Aahh. That makes it different then, doesn't it? But then there is the burden of proof on who said what. Ultimately, it spells a massive family fall out

That is an understatment..............the borrower knew that the euros was going to be changed into pounds during the transfer, so the lender actually sent 2800euros, even though only 2 thousand pounds arrived.
My take is that the lender should end up with the 2800 the originaly sent.

But they asked for £2000 in the first place right?

The words we have been told were "to send enought euros to make 2000 quid. On the transfer slip is stated the original amount in euros, and I have just been told that this was to be a short term loan, and the money should have been paid back 2 years ago.
If the money had been paid back when is should have been, there would be no problem

The borrower should repay what the lender is out of pocket, which should include some form of intrest payment.

Interest? Between family?

I don't think it's about the "he said" "she said" scenario. I think it's about resolving it in whatever way is morally right. And I wouldn't want to be the judge of that one.....

I'd still be pissed off whatever side of the fence I was on . If I borrowed 2k, that's what I'd want to pay back. On the other hand.....if I'd lent 3,000 euros, that's what I'd expect back. Did anybody mention or take into account currency fluctuations at the time?

I dont think so, the lender has never been out of Spain, and lives in a region where exchange rates would never be discussed (rural Galicia)
the only one aware of the possibility would have been the lender, who is Spanish but lives in the UK...

I'm trying to see if there is somewhere the borrower would benefit from such a low exchange rate, and has thus specifically waited until now to pay back. Perhaps they transferred the money to a Spanish bank account a while back, when rates were good, planning to repay in euros, but only to the value of 2k.
I smell a rat somewhere

Good theory Holmes, but if I mentioned it to anyone, I would be singing soprano for the rest of my natural.
You know how it is with family disputes, you are damned if you do and damned if you dont.

The more I think about it, I'd be decidedly suspicious of the borrower. Mind you, I guess yer balls are precious!

personally I reckon the lender should get back what they lent



I can see why the borrower doesn't want to pay back more than they borrowed


so in the interest of family harmony can't they just split the difference between the 2000 quid & 2800 euros & agree on 2400 quid/euros?

A similar thing happened to me when I lent a sum of money to my son who lives in Australia. When he eventually offered to pay me back, in Australian Dollars, it didn’t come anywhere near the sum I’d lent him.

I didn’t say anything and kept my thoughts to myself. On reflection, I was just pleased to get anything back.

But to answer the OP, did I expect (hope) to be repaid in full? I’m afraid the answer is Yes.

Still keep thinking about this one, and have asked several people for an opinion just out of interest, and guess what? 50/50. Has it been resolved yet?

Whatever happens there is no way to please everyone in this situation, so I'd go for damage limitation.

I think Lynxxa made the best suggestion - split the difference and repay 2400 euros.