taking cheques as a seller

cazs

Are there any risks to this?

My buyer says they have had someone else access their paypal account and so can they pay by cheque or postal order instead?

Ought I have any qualms about this? (Not high value.)

And if I say yes pay me by cheque then what do I do as I have only ever taken Paypal before. Do I just send him an email staing my address so he can send me a cheque or some other procedure?

I will have to wait for cheque to clear before sending out I think.

The Postal Order- I don't really know how these work and if they are safer than a cheque?

maggie111

Postal orders are quicker than a cheque, in that they don't take any time to clear. Many sellers will recommend taking the postal order and cashing it at the same time you take the item into post.

Personally, if they can send a cheque they can send a PO and that's what I'd recommend they do, as long as they record the delivery of the postal order.

vaio

PO can be cashed at the post office and once cashed are irreversible

Cheques have to be paid into a bank account and, under the new rules, are irreversible after 6 working days

soolin

Postal orders though are expensive for a buyer and tend to be only used by those users who for some reason can't have a bank account. I get a lot of postal orders at the moment on my private account but purely because I am selling off old stuff from my own children and it is being bought, I suspect, by young people .

Strapped

I accept cheques on all my lower value items and never (so far!) had a problem. It costs to cancel a cheque so people are unlikely to for a low value item.

Hezzawithkids

Best advice I ever got was to tell the buyer that cheques are ok so long as they dont mind waiting for it to clear before you post. Then for any item under £10 post it out anyway as soon as you bank the cheque; that way you over-deliver on your promise and gets lots of good feedback. In my experience I've never yet had a <£10 cheque go bad on me. For anything over £10 I would definitely wait until it clears before posting the item.

HTH

so2006

I would not just send the item even if the cheque had cleared no matter what the price is.

Just go for a po, it is so much easier and cash is with you straight away!

durham_girl

Make sure the postal order is uncrossed though, ones that have been crossed have to be paid in at the bank and this takes the same time as a cheque to clear.

shelovestobuystuff

I would personally avoid taking cheques if you can.Most of my sales and purchases are through paypal.
A postal order is much safer and quicker than a cheque.If I get a postal order payment I take the parcel with me to the post office ,cash the postal order,then post the parcel and pay for the postage with some of the cash.You get the cash handed to you so no clearing time,no problems with the bank,no delays.
Every cheque payment I have accepted I have had problems with.Some people dont seem to realise that the post box is not a teleportation device and that their cheque can take a few days to get to you.They also dont seem to realise that if you recieve a cheque late in the week it may be Monday before its banked,and that is only if there isnt a bank holiday.I had one customer who called me every day until their item arrived,they can get your phone number from ebay as soon as they buy an item, and accused me of stealing their money,all because they couldnt get their head around the fact that my bank requested the money from their bank a few days before it actually landed in my account.The delay between it leaving their account and showing up in mine was 5 days in fact.I posted it as soon as they payment cleared but was left a neg on ebay and they even blamed me for the post office taking a week to deliver the cheque.That was only a £2.99 sale and I was out of pocket because they were so bloomin awful that I sent it special delivery so it got to them as quickly as possible.I still got a nice red negative.

Strapped

so2006 wrote: »

I would not just send the item even if the cheque had cleared no matter what the price is.

Could you explain why please?

flipper_2010

I think they mean 'hadn't' not had