ONLY FEAR OF THE PRESS MAKES BANKS BEHAVE

TO LOSE one’s inheritance by making a single numerical error in a banking transaction would seem incredible. But that — almost — is what happened to Peter Teich, 74, a disabled Cambridge resident set to receive £193,000 from his father, who had died at the age of 100.

Teich gave the solicitors handling the estate his correct name, address and account number but made a single-digit error in the sort code. That sent the funds to another Barclays customer in Cambridge who, bizarrely, had the same account number, though a marginally different sort code.

When Teich realised what had happened, he contacted Barclays — who first said that it would get the money back into his account but then later wrote that it had ‘regrettably not been able to gain the permission of the recipient of these funds for them to be returned to you’.

To add insult to injustice, Barclays said that it would credit Teich’s account ‘with a small token gesture of £25’.

It was not until after much litigation, costing him £46,000, that Teich was able to force the other Barclays customer in Cambridge to return his inheritance. But when he asked the bank to reimburse these costs, it refused.

At this point Teich contacted the Guardian newspaper, which approached Barclays on his behalf. The bank immediately U-turned, saying it would return Mr Teich’s legal costs ‘with interest, together with a payment for the distress and inconvenience this matter has caused’.

It always amazes me — no, actually, it doesn’t — how big firms that have appallingly mistreated customers change their tune as soon as a newspaper has taken up their case.

There are further questions to be addressed in this one. Will Barclays cancel the account of someone who was — with the bank’s knowledge and acquiescence — attempting to hold on to £193,000 belonging to another of its customers?

And when will it have the sense not to give different customers the same account number? How about now?