Bizkaia pays pensions by mistake and Treasury does not recognise them

Bizkaia pays pensions by mistake and Treasury does not recognise them

According to an affected person's account on a forum, the Bizkaia Provincial Council (Fruta Foral de Bizkaia) had been paying amounts for months into an account not in its records. The affected person, who initially interpreted the deposits as aid or a benefit for his mother, later received a phone call informing him that it had all been a mistake. The contradiction peine when, upon contacting the institution itself, it assured him that there was no payment from them. The matter is now complicated by the arrival of €2,000 as a pension which, according to the account, does not correspond to the beneficiary. The question is inevitable: is this a one-off administrative error or a systemic lack of control in benefit management?

An error that the Council itself denies

The case presents a contradiction that is hard to sustain. First, payments of €400 per month for several months that the recipient attributed to legitimate aid. Then, a call to acknowledge the error. Later, the institutional denial: there is no such payment. And finally, a new deposit of €2,000 that no one knows where it comes from. The sequence is not a simple accounting slip; it is a chain of blunders that leaves the citizen without a valid interlocutor.

The situation is aggravated because, according to the account, the affected person had already reported the error on a previous occasion and recorded the phone conversation to protect himself. The response he obtained was that there was no error to correct. Now, with the new deposit, the ball is back in his court: if he returns it, to whom?; if he keeps it, under what title?

The shadow of income tax and the statute of limitations

One of the antiestéticars expressed is the tax impact. Even if the money is returned, the Treasury could still count it in the income tax return as income. That is, the taxpayer would pay taxes on income that was never theirs. The alternative, keeping the money and waiting for it to become time-barred, is a risky calculation: the administration can claim back the payments for years, and do so with interest.

The statute of limitations is not an automatic safe conduct. In the case of undue payments, the deadline to claim is usually long, and the burden of proof falls on the person who received the money. If there is no official document proving that the error was reported, the recipient is in a vulnerable position.

The bureaucratic maze: phone, registry and stamps

The experience of other affected people points to a clear lesson: phone conversations are worthless. What protects you is a written document submitted to the entry registry, with a registry number and stamp. Without that paper, the administration can allege that it was never informed. And if the money ends up in an account that is not the real beneficiary's, the risk of misappropriation or even money laundering comes into play.

Some argue that, faced with an unrecognised payment, the prudent thing is not to touch it and to report it in writing. Others argue that, if the Council itself denies the existence of the payment, the citizen has no one to return anything to. The administrative limbo thus becomes a liquidity trap: the money is there, but it is not yours; and if you use it, you may be committing a crime.

An isolated failure or a symptom of lack of control?

The case is not unique. In the same period, similar situations have been reported: duplicate payments, payslips for different people in the same account or amounts exceeding €3,000 without apparent justification. The Bizkaia Provincial Council manages a high volume of benefits, and errors can multiply. The question is whether these failures are exceptional or whether they reflect a deeper problem in control systems.

Meanwhile, the affected person faces a decision without an instruction manual: report the situation to leave an official record, wait for the administration to clarify, or simply not touch the money and pray that no one claims it. The only certainty is that the bureaucratic maze offers no quick answers.

---

This article is based on the account of an affected person and on the experiences shared by other taxpayers in an economics forum. It does not constitute legal or tax advice.