Natwest sucks

planning_ahead_2

never-in-doubt wrote: »

You're mis-reading the wording mate. Consider moving from the words 'acceptor of cheques' and move to 'payable for goods or services' - this is where the wording pretty much rules out an individual.

Bear in mind a lot of the banking processes were at fault, as the agreements are showing lately (with unenforceability etc)..... so although it didn't spell it out, it was always an unwritten thing that you couldn't guarantee a cheque to an individual.

You know me, I do like ripping banks a new A-Hole :eek: :rotfl: :eek:

Hi again

I'm not misreading - and totally agree with you regarding what the cheque and credit clearing document reads/states/implies. As you say it was an unwritten rule/condition etc.

However, the conditions of use document would 'imply' the guarantee was applicable to anyone accepting the cheque with card because it doesn't state any limitations as to who or what type of party can accept it. This is the document that would have been made available to anyone walking into a branch and querying the use of cheque guarantee cards.

I do totally agree with you when putting ALL the documents and information together the unwritten bit is clear from reading the rest of the garbage:D - I just know from working in branches that we only ever bounced cheques that were clearly fraudulent/outside the limits etc. If the cheque met the guarantee conditions we paid it whether it was private or business - but it did mean that we could then generate lots of income from writing letters, overdraft fees etc etc. so maybe my manager was thinking more of his bonuses than following the unwritten rules :rotfl:

Thank god they are being scrapped in 2011 - especially as that may put a barrier in the way of these god awful pay day loans

Final response - cos I feel I've hi-jacked the thread from it's original purpose:o But - I do bow to your superior knowledge and accept the unwritten rule has always been in place;)

never-in-doubt

planning_ahead wrote: »

Hi again

I'm not misreading - and totally agree with you regarding what the cheque and credit clearing document reads/states/implies. As you say it was an unwritten rule/condition etc.

However, the conditions of use document would 'imply' the guarantee was applicable to anyone accepting the cheque with card because it doesn't state any limitations as to who or what type of party can accept it. This is the document that would have been made available to anyone walking into a branch and querying the use of cheque guarantee cards.

I do totally agree with you when putting ALL the documents and information together the unwritten bit is clear from reading the rest of the garbage:D - I just know from working in branches that we only ever bounced cheques that were clearly fraudulent/outside the limits etc. If the cheque met the guarantee conditions we paid it whether it was private or business - but it did mean that we could then generate lots of income from writing letters, overdraft fees etc etc. so maybe my manager was thinking more of his bonuses than following the unwritten rules :rotfl:

Thank god they are being scrapped in 2011 - especially as that may put a barrier in the way of these god awful pay day loans

Final response - cos I feel I've hi-jacked the thread from it's original purpose:o But - I do bow to your superior knowledge and accept the unwritten rule has always been in place;)

I see what you're saying, maybe you're right - maybe your branch manager allowed them to go through to allow for charges, but then to be fair I guarantee (see the irony lol) that had one person paid in 30 cheques or even a £100 cheque daily etc that the branch would stop paying them, i.e. you pay 30 cheques to your girlfriend who banks with a different bank, after your bank started to see the influx of cheques which were making you go overdrawn, they would bounce them. Maybe the odd few went through, but they will soon bounce them.

A business however, is guaranteed thus (as you state) the payday loans want several cheques from you and a copy of your card cos they can get one staff member to fill in the cheque (already signed by you) and another to guarantee it.

Don't bow to me mate - i'm not superior (knowledge or othwewise) lol - how much did that cost me for the 'beef-me-up' lol :rotfl:

stressed_mummy

i was with natwest for 22 years they are now taking me to court for the princely sum of £9500. i have had major problems from health to shutting down my business at the end of last year for the last 2 years i have just calculated that they have had £3600 in charges without adding on the interest . busy sorting out court papers must post soa as well this weekend for you to pull apart!!
the joy of working but not taking a salary for almost 18 months!!

never-in-doubt

stressed_mummy wrote: »

i was with natwest for 22 years they are now taking me to court for the princely sum of £9500. i have had major problems from health to shutting down my business at the end of last year for the last 2 years i have just calculated that they have had £3600 in charges without adding on the interest . busy sorting out court papers must post soa as well this weekend for you to pull apart!!
the joy of working but not taking a salary for almost 18 months!!

Is it enforceable, the Natwest debt? lol - you know what's coming next don't you

See here: Unenforceability & Template Letters II & send a PM to 10past6 who is an expert on court....

vaporate

Deep_In_Debt wrote: »

Barclays are also BR friendly so you could try them for a basic account also.

I have a Natwest Step account which I am happy with.

From what I read about NW, they are a bit unpredictable. They have been known to close accounts if you don't pay enough money in, if you've been BR in the past even though they opened an account for you knowing full well about it.

I'd try Co-op or Barclays if I were you but make sure that Barclays put you through for a basic account otherwise you will get rejected.

Good luck.

:beer: I would like to see them do that to me. Kiss savings and future savings with Natwest good bye. (If they do)

mikesears

My thanks to the people who have commented on my original email regarding NatWest not honouring a correct cheque guarantee card because the cheque was paid to an individual. I accepted the cheque in my shop and had it paid to myself as my business was on the point of closing and my business account had been closed. For many years we accepted cards through Streamline ( a division of NatWest) but the card machine had been returned so could not be used. All this has been explained to NatWest and the fact that many thousands of pounds had been paid to them over the years through Streamline in my name as sole proprietor. I genuinely believe that morally NatWest should accept their responsibility but they refuse. I have gone through the small claims court and won but have not as expected recieved a penny. This is now a point of principle, has anyone taken the bank through the small claims court and if so what happened? My only hope is that NatWest will not want bad publicity and be shamed into accepting responsibilty for their dishonest customer.

