cheque with unauthorized signature honoured

MarkyMarkD

For goodness's sake, will you all think about what happened here before getting on the stupid "banks should refund everything" band-wagon.

The OP accidentally wrote a fraudulent cheque, as they used a cheque book they were not an authorised signatory on. Writing a cheque in these circumstances is a criminal offence.

The bank, quite reasonably, charged the customer whose account it was for allowing a cheque to be written which took the account overdrawn. The amount of the cheque wasn't high enough for them to check the signature, but if they had, they might have chosen to report the OP to the police for fraud.

And you all think the OP's spouse should get their bank charges back, which would involve stating to the bank that the OP had effectively stolen a cheque from the OP's spouse and then fraudulently used it?

Look at the bigger picture and stop defaulting to bashing the banks, eh?

BTW as soon as the cheque had been presented, on the 13th, it was already too late to deposit funds to meet that cheque. Under ALL (or virtually all) banks' terms and conditions, the funds have to be there by close of business the previous banking day as I've posted about 50 times on this site.

boo_star

Emmzi