company which works with fraud victims, says that small number of cases are often victims who've lost the most The regulation that was brought in heralded as being better, greater protection for fraud victims has actually excluded the people who probably need it the most. Average fraud in the UK is typically three hundred, just over three hundred pounds per case that people lose. But investment fraud cases we found in our analysis was just over forty six thousand pounds. So these are the people who really, really need it, and yet they're the ones who are being excluded due to this thirteen month limitation. Wellile I'm joined now by Louise Baxter head of National Trading Standards scams team. Louise National Trading Standards is in charge of enforcing consumer protections. The irony is these rules were brought in to protect people, but victims like Sarah miss out because of them Yeah, unfortunately as well, the criminals obviously rely on the fact that Scams are a secret, so the thirteen month limit does not allow consumers the time to realise that they have become a victim quite often Now you've said you want this rule reviewed, reformed, or even removed. What is it then you want to see instead Well, if was there's currently a review going on at the moment in relation to how effective the current code is. So I think this rule should be reviewed and then potentially reformed or removed because it doesn't serve victims of, for example, investment fraud, longevity romance fraud. those victims are sometimes manipulated for a really long time And the criminals, as I've said, rely on the fact that it's a secret because once we know that it's a scam, those people then get the protections that they need. If it can't be removed, I would ask for a date of awareness test. So when did the victim find out that they were a victim of a scam and then start the clock from there Well, you mentioned that review, that's published next month. But UK finance has told represents the banks has told us it would be difficult to operate a system based on that time of awareness idea. how would you document that? How would it work in practice? Just because something's difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. The banks make complex decisions all of the time and look at consumer behaviour in relation to their bank accounts. So it's not impossible. It would need some consideration and a reasonable test I would ask for from a consumer perspective, when would it be reasonable for that consumer to identify that they were a victim of fraud The complexity of it from a victim perspective is there's a whole load of blame and shame that comes with this at the mental health impacts. It's not just about money. So we need to make it easier for people to get their money back Why not then just extend the time frrame? Why not double it or say, give it five years for people to kind of realise and contact their banks Well, you could line it up with the Limitation Act, which is six years. So there's already legislation that says you can pursue for breaches of contract for six years, for example. So that would extend it, which would allow those sort of investment frauds, potentially romance frauds. those victims would be caught in that and those scam hypologies, we wouldn't see so many people falling outside the thirteen month period. But again, it does need that review and we need to do some more work to find out what would be a better fit from a consumer perspective Louise Baxter National Trading Standards Sams team, thank you very much indeed. Before we finish, Dan is still here and Dan, you've actually got an update for us on Sarah's case. Yes, pleased to say, following our investigation, Sarah's bank, which is Lloyds, reviewed her case and said taking into consideration the specific circumstances of her investment scam, it has made the decision to reimburse her the remaining nineteen thousand pounds. A the money box effect, we love to see it. Thanks Dan Now for a question quite a few of you have been asking. With gas and electricity bills predicted to go up in the summer, is now a good time to switch to a fixed rate tariff. Lots of fixed deals have been withdrawn by suppliers because of disruption caused by the war in the Middle East, there are still a few left. Our reporter Neve McDermott has been looking at what to consider If you're thinking of fixing When I make the dinner, turn on the heatating Boil the kettle or even switch on a light There's one thing on my mind The cost And I'm not alone Money boox listener Lee and Preston got in touch. They keep hearing this, What are we're going to do about our energy bills, how you going to cope and how you going to afford it? They are the questions a lot of us might be thinking. And for Lee, the answer feels simple This should be doing what I've done three weeks ago, fix in. That means signing up for a contract usually for a year or more, where the price is fixed so you know what you're paying Here's energy expert Ben Gality from price comparison website USwitch So Energy prices are unstable now and they're going to continue to be unstable and they're probably going to be high for the rest of the year. So if you're on a standard variable tariff, you should at least be running an energy comparison to see what fixed deals are available. It's very likely you can save now, but you will also have price certainty regarding what you're going to be paying for the rest of the year and for your contract If you haven't fixed, you're on a variable tariff and you're protected by the price cap. The energy price cap is set by OGM, the Eergy regulator. and what it does is it sets the maximum rates that