Cheques move a step closer to extinction

jimmyay

Cheques are a form of personal currency used by people for hundreds of years, through various technological eras. the power to issue this currency lies with the customer. British banks ultimately hate cheques - they fetter their power in a small way and they have more control with electronic crediting. getting rid of cheques is everything to do with the banks convenience and nothing to do with the customers.

other countries like the united states are technologically advanced and they still manage to be trusted to use cheques all the time.

but brits are used to being treated by the authorities like naughty children, and Barclays Manager's posts above typify this attitude.

This is all about British banks taking another little bit of power away from you and me under the guise of "convenience" and saving paper.

vet8

Oh dear, this is a bank manager who clearly has no knowledge of real people outside of his sheltered little world.

BarclaysManager wrote: »

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.

A lot of elderley people do not trust "modern" ways of doing things, they have always used cheques and in their 80s why should they be expected to change just to suit the convenience of the bank? They do not bank online or by telephone, they use cheques and why not?


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

We live in the country, the nearest bank is 20 minutes drive away. It might be easy for you, but not for everyone.

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...

How do you arrve at 5 minutes?? We are talking here about people paying us or the company I work for and they CHOOSE to use cheques. You might be astonished to learn that some people would not do business with you if you did not take cheques because they do not use any other method. Strange bank manager view of the world, probably in keeping with their accounting.

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.

You really have no idea. Text ?? These older people do not even have mobile phones or use the internet. Wake up to the real world.

As for DDs or standing orders that only works if you are doing a regular payment to the same source. Most small businesses dealing with customers for small amounts find cheques the easiest way. In one of my other jobs clients pay by a variety of means at the time of doing business. Some use CCs and some still use cheques, and not all the older people. Why stop them using them just to make life easier and cheaper for the banks?

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.

Oh yeah. Maybe people just like using cheques, they find them convenient, safe and easy and they can understand them. It's not stubborn, they like them and surely as banks are supposed to be providing a service Ha Ha Ha :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: they should do what their customers want.

Poppy9

Just wondered. When banks refund fees that have been claimed back by customers do they credit the money to the bank account or send a cheque?

Extant

Inactive wrote: »

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

"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."

I'm not going to completely write off anyone for their mistakes, I just don't do that.

Extant

jimmyay wrote: »

British banks ultimately hate cheques - they fetter their power in a small way and they have more control with electronic crediting. getting rid of cheques is everything to do with the banks convenience and nothing to do with the customers.

They don't fetter "power" at all, and it's rather paranoid you think that at all. How do you think they fetter power? If anything, they increase it - there's a whole list of reasons you could bounce a cheque, many more than a funds transfer.

other countries like the united states are technologically advanced and they still manage to be trusted to use cheques all the time.

It's not about being "trusted" to use cheques, which is a rather personal way to take it.

Regarding the US using cheques, this is because they lack a system equivalent to BACS or FPS that operates on the same scale.

It's funny you should mention Americans and cheques, as their nearest equivalent to BACS - ACH, Automated Clearing House - has a specific feature built in for handling cheques - they're converted to electronic transactions and cleared without the physical instrument processing through traditional clearings. Making the cheque completely pointless.

but brits are used to being treated by the authorities like naughty children, and Barclays Manager's posts above typify this attitude.

How have I treated anyone like a naughty child? I haven't criticized anyone for their use of cheques, I have only acted as an advocate for the removal of cheques.

This is all about British banks taking another little bit of power away from you and me under the guise of "convenience" and saving paper.

The removal of cheques would be a direct push towards FPS, as BACS will have ceased as the primary method of funds transfers for personal customers by the time cheques disappear.

FPS offers significantly less power than cheques, as a payment cannot be recalled or cancelled once it has been initiated.

Banks would actually be losing power, but it's irrelevant as it's not a matter of control (if it was, banks wouldn't consult over this, they'd just stop clearing at their own behest).

Extant

vet8 wrote: »

Oh dear, this is a bank manager who clearly has no knowledge of real people outside of his sheltered little world.

Actually, I own half of a painting and decorating firm, inherited from my uncle. (As the business carries the family name, I have no interest in selling it.)

Said business stopped taking cheques in 2007, and has had no major problems, despite - shock horror - dealing with old people!

I like the fact that you have made an incorrect personal judgment simply because I advocate the removal of cheques and you don't agree.

A lot of elderley people do not trust "modern" ways of doing things, they have always used cheques and in their 80s why should they be expected to change just to suit the convenience of the bank? They do not bank online or by telephone, they use cheques and why not?

Cheques will likely be around until at least 2015. The delay in their complete removal is, as per The Payments Council, to allow adequate time for alternatives to be developed and to ensure that groups such as the elderly are not "trapped" with a dead payment form.

You can try and paint it as some sort of inconsiderate move, but there is plenty of effort being made to make sure it is exactly the opposite.

We live in the country, the nearest bank is 20 minutes drive away. It might be easy for you, but not for everyone.

Phone/internet.

How do you arrve at 5 minutes??

