On guard after typo transfer

One missing number. That's all it took for Anneli Sponneck's R25,565 to end up not in the bank account of a property agency, as she intended, but in that of a security guard.

On December 15 Sponneck, a Durban media planner, did an electronic funds transfer from her Nedbank account to the agency's Standard Bank account.

By mistake, she left off the last number, but she was none the wiser at the time because the computerised payment system "added" a zero to the beginning of the number she'd entered, thereby creating that Johannesburg-based security guard's Standard Bank account number: transfer "successful".

Sponneck knows nothing more about the woman she unintentionally gifted because the bank, as they do in such situations, is protecting the confidentiality of its client. The woman quickly spent all the money, and is therefore not only unwilling but unable to repay it.

Many assume that banking systems cross-verify all the details of an EFT transaction - name of account, branch name or number and account number, and that only if all are correct, is the transfer successful.

But that's not the case. All it takes for a transfer to happen is for the number in the account field to be a valid account at the selected bank.

Because the different banks' account number lengths vary, their electronic account number fields are pre-filled with zeros.

As you key in the numbers of your chosen beneficiary account, they "populate" the field from the right. If too few digits are entered, as in Sponneck's case, the zero/s on the left remain in place.

It took three days for the result of her finger trouble to become apparent. She called Nedbank for help, and was told to contact Standard Bank.

"A consultant with that bank told me I was lucky because the number I had keyed in - with the last digit missing - was an invalid Standard Bank number, so my money would be returned to me in a couple of days," Sponneck said.

Feeling reassured, she took her word for it and went on holiday. It was only on her return two weeks later than she discovered the money was still missing.

That's when Standard Bank told her she had been given the wrong information about the invalid account, and that what she should have done when the error was discovered was to ask Nedbank to submit a "Track and Recall".

But by that time it was too late - the money had been spent and Sponneck was told the matter is now between her and that unidentified security guard.

She argues that if it hadn't been for the incorrect advice she was given by both banks, there was a chance her money could have been recalled.

Approached by Sponneck for help, I took up the case with Standard Bank, raising the issue of its employee's wrong advice.

Responding, the bank dodged that issue completely, saying Sponneck "will need to work with Nedbank to resolve this matter".

My follow-up questions had not been responded to at the time of writing.

The bank said it could only remove the money from the beneficiary's account with her consent - or a court order - and a proper "recall" process.

On its website, the Payments Association of South Africa states that in such cases, "the paying customer has the right to the return of these funds through the rule of unjust enrichment, and the banks will assist him or her where possible to effect such recovery."

But, says Standard Bank, if the recipient decides to keep the money, the bank can't reverse the payment, and the payer must take legal action.

GET IN TOUCH: You can contact our consumer columnist Wendy Knowler with your queries via email: consumer@knowler.co.za or on Twitter: @wendyknowler. She's In Your Corner for consumer issues.