Postbank has a hard time helping its bank customer in the case of a subsequently discovered erroneous bank transfer; at one point, Postbank did not even respond to lawyer submissions.
What had happened: Bank customer transferred €5,000.00 and immediately thereafter canceled the order: Hope for refund
A bank customer of Postbank represented by lawyer Sascha C. Fürstenow made a foreign transfer in the amount of € 5,000.00 via Postbank’s online banking — authorized with BestSign — in October last year. Based on a “gut feeling” and a brief Internet search, the Postbank customer then realized a short time later that the recipient was probably a fraudster.
At first, the Postbank customer wanted to cancel the transfer order in the fastest possible way, namely via the Postbank telephone hotline. Since the automated announcement predicted a waiting time of more than 20 minutes, the Postbank customer literally ran to the nearby Post headquarters in Stuttgart to cancel the order in person and as quickly as possible.
After waiting for about 20 minutes in the queue in front of the financial advice desk — in the end it took 20 minutes there as well — the Postbank customer described the facts of the case and expressed that the transfer should be cancelled in order to retrieve the €5,000.00. The bank employee first filled out a “callback to a sepa transfer”. This was about 1 ¾ hours after the “erroneous” transfer.
When the Postbank customer asked what the chances would be, the bank employee replied that 99% of the time it would still have to work, and that the Postbank customer would only have to pay a fee of €10.80. The Postbank customer, who clearly expressed during the conversation that the transfer was no longer desired, in any case understood the statement of the bank employee and the request “Call back for a Sepa transfer” in such a way that Postbank would promptly initiate everything to stop the transfer and reverse it.
Even after asking again, the bank employee assured us that there was nothing to worry about. This statement, too, could only be understood as meaning that Postbank would do everything in its power to prevent the transfer. The Postbank customer, who trusted this, then also left the Postbank branch with the confidence that Postbank would indeed take care of this immediately according to his instructions.
Suddenly, everything is completely different: a retrieval has not been initiated and, incidentally, is not even possible!
After a few days, the Postbank customer asked when a credit could be expected. He was then told that a request for “recall”, which had merely been made, would not be sufficient. The bank customer is threatened with being left sitting on his loss.
Postbank did not attempt to stop the transfer order, nor did it inform the recipient bank of the transfer reversal in order to prevent the recipient bank from crediting the amount to the recipient. Postbank simply remained inactive in this regard, contrary to the repeated statements of its own bank employee.
The Postbank customer then requested Postbank to refund the €5,000.00 by setting a deadline. Postbank responded with the following standard e‑mail:
„Sehr geehrte Kundin, sehr geehrter Kunde,
herzlichen Dank für Ihre E Mail an die Postbank. Gern kümmern wir uns um Ihr
Anliegen. Wir bearbeiten es unter der Ticket ID xxxxxxxx, die wir zu Ihrer E Mail
vergeben haben. Aktuell erhalten wir sehr viele Nachrichten. Aus diesem Grund dauert die Beantwortung leider länger als Sie es gewohnt sind. Hierfür möchten wir Sie um Verständnis bitten.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Ihr Postbank E Mail-Team“
Ein paar Tage später folgte dann eine weitere nichtssagende Standard-E-Mail:
„Sehr geehrte Kundin, sehr geehrter Kunde,
herzlichen Dank für Ihre E Mail an die Postbank. Ihr Anliegen habe ich an unsere Fachabteilung zur Erledigung weitergeleitet. Diese kümmert sich so schnell wie möglich darum. Bei Fragen nennen Sie uns bitte die Ticket ID xxxxxxxx, die wir zu Ihrer E Mail vergeben haben.Gut zu wissen
• Die Fachabteilung meldet sich bei Ihnen, wenn es notwendig ist – zum Beispiel bei Rückfragen. Sie erhalten dann einen Brief, eine Mail oder eine Nachricht in Ihre Nachrichtenbox im Postbank Online-Banking.
• In Einzelfällen kann es sein, dass wir Ihr Anliegen ohne eine weitere Nachricht erledigen.
• Kennen Sie schon unser Fragen – und Antworten Portal? Hier erhalten Sie auf viele Fragen direkt eine Antwort. Schauen Sie einfach im Portal vorbei.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Ihr Postbank E‑Mail-Team“
In addition, Postbank sent a postal letter merely informing the customer that a “recall” would be carried out. Postbank did not respond at all to the facts described here and the bank customer’s request to have the €5,000.00 credited back.
