Cheques move a step closer to extinction

vet8

My OH does gardening for various old couples. He bills them at the end of the month and they all pay him by cheque. How else would they do it? They are elderly people who do not use the internet and he does not want £300 or so in cash.

I also work for a business that deals with lots of small customers, the vast majority of whom pay by cheque.

In the real every-day world, outside of bankers or high finance, there are loads of people who still use cheques, other methods might be faster, sexier, or more "cutting edge", but real people like cheques as at the moment the only other alternative is carrying loads of cash around which is clearly risky.

Poppy9

Until cheques are phased out many clubs/schools won't make an effort to change the way they collect money.

My DD swimming club gave out a form and parents filled in bank details and paid by SO. This was better for the club as they knew they would get their money and no cheques lost in the post. I'm surprised that more clubs and schools don't do this.

Councils already let people pay online so why can't they extend the service to schools?

I already do most of my banking/bill paying on line, the one thing I would like to see though is when I set up a new payment and enter bank account and sort code, if it's a business that the account name comes back so I can confirm I've entered the numbers correctly. I am generally okay with numbers but one of my sisters always transposes numbers.

Rosemary7391

I pay for my driving lessons by cheque. For obvious reasons my instructor would like to be paid before/during the lesson. Because my lessons are rather changeable and sometimes I have none for weeks on end, or they change at very short notice, I'd rather pay him in person. So I can have a cheque or cash. My lessons cost £25 - to get a fiver I either have to spend money (that I don't really have to spend) or traipse into town to my bank. So, I write a cheque - much easier!

Inactive

BarclaysManager wrote: »

The job market is a competitive place, they'd just go somewhere else and we'd end up with poorer quality people in place.

.

You would be hard pressed to find a bigger bunch of incompetents than the Directors of most British Banks / Building Societies, however much you pay them.. it is they that got us all in to this mess in the first place.

I do hope that you ain't trying to convince anybody that Sir Fred was value for money.. :rolleyes:

I digress, I use cheques, I like cheques for certain transactions so I don't really care what a Bank Manager thinks about them, you have obviously been brain washed by Barclays anyway.

Extant

Inactive wrote: »

You would be hard pressed to find a bigger bunch of incompetents than the Directors of most British Banks / Building Societies, however much you pay them.. it is they that got us all in to this mess in the first place.

And to what to you owe this presumption?

I like how you completely ignore the lax and virtually non-existent regulation of the banks, as well as the influences of the American markets and of our own politicians. But no, obviously, it's just those greedy British bankers all the way... :rolleyes:

I do hope that you ain't trying to convince anybody that Sir Fred was value for money.. :rolleyes:

Before the mistakes of recent years, Sir Fred was incredibly good value for money - he substantially expanded RBS, and many, many people profited from an increasing share price during his tenure.

The fact that he presided over the downfall doesn't write off his earlier achievements. Nor do those achievements justify some exceptionally bad PR regarding his pension, but that's a different issue all together.

A dislike for the man shouldn't cast shadows on what he did achieve earlier in his career. If you were an RBS shareholder when they announced the Natwest bid, I doubt you'd hate him at all.

I digress, I use cheques, I like cheques for certain transactions so I don't really care what a Bank Manager thinks about them, you have obviously been brain washed by Barclays anyway.

How have I been brain washed? Barclays has no official policy regarding cheques and their decline.

My opinions are my own. I certainly don't need any institution to tell me that shuffling bits of paper around is antiquated and backward, no more than I need a doctor to tell me jumping off a cliff is stupid. Some things are just plainly obvious.

Extant

vet8 wrote: »

My OH does gardening for various old couples. He bills them at the end of the month and they all pay him by cheque. How else would they do it? They are elderly people who do not use the internet and he does not want £300 or so in cash.

Do they use telephones? I hear telephone banking has been all the rage since... well, long before I was born. Indeed, there's even one bank who've made themselves exist entirely online and by telephone.

No cash or internet? Call the bank, get your transfer done. Don't want to do that? Visit the bank.

Five minutes of your day gone, money there instantly (or at most three days - faster than a cheque), no postage to be paid, no chance of a lost cheque...

I also work for a business that deals with lots of small customers, the vast majority of whom pay by cheque.

In the real every-day world, outside of bankers or high finance, there are loads of people who still use cheques, other methods might be faster, sexier, or more "cutting edge", but real people like cheques as at the moment the only other alternative is carrying loads of cash around which is clearly risky.

The only other alternative is not carrying cash, it's making a transfer - this is easily done by phone, internet, in branch, by text, etc.

Cheques are the smallest non-cash transaction type currently operating, and of that minority of transactions in the UK, around a quarter of them are bill payments. Bank Giro Credits, paid with cheques. These are easily replaced with direct debits or standing orders.

There's simply no justification for cheques, other than people being luddites and refusing to change. They will continue to use cheques as there is no pressure for them to change currently - it's not that there's inherent value in cheques, it's that people are stubborn.

Inactive

BarclaysManager wrote: »

There's simply no justification for cheques, other than people being luddites and refusing to change. They will continue to use cheques as there is no pressure for them to change currently - it's not that there's inherent value in cheques, it's that people are stubborn.

Well there must be a lot of us " luddites " around by the number of cheques that I still receive, many from quite large institutions, I hasten to add.

Inactive

BarclaysManager wrote: »

Before the mistakes of recent years, Sir Fred was incredibly good value for money - he substantially expanded RBS, and many, many people profited from an increasing share price during his tenure.

The fact that he presided over the downfall doesn't write off his earlier achievements. Nor do those achievements justify some exceptionally bad PR regarding his pension, but that's a different issue all together.
.

You are the only person that I know of, that has ever attempted to defend Sir Fred. :rotfl:

never-in-doubt

Inactive wrote: »

You are the only person that I know of, that has ever attempted to defend Sir Fred. :rotfl:

apart from a certain Mr Brown of course.......

byb3

I've only gleamed over this thread, but all of the private landlords I used when I was a student requested that rent be paid by cheque. This seems to be the deal with most student landlords as well. I can't see there being an obvious alternative to cheques apart from paying online which some landlords are very reluctant to accept (in my own experience).