Save the Cheque!

BuddyBonthenet

aldo wrote: »

Yeah Natwest offered them, But I always complained to them that they didn't offer left handed paying in books

:rotfl:

I'm sure the Midlands used to do one too, as I think my brother had one - mind you he wouldn't need a paying in book as he only ever took money out! :rotfl:

Extant

BuddyBonthenet wrote: »

Okay...so how would this work in practice?

Let's say I am the volunteer organiser of a craft event at my local school and the bank account cheques are made out to at the moment belongs to the school's PTA. I receive the cheques and make a note of the bookings and when all the places are filled I pass the cheques to the person who deals with the account to bank. If cheques were scrapped and the payment is made electronically, how do I keep track of the payments made without constantly bothering the person who runs the bank account or relying on them to let me know every time a payment for that particular event is credited to the bank account?

I'm not trying to invent problems or resist change. I am looking for practical alternatives for the occasions cheques are used for now.

But do you really think your example is typical of cheque usage? If you don't have access to the bank account, maybe you shouldn't be the one in charge of receiving payments? Seems fairly simple to me.

And as said before, there are a variety of different ways to get around the issue, both currently in use and not in use. First is the simple bank transfer: give the details and allow the person to transfer the funds in. Given the increasing prevalence of internet, telephone and mobile banking, a funds transfer is now ridiculously easy. Coupled with FPS, the payment can be there in minutes.

So, you go instruct people to pay in this method, and then get your treasurer check the account in, say, 7 days. Since this is what you need to be doing with cheques anyway, considering time for the cheques to clear etc.

What's to object about this? The fact that you're not given something tangible straight away? Doesn't matter; cheques aren't guaranteed funds anyway.

Extant

BuddyBonthenet wrote: »

I remember left handed cheque books! That is exactly the kind of customer service that isn't offered today. Now it is the broad brush approach imho.

Barclays offers the following: left handed cheque books, Welsh cheque books, large print cheque books, cheque book templates to assist the partially sighted, and uncrossed cheques for customers who still wish to use them.

Anything else you'd like? I know the head of service delivery for retail banking, I'll gladly pass along any suggestions.

Also, a quick Google around suggests that other banks offer and continue to offer left handed cheque books. Indeed, there's a thread on these very forums from October 2008 about being asked if they needed a left or right handed cheque book from HSBC. There you go, that's two major banks that offer them - and I'd suspect they all do really.

Extant

Inactive wrote: »

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

First off, it's market forces, and any current economic problems are a red herring. They don't somehow make cheques magically more efficient, etc.

rb10

BarclaysManager wrote: »

First is the simple bank transfer: give the details and allow the person to transfer the funds in. Given the increasing prevalence of internet, telephone and mobile banking, a funds transfer is now ridiculously easy. Coupled with FPS, the payment can be there in minutes.

So, you go instruct people to pay in this method, and then get your treasurer check the account in, say, 7 days. Since this is what you need to be doing with cheques anyway, considering time for the cheques to clear etc.

What's to object about this? The fact that you're not given something tangible straight away? Doesn't matter; cheques aren't guaranteed funds anyway.

The trouble with this is that - unless/until it becomes embedded in our minds as being a standard method of payment - people will forget to do the transfer, or delay it, thinking "I get paid a fortnight next Tuesday, I'll do it then". Then, the treasurer has to chase around all these people, a huge amount of work.

lr1277

I support this campaign. Reasons:
1) easy way to pay my running club.
2) the onus is on the money receiver to put the money in the right account and not on the money giver to transfer the money to the correct account. Money transferred to the wrong account cannot easily be retrieved is my guess and I certainly wouldn't want to go through that hassle.
As a money receiver I will certainly put the money in the correct account. As a money giver I am less likely to send the money to the right account.

Extant

rb10 wrote: »

The trouble with this is that - unless/until it becomes embedded in our minds as being a standard method of payment - people will forget to do the transfer, or delay it, thinking "I get paid a fortnight next Tuesday, I'll do it then". Then, the treasurer has to chase around all these people, a huge amount of work.

Exactly, it's a change. People need time to get used to change. Hence cheques not having an end date yet.

And I also think you're underestimating people - with cheques counting for just a shade over 5% of non-cash payments now, it's fairly obvious that people are capable of making that other 95% of payments by debit card, transfer, etc.

Again: there are plenty of countries without cheques. They did not just "break down."

Extant

lr1277 wrote: »

I support this campaign. Reasons:
1) easy way to pay my running club.

A transfer is difficult?

2) the onus is on the money receiver to put the money in the right account and not on the money giver to transfer the money to the correct account. Money transferred to the wrong account cannot easily be retrieved is my guess and I certainly wouldn't want to go through that hassle.
As a money receiver I will certainly put the money in the correct account. As a money giver I am less likely to send the money to the right account.

Account numbers have validation numbers within them, and these will now be rejected back by the Faster Payments System. For instance, my account starts 43. If I changed that to 45 or 48, it would bounce right back. Not only are check digits built in, account numbers are created in such a way as to prevent transposition from being a problem. So that's really not an excuse either.

That said, it's not as though it's a hassle to learn your account number and make sure someone writes it down correctly. God knows we manage with telephone numbers.

BuddyBonthenet

BarclaysManager wrote: »

But do you really think your example is typical of cheque usage? If you don't have access to the bank account, maybe you shouldn't be the one in charge of receiving payments? Seems fairly simple to me.

And as said before, there are a variety of different ways to get around the issue, both currently in use and not in use. First is the simple bank transfer: give the details and allow the person to transfer the funds in. Given the increasing prevalence of internet, telephone and mobile banking, a funds transfer is now ridiculously easy. Coupled with FPS, the payment can be there in minutes.

So, you go instruct people to pay in this method, and then get your treasurer check the account in, say, 7 days. Since this is what you need to be doing with cheques anyway, considering time for the cheques to clear etc.

What's to object about this? The fact that you're not given something tangible straight away? Doesn't matter; cheques aren't guaranteed funds anyway.

Actually I think this is a very good example of how cheques are used and spenderdave's post #51 backs this up.

There are thousands of people who volunteer to organise trips, events & general fundraising for schools, churches, clubs, community organisations, charities, etc., none of whom have access to the main organisation's bank account and that is the way it has been for years.

As spenderdave says, the cheque has been the universal and preferred method of payment and doesn't require authority to access the bank account. It is a much for you to say that if you don't have this authority you shouldn't be receiving any payments.

Yes, my objection is that without the cheque the volunteer/organiser doesn't have something tangible that helps them with administering/organising the event. It is very little if anything to do with cheques being guaranteed funds or not (I've never heard of this kind of cheque bouncing anyway - trust is a often big factor).

As I have said repeatedly I am well aware of the other methods of payment available and use them all the time. I'm just looking for a practical solution for what is not an uncommon situation. spenderdave's comments about small businesses is also very relevant and again not at all uncommon.

BuddyBonthenet

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Barclays offers the following: left handed cheque books, Welsh cheque books, large print cheque books, cheque book templates to assist the partially sighted, and uncrossed cheques for customers who still wish to use them.

Anything else you'd like? I know the head of service delivery for retail banking, I'll gladly pass along any suggestions.

Also, a quick Google around suggests that other banks offer and continue to offer left handed cheque books. Indeed, there's a thread on these very forums from October 2008 about being asked if they needed a left or right handed cheque book from HSBC. There you go, that's two major banks that offer them - and I'd suspect they all do really.

My apologies I stand corrected and made a sweeping assumption.