Attorney Fürstenow intervenes
Postbank initially reacted to the lawyer’s statement of facts and request for payment only with its standard e‑mail 1, followed by standard e‑mail 2, whereby a new (2nd) 8‑digit “Ticket ID” was assigned. After one month without a substantive response from Postbank, the lawyer’s letter was sent again (electronically), whereupon Postbank again responded with Standard E‑Mail 1, followed by Standard E‑Mail 2. Standard e‑mail 2 then contained at least the old and the new ticket ID: a connection was at least established.
It was not until this repeated (electronic) sending of the lawyer’s letter that Postbank responded 3 weeks later (“Team Nachforschung”), a total of 2 ½ months after the cancellation of the transfer and 1 ½ months after the first lawyer’s letter as follows:
„Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
in oben genannter Angelegenheit komme ich zurück auf Ihr Schreiben...
Bei der Überweisung in Höhe von 5.000,00 Euro vom xx.xx.xxxx handelte es sich um einen ordnungsgemäß ausgeführten Auftrag. Überweisungen im Online-Banking werden in Echtzeit durchgeführt. Das heißt, die Buchungen werden nicht nur im Internet angezeigt, sondern auch sofort ausgeführt. Eine einmal ordnungsgemäß ausgeführte Überweisung kann nicht zurückgebucht werden. Es besteht keine Möglichkeit, den Betrag beim Empfänger zu stornieren. Auch ein Herausgabeanspruch gegenüber dem Empfänger besteht nicht.
Selbstverständlich helfen wir unseren Kunden bei der Zurückerlangung von Geldern. Am ………. haben wir … mittgeteilt, dass wir eine Rückforderung veranlasst haben. In diesem Fall nimmt die Bank des Zahlungsempfängers Kontakt mit ihrem Kunden auf und bittet um die Erlaubnis zur Rückbuchung des Betrages. In diesem Fall wurde die Erlaubnis zur Rückbuchung nicht erteilt.
So leid es uns tut, wir können … in dieser Angelegenheit nicht weiter behilflich sein. Bitte klären Sie den Sachverhalt selbst mit dem Zahlungsempfänger.“
Hierauf wurde die Postbank mit einem weiteren anwaltlichem Schreiben darauf hingewiesen, dass diese kurzen und knappen Ausführungen zur „Echtzeit-Überweisung“ und der Unmöglichkeit einer Rückbuchung nicht den Tatsachen entsprechen und falsch sind.
What is the factual and legal situation? Revocation of a transfer is possible
Although the transfer of the €5,000.00 was not carried out “in real time”, Postbank claims, contrary to the technical transfer types in Postbank’s online banking system and contrary to its own contractual provisions, that transfers are always and exclusively carried out “in real time”.
The online banking system does not provide for real-time transfers as a standard setting. A real-time transfer (called “Sofortüberweisung” in Postbank’s system) must be explicitly ordered by setting a check mark and also costs an extra transfer fee. If such a chargeable check mark is not set, no real-time transfer will take place!
In Postbank’s own General Terms and Conditions under “special conditions Postbank”, normal transfers, real-time transfers and scheduled transfers are regulated in detail. Postbank’s investigation team seems to know neither their own online banking system nor their own contract regulations.
Under the special conditions Postbank real-time transfers the following is regulated under item 2 “Essential features”:
„Der Kunde kann die Bank beauftragen, durch eine Echtzeit-Überweisung einen Geldbetrag in Euro innerhalb des einheitlichen Euro-Zahlungsverkehrsraums […] möglichst innerhalb von Sekunden an den Zahlungsdienstleister des Zahlungsempfängers zu übermitteln…“
Contrary to the false claim of Postbank, a real-time transfer is carried out precisely and also only upon special instruction of Postbank by the customer by setting a check mark. Without such a special instruction, the normal transfer via online banking remains.
Revocation of a transfer order is the exception, but possible!