households on a standard variable tariff can be charged for each unit of gas and electricity they use. It's set four times a year, the next one will be set in July At the moment, we are expecting that price cap to be an increase of twelve percent. It's not a clear cut picture When considering a fixed tariff, Consumer Group which recommends to choose tariffs no longer than twelve months Avoid high exit fees as these can cancel out savings if you switch early And look for deals cheaper than the predicted new price cap Here's Ben again. If you're already on a fixed deal and it's not the right time for you to switch to another one, then there are still things you can do. know you can track your energy usage, make sure that you're being as efficient as possible with what you're using. When it comes to actually running a comparison It's really quick to do. It takes about six minutes to go from comparison to switch. And we actually have a price cap projection tool that will show you how much you're likely to pay and how much you're likely to save versus the latest price cap predictions for July, which could be really helpful. Thanks, Ben. Well, I better go and have a look at my own energy bill Me too. Thankks, Neve. Remember, if you're worried about paying your energy bill, the best advice is to always contact your supplier. They are obliged to help you if you're struggling When you're dealing with big sums of money, it pays to be careful. But what about when it goes wrong A disabled man has told MoneyBox he lost almost five thousand pounds he'd raised for a new wheelchair after making a small mistake with his bank details. This is Scott involved. a wheelchair like the one I've crowdfunded for I can't move in my flat from room to room or I can't get outside and You know, every day when I look outside it's blue sky and then my carers come take me outside and it It clouds over and I think that's just Manchester. but But the timing' not great Scott raised the cash through the fundraising platform Go FundMe and gave them his Monzo bank account details to withdraw the money, except he didn't So I put the bank details in and 've got a few issues with my vision And I typed in two numbers the wrong way aroundound He realized his mistake a couple of days later and immediately contacted the bank and Go fund mee. Now the cash hadn't gone through, so he was hopeful he could stop the payment. But Monzo said they needed a form from Gofund Me and Gofunde said to wait ten days. They said to wait ten days because They thought that it would take ten days for Monzo to kick the payment out and say we don't have someomeone with those details here But obviously that didn't happen. Because it was a real account There was a real account yet and it's gone into someone's bank account and, you know, and they've They've done what they've done with it By the time GoFundMeet requested the money back from Monzo, the bank account had been emptied. Scott got what was left. Yeah, it was just nine pounds fifty four. Less than a tenner out of almost five thousand pounds. Scott contacted MoneyBox because he couldn't get GoFundMe to agree it should have acted faster, and so he couldn't get his complaints taken seriously It felt heartbreaking to be honest because loads of people put in what they can And these are people that I might not have seen for such a long time. and I'm sure it was a significant amount to them what they put in So I felt really, really bad for for my friends and family who put things forward, and then I also felt like dream of Being able to be independent, being mobile, my wheelchair was just snatched away from me at the same time When we spoke to Monzo, it said it appreciated how distressing this has been for Scott, but said all the correct processes had been followed to try to recover the funds, but it depended on whether there was any money left in the account. Meanwhile, when MoneyBox asked Go fund me why they'd waited ten days before requesting the payment be recalled, they apologized for Scott's distress, reviewed the case And now they have refunded the money. So Scott will get his chair at Dan. It's another Money box win. Well, That's twice in a programme. Nice to hear Fly. I've got a question though. Okay What happened to all the money? Yeah we don't know. I asked Monzo and Gofundme if they would be investigating that and neither of them responded. but somebody had emptied out that Monzo account. So I asked Report Fraud if this is something that should be reported to them. They said this could meet the threshold for a criminal investigation, and they encouraged Scott to get in touch with his details so they could review it. Okay, Fliff. So Scott obviously made a mistake, but people do make mistakes. What are your rights if you mess up Okay, well here's Fummy Alafamwa, the financial lawyer behind the money education company, Hoops Finance Yeah, Scott' suation is a little bit tricky. I think may more so by the fact there's lots of different parties involved Ordinarily, you'd be making a payment yourself from your own bank account. So when you do this, if you spot an error, speed really is of the essence. So contact your bank or your building society as soon as possible. There's a voluntary code of practice that a lot of the big banks or building societies abide by What that means is when you contact them, they've got two working d to take action. And what that would look like is them contacting the recipient bank recipient bank, the bank where the funds have gone to have then got eighteen working days to try and find that money and get it back for you. So within twenty working days, you should know whether you've got the money back