A customer of Yorkshire Water was inadvertently paid a total of £6,800 over two months, in an error that initially went unrecognised by the utility company and the recipient's bank. The payments, made in May and June 2026, were eventually traced back to an employee's wages, which had been misdirected due to incorrect bank details on the company's payroll system.
The first payment, exceeding £3,500, arrived in the customer's partner's account in May. A month later, a second payment of £3,300 followed. Despite the recipient's attempts to report the anomaly, both Yorkshire Water and their bank reportedly dismissed the concerns, with the utility provider initially stating it did not recognise the payment reference and advising the individual to 'enjoy the money'. The customer, based in Leeds, held the funds in a savings account, fearing it could be linked to a money laundering scam.
The situation only became clear after a third party intervened. It was then discovered that the dates of the payments precisely matched Yorkshire Water's staff payroll schedule. An internal investigation revealed that an employee had updated their bank details incorrectly, leading to their salary being deposited into the customer's account for two consecutive months. This raises questions about internal financial controls and the promptness of salary discrepancy detection within the company.
Following the clarification, Yorkshire Water successfully reclaimed the mistakenly paid funds. As a gesture of appreciation for the customer's honesty and persistence in reporting the error, the company paid a £100 'thank you'. However, the incident also highlights potential shortcomings in banking protocols, as the recipient's bank reportedly failed to investigate or return the payments, despite having a regulatory duty to do so once notified. Hoarding or spending accidental payments can constitute an offence under the Theft Act 1968.
This unusual case underscores the importance of robust financial verification processes for both companies and banks. While the customer acted responsibly, the initial advice to keep the money could have placed them in a legally precarious position. It also brings into focus the need for clearer communication and more thorough investigation procedures when customers report unexpected financial transactions.