The following is regulated in the General Terms and Conditions under “Postbank Online Banking” under 4.2 “Revocation of orders”:
„Die Widerrufbarkeit eines Online-Banking-Auftrags richtet sich nach den für die jeweilige Auftragsart geltenden Sonderbedingungen (z.B. Bedingungen für den Überweisungsverkehr). Der Widerruf von Aufträgen kann nur außerhalb des Online-Bankings erfolgen, es sei denn, die Bank sieht eine Widerrufsmöglichkeit im Online-Banking ausdrücklich vor.“
It follows that it is quite possible to revoke the payment instruction in online banking as well. Section 5 of the special conditions Postbank: Postbank Online-Banking states it quite clearly:
„Bearbeitung von Online–Banking–Aufträgen durch die Bank
(1) Die Bearbeitung der Aufträge erfolgt an den für die Abwicklung der jeweiligen Auftragsart (z. B. Überweisungen) auf der Online-Bankingseite der Bank oder im „Preis – und Leistungsverzeichnis Postbank“ bekanntgegebenen Geschäftstagen im Rahmen des ordnungsgemäßen Arbeitsablaufs. Geht der Auftrag nach dem auf der Online-Bankingseite der Bank oder… angegebenen Zeitpunkt (Einlieferungsschlusszeit) ein oder fällt der Zeitpunkt des Eingangs nicht auf einen Geschäftstag gemäß Online-Bankingseite der Bank oder…, so gilt der Auftrag als am darauffolgenden Geschäftstag zugegangen. Die Bearbeitung beginnt erst an diesem Geschäftstag.“
(3) Nach den in Absätzen zu (1) und (2) genannten Zeitpunkten [Zugang des Überweisungsauftrags bei der Bank] kann der Überweisungsauftrag nur widerrufen werden, wenn Kunde und Bank dies vereinbart haben. Die Vereinbarung wird wirksam, wenn es der Bank gelingt, die Ausführung zu verhindern oder den Überweisungsbetrag zurückzuerlangen.“
A corresponding provision is also found in Section 675p (4) BGB.
According to attorney Fürstenow, such an agreement of a revocation has been made by the fact that last October the bank customer in the branch of the Postbank expressed his explicit will to cancel the transfer immediately and the bank employee thereupon held out the prospect of reimbursement to him.
And again only standard e‑mails from the Postbank E MailTeam
In response to the lawyer’s letter, where it was quoted in detail from Postbank’s own General Terms and Conditions and shown that a real-time transfer is the exception and also did not take place in the specific case and a revocation was agreed, Postbank “responded” again only with standard e‑mail 1 and standard e‑mail 2 and with the assignment of a further (3rd) new ticket ID.
A last attempt to contact Postbank ended with standard e‑mail 1 and shortly afterwards standard e‑mail 2 and a new (4th) ticket ID.
Conclusion: Good service of a bank towards its bank customer looks different
Postbank only reacted once to the detailed factual, legal and contractual explanations of attorney Fürstenow by claiming, contrary to the technical requirements and its own general terms and conditions and the legal situation, that online transfers would always only be carried out in real time, so that a revocation of a transfer order would not be possible at all. Postbank then did not react at all to the refutation of these claims. Only each e‑mail to Postbank was followed by 2 successive standardized e‑mails, each with the same wording and each with a new ticket ID (2 variants), which neither informed nor helped the bank customer. A real customer service for such “problem cases” seems to be either too much for Postbank, to fail because of the technology or simply not wanted.
The whole affair has already lasted 7 months and is threatening to fizzle out, since there is no reaction at all from Postbank.
How can it continue here and in similar cases?
What can the bank customer still do, if he is left alone with his damage of 5.000,00 € by the own bank and this for him simply not (more) to speak is?
He can try to find the fraudulent recipient, but this will be difficult. In any case, a criminal complaint should be filed.
The facts of the case can be reported to the bank ombudsman. Experience shows that this rarely produces anything in favor of the bank customer. A report to BaFin, the banking supervisory authority, is also unlikely to be of much use.
Finally the complaint way would remain for the penetration of a repayment with the responsible civil court, which is connected again with further costs and in view of the process cost risk well to weigh would be, after the bank customer already 5.000,00 ? lost ? After all, in civil proceedings it will depend on the extent to which the court recognizes an agreed revocation and whether the revocation was received by Postbank in good time so that Postbank could actually have stopped the transfer or could have made efforts to prevent the recipient bank from making the entry in favor of the recipient.
Attorney Sascha C. Fürstenow will be pleased to advise you on similar matters and offers a free and non-binding initial assessment of your facts in advance.