Save the Cheque!

Milarky

BarclaysManager wrote: »

How do you figure? Cheque guarantees only go up to £250; people use cheque books for amounts beyond that. Should we deny them the ability to do so, and not issue them a cheque book if they so request them?

Yep! Don't issue a chequebook in the first place if you (the bank) don't even trust the user to write cheques for lesser amounts (eg to £50) Paying money into another account with a bouncy cheque is only a problem (and not really a problem at all) for the banks themselves - easily sorted - no fraud.

A cheque itself is not a guaranteed form of payment, hence the existence of cheque guarantee cards - cards which weren't widely available until the 1970s. How do you think people managed with cheques before then?

You've answered your own question - so that must have been rhetorical..

Cheques require you to.. have some trust in the drawer

You shouldn't pass on goods without the cheque clearing first.

What you're saying here is not practical in many (possibly the majority) situations - hence, presumably, the reason that banks (for it was they) dreamt up CG cards in the first place?

You're also somehow connecting up fraud to being given a chequebook but no cheque guarantee - this is a risk issue, not a fraud one.

Oh no, I'm not letting you wriggle out of that one BatMan! What I meant was that banks hand out chequebooks like confetti - to all and sundry - and that is the problem. If an apprentice gets a bank account when they start work there is no way this should include cheques and therefore it won't occur to them to misuse said cheques iof the bank were to do its job. That's 'moral hazard' where I'm coming from. Banks which fail to take account of moral hazard are (in effect) committing fraud against all their honest customers.

How have the banks moved to eliminate cheque acceptance? Banks still take and issue cheques, retailers are the ones who have decided to stop.

Retailers are being obliged by the banks' unilateral undermining the the CG scheme. Lloyds for example didn't issue me with a CG card. I assumed they would have done and this was an oversight. But when asked they told me they just stopped doing so for all customers some time ago. So how does this not hinder acceptance of cheques more generally, hmm?

Extant

BuddyBonthenet wrote: »

Such as? If I use a Postal Order that costs more than twice the price of a stamp, so I'd be out of pocket. Sending cash through the mail would be foolish. What other different ways are available?

Funds transfers, straight to sort code and account number? These can be made by phone, internet and increasingly through mobile phones. And with faster payments rolling out, it often provides for a faster confirmation of cleared funds.

How do you think countries without cheques survive now? They don't just shut down.

BuddyBonthenet

opinions4u wrote: »

Online transfer.
Bill payment at a Halifax ATM (could easily be replicated by others).
PayPal.

The list is a hell of a lot longer.

I'm sorry, but did you read my original post? None of these are appropriate for my circumstances. I'm not talking about paying bills or for goods & services. How does the organiser of a small event at a local school or church keep track of bookings using any of these methods when the account in question is not their own?

BuddyBonthenet

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Funds transfers, straight to sort code and account number? These can be made by phone, internet and increasingly through mobile phones. And with faster payments rolling out, it often provides for a faster confirmation of cleared funds.

How do you think countries without cheques survive now? They don't just shut down.

As per my post above - this is fine when the organiser is the owner of the account that will eventually receive the payment. I know all these methods of payment exist, I'm not a banking dinosaur - I've used telephone and internet banking since it was introduced. I'm just asking how the few occasions for which I do have to write a cheque are to be managed.

Extant

Milarky wrote: »

Yep! Don't issue a chequebook in the first place if you (the bank) don't even trust the user to write cheques for lesser amounts (eg to £50) Paying money into another account with a bouncy cheque is only a problem (and not really a problem at all) for the banks themselves - easily sorted - no fraud.

Except it's not necessarily to do with fraud, it's to do with risk. As I said before.

What you're saying here is not practical in many (possibly the majority) situations - hence, presumably, the reason that banks (for it was they) dreamt up CG cards in the first place?

Then simply don't accept cheques if it's not practical to the situation. If it's an item of that great a value, a cheque guarantee is useless anyway, as the limit is £250.

Exactly how many practical situations are there where you'd need a guaranteed cheque for £50 or £100, those being the more common amounts. Exactly how many times in your day to day life do you need to write a cheque out to someone and guarantee it right at the point? Considering a mailed cheque can't be guaranteed, etc.

Oh no, I'm not letting you wriggle out of that one BatMan! What I meant was that banks hand out chequebooks like confetti - to all and sundry - and that is the problem. If an apprentice gets a bank account when they start work there is no way this should include cheques and therefore it won't occur to them to misuse said cheques iof the bank were to do its job. That's 'moral hazard' where I'm coming from. Banks which fail to take account of moral hazard are (in effect) committing fraud against all their honest customers.

Since when were we responsible for making sure other people are responsible? T&Cs pretty clearly state you're responsible for account conduct. If you can't do that, don't use the account. Fairly simple.