Thanks again Mike

P.s. the banking ombudsman is not interested as NatWest is not my bank

never-in-doubt

Mike you do not have a leg to stand on, unless a cheque was made payable to the business then it is a worthless piece of paper. Why don't you deal with the idiot that issued the cheque, rather than vent your anger at the bank for correctly refusing to honour a guaranteed cheque to an individual...?

mikesears

Thanks, Never in Doubt,

Perhaps if you read my email you would see that I have dealt with the idiot who gave me a bad cheque and have CCJ against him which from previous experience is not worth the time and effort other than causing the idiot some aggravation.
I take issue with you for standing up for NatWest unless of course you have a hidden agenda, I am sure that the vast majority of bank customers believe that a cheque guarantee card should do what it says and NatWest know this too well but decline to make it public knowledge and hide behind small print. That point is proven by the fact that on three occassions the staff at my local NatWest branch made efforts to get the cheque paid because they thought as I did that a correct card should guarantee payment, at no time was it mentioned that a guarantee card was for business only, the reason being I repeat, that they thought the same as I.
Contrary to what you say I believe I DO have a leg to stand on, it is called a moral one and the more noise one makes the more the banks take notice, if that was not the case why should there be sites such as this.

Regards Mike

never-in-doubt

mikesears wrote: »

Perhaps if you read my email you would see that I have dealt with the idiot who gave me a bad cheque and have CCJ against him which from previous experience is not worth the time and effort other than causing the idiot some aggravation.

You got a CCJ against him for less than £100?

mikesears wrote: »

I take issue with you for standing up for NatWest unless of course you have a hidden agenda,

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Just look at any of my posts and you'll see I am the number one anti-banks on here, I help people to go for unenforceability etc so you're way, way, way off the mark on that idea i'm afraid

As it happens, i'm not sticking up for anyone - let alone NatPest - however I understand the laws and procedures and i'm telling you that you don't have a leg to stand on. Cheques can only be guaranteed when issued to a business and banked into a business account. The guarantee element is worthless to an individual, the reason being the business takes the risk and therefore before releasing goods requires payment - instead of waiting 6 days for clearance they accept guarantee to whatever limit the card displays, by the issuing bank.

I've already explained, the reason they do not guarantee individuals is quite simply to reduce the risk of abuse, for instance you have a cheque book and a £100 guarantee card, you then request a new cheque book which gives you access to 60 cheques at £100 each. Imagine if you were skint, or wanted to renegade the bank for whatever reason, you could pay a £100 per cheque (guaranteed) into another account of yours - thus being £6k richer at the end of it.

It is simple fact that only businesses can utilise the guarantee element.

mikesears wrote: »

I am sure that the vast majority of bank customers believe that a cheque guarantee card should do what it says and NatWest know this too well but decline to make it public knowledge and hide behind small print.

But it is common sense and has always been the case, as a business surely you know the rules of cheque guarantee? If not, why? Its one of the first things you do in business, learn what payment methods to accept and which to trust and which to avoid! Especially when it is your business - £100 can mean !!!!!! or bust to some smaller companies....

mikesears wrote: »

That point is proven by the fact that on three occassions the staff at my local NatWest branch made efforts to get the cheque paid because they thought as I did that a correct card should guarantee payment, at no time was it mentioned that a guarantee card was for business only, the reason being I repeat, that they thought the same as I.

Staff error. That does not prove anything, at the end of the day they would try and clear it and processing would reject it - no matter what they say, the system corrects staff error and therefore the cheque, if unavailable to clear, would be rejected - correctly.

mikesears wrote: »

Contrary to what you say I believe I DO have a leg to stand on, it is called a moral one and the more noise one makes the more the banks take notice, if that was not the case why should there be sites such as this.

Morals will not get you your £100 back - nor do they win in court, law wins in court.

I understand you're p!ssed mate and am not having a go at you, far from it, but what I am doing is telling you the law and your rights (or lack of) and trying to stop you making an idiot of yourself by pursuing something that you have no recouse to pursue. Love it or hate it, Mr Bank Hater himself is telling you that you do not have a leg to stand on and if you did, I guarantee i'd be one of the first to help you and tell you how to get your money.

I hate banks - period. :mad:

mikesears

Hello Never in Doubt,

As you have taken my reply apart bit by bit I just make the following comments.

Yes I have a ccj against the man who gave me the bad cheque, by the time the court fees were added and I piled on a few quid for my many travels to the bank the amount was considerrably over £100. I have had ccjs against people twice before and although I have had some success I was pretty sure in this case that it would be a waste of time so I bumped my expenses right up to make the amount high and gave him the chance to pay a smaller amount, didnt really expect it to work and it did not.

I am not going to bore anyone with my business details but please do not patronise me by saying anyone going into business should know about guarantee cards and payment methods. If every member of the NatWest branch that I used did not know then I do not feel that I should know every dot and comma.

You make the point often that someone can use a guarantee card to pay dozens of cheques into another account and defraud a bank, I take that point but what is to stop them paying dozens of small business's the same way and getting goods for nothing, not every small business had a card machine or even a business account

I was unfortunate in that I accepted this cheque during the last few days of trading, my business account had been closed and my card machine had been returned to Streamline (NatWest). You may not believe that a moral argument has any weight, well someone has to make a stand and a noise.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Regards Mike