Through personal experience of using a phone to set up a funds transfer?

We are talking here about people paying us or the company I work for and they CHOOSE to use cheques.

They CHOOSE to use cheques because they are allowed to use them and are not presented with any reason to change.

If you increased the bank fee to businesses of issuing and receiving cheques, do you think they would still CHOOSE to use them?

You might be astonished to learn that some people would not do business with you if you did not take cheques because they do not use any other method.

And you might be astonished to learn that a small local business, as highlighted above, can do business without using cheques when tradesmen traditionally use cheques.

If you are a business offering a service that people require or desire, they will find a way to pay you without using a cheque.

As businesses have ceased taking cheques - see the supermarkets - they have not reported a significant drop in trading or revenue.

You really have no idea. Text ?? These older people do not even have mobile phones or use the internet. Wake up to the real world.

"Old people" do not make a payment method any more valid than another. You are confusing two things here - the inherent benefits of cheques vs. the inconveniences of removing them.

Old people still have phones, and old people still love to visit their local branches - both easy ways to initiate a transfer.

Also, old people die and cheque usage continues to decline year by year. So, when the current generation of elderly people has passed and we're left with the next lot that use cheques even less, what do you propose then?

You have to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough, and we're getting to that point.

As for DDs or standing orders that only works if you are doing a regular payment to the same source.

Transfers work fine for single payments.

Why stop them using them just to make life easier and cheaper for the banks?

It's not the banks deciding this. This isn't the BBA, this is the Payments Council - representatives of all concerned bodies from banks to governments to businesses.

Like it or not, they get to dictate how their businesses and affairs, and they're not interested in maintaining an outdated system which is being used less and less by the end consumer, both in business and personal customers.

As cheque usage declines, you set an end date, or a closing plan for it - this is perfectly natural. It happens for all sorts of things, not just cheques. Things change and the change is managed. The demise of cheques is an example of this - it's a reality, it is going to happen. But it's being managed in a specific way to ensure that the transition to other methods is as seamless as possible.

Poppy9

While the elderly may have access to phone many have issues using it. My MIL for example is deaf and despite a hearing aid and a phone with adjustable volume she still struggles to hear/understand people. Because she does not feel confident in hearing people correctly she refuses to transact with her bank via the phone. If she wants something and has to pay by card then she get my OH to do it but not all elderly people have someone.

Add into this banks preference for foreign call centres where even if you have perfect hearing it's struggle to understand them and to make yourself understood.

Until you have an older generation comfortable with using computers this will remain an issue.

jambosans

jimmyay wrote: »

Cheques are a form of personal currency used by people for hundreds of years, through various technological eras. the power to issue this currency lies with the customer. British banks ultimately hate cheques - they fetter their power in a small way and they have more control with electronic crediting. getting rid of cheques is everything to do with the banks convenience and nothing to do with the customers.

I'm sorry, but are you joking? Cheques are not the archetypes of money transfer. Don't get me wrong, I love my socialist agendas but we're talking about banks and money transfer. So any illusion of power you felt you had with cheques as opposed to electronic means is misguided and clearly a ridiculous argument for keeping them.

It honestly astounds me how cheques are held in such high regard (as this thread clearly indicates), almost to the point where people refuse to accept there are viable alternatives.

I agree with BarclaysManager, and have held off posting as I felt he was handling responses accurately and to the point. However, after reading the quoted response above I just couldn't help myself.

Cheque use is in decline, of course they are going to be phased out over time. There are alternatives, and with a little education they can be much quicker, safer, greener and cost effective to use.

I've read enough, and there are very little responses that BarclaysManager hasn't already answered, so I would save the replies. No doubt this thread will continue with counter argument replies that have already been answered which people did not bother to read or accept.

jambosans

Poppy9 wrote: »

While the elderly may have access to phone many have issues using it. My MIL for example is deaf and despite a hearing aid and a phone with adjustable volume she still struggles to hear/understand people. Because she does not feel confident in hearing people correctly she refuses to transact with her bank via the phone. If she wants something and has to pay by card then she get my OH to do it but not all elderly people have someone.

Add into this banks preference for foreign call centres where even if you have perfect hearing it's struggle to understand them and to make yourself understood.

Until you have an older generation comfortable with using computers this will remain an issue.

There are ways around this: Textphones being a good example.

Although cheques, in many instances, especially to the elderly, are ideal, there are alternatives, and over time people will have to adopt them.

I agree that there is always going to be an issue with the elderly adopting newer forms of money transfer but no one is saying cheques are being removed tomorrow. So I would suggest, by the time cheques are removed, bank customers will be more educated in the alternatives.

They are only removing cheque guarantee cards which is what the OP refers to. Although it is the beginning of the end for cheques.

Inactive

Well dress it up however you like, the reality is that there are people out there, who through no fault of their own, cannot cope with the existing alternatives to cheques, so until the industry can come up with a suitable alternative, which they havn't yet managed to do, there are going to be a lot of customers disadvantaged by any move away from cheques.