So I don't see how you think it's our "job" to raise teenage apprentices...

Retailers are being obliged by the banks' unilateral undermining the the CG scheme. Lloyds for example didn't issue me with a CG card. I assumed they would have done and this was an oversight. But when asked they told me they just stopped doing so for all customers some time ago. So how does this not hinder acceptance of cheques more generally, hmm?

Except there are plenty of banks that still issue cheque guarantees - HSBC, Barclays, RBS Group. Why would Lloyds stopping influence this decision?

The simple fact is that cheques are expensive, and not well suited to the retail environment anymore. Most cheque guarantees are £50 or maybe £100, with very few £250 out there. These limits are useless to a lot of retailers.

Don't you think that the several big name retails that have stopped taking cheques - Sainsburys, Asda, Argos, etc. - might have said something if they had an issue with it? No, they didn't, because this is a market force at work here.

Cheaper, more efficient processes are winning out.

Mrs_Ryan

I've got a chequebook (A&L chequebook in front of me at the minute) and surprisingly, its about half-used.

I mainly use mine to pay deposits when we go on holidays - not happy sending my card details through the post. My mum sent OH a cheque for his birthday a couple of days ago and she said it took her 6 attempts to write it :eek: as she never uses it!! I hate using my chequebook as I am left-handed and its a nightmare to write cheques. But I still think its a good idea to issue them - some places will only take cheques or cash (my hairdresser for example) and I dont use cash, so I pay by cheque.
But it is an outmoded thing, definitely.

Inactive

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Don't you think that the several big name retails that have stopped taking cheques - Sainsburys, Asda, Argos, etc. - might have said something if they had an issue with it? No, they didn't, because this is a market force at work here.

Cheaper, more efficient processes are winning out.

Would that be the same " market force " that got us all in to this huge mess?..:rolleyes:

opinions4u

Mrs_Ryan wrote: »

I mainly use mine to pay deposits when we go on holidays - not happy sending my card details through the post

But it would be safer to ring up and give your card details over the phone or pay online, surely?

Personally I will ALWAYS pay the first £100 deposit of any holiday on credit card. As it is my one major annual expenditure the thought of being stiffed should the tour company or other provider goes bust means getting Consumer Credit Act protection for the whole of the holiday spend is well worth paying any minor card surcharge that is applied.

I hate using my chequebook as I am left-handed and its a nightmare to write cheques.

Good point! Do any providers offer left handed cheque books? You'd expect the Disability Discrimination Act to demand it!

But I still think its a good idea to issue them - some places will only take cheques or cash (my hairdresser for example) and I dont use cash, so I pay by cheque. But it is an outmoded thing, definitely.

It will die its own natural death over time.

spenderdave

All the usual arguments coming out again here...

Although the retail industry has clearly gone over to card payments in the wider world it is going to be some time before the cheque disappears.

I am treasurer of our local amateur radio club and for many years also treasurer of my Church. Both these organisations have firm rules that cheques need signing by two officials and for that reason do not have debit/credit cards, internet access is limited to viewing the account and payments are not permitted this way. So the cheque is the universal (and preferred) way of payment. If cheques go away then other payment authority would have to be decided to fit in with the new arrangements.

Also as running a small business myself with a very small turnover, the setting up of credit card accounts and associated on line terminals is too expensive. I accept the odd cheque (most people pay me in cash though) but nowadays write few. When organisations such as ours (and my mobile car mechanic etc) finish a job we prefer payment at the time and evidence it has been done - giving the chap a bank account number and telling him to transfer the money on his internet banking when he gets round to it is hardly the same (then you have to chase him up when it doesn't appear...). Having a piece of paper in your hand does seem rather better, although of course it may be a duff cheque... As for somebody buying something at a fete you may never have seen the person before and will never do so again, will you trust her with your bank account details and hope she pays (six months later..).

I can see the cheque book going in time but there are big issues like this to sort out first so I can't see it happening any time soon.

ahai1

I agree with Barclaysmanager it is the customer who is responible for running the account. If let's say a business were to take a cheque that bounced then it is the fault of the customer for giving cheques and the business for accepting it and not the fault of the bank.

As for the using cheque's and needing 2 people's signatures that is not the standard practice in all voluntary organisations as I know some who pay their employees by BACS and also have a business debit and business credit cards.

The craft thing. It is easy to keep track as people can ask for a referance let me give you an example. Accoount number, Payee, Sort code and Reference are what people need.

I think it is down to a lot of people not been willing to chnage and invent problems where there are not any. The wikipedia entry has said that some countries have got rid of the cheque and they can manage.

Also the problem is only going to get worse for cheques. I know that HSBC are encourging people to go green and a lot of people have gone green which means they no longer get a cheque book.

I was going to use quotes but then I would have had a large number of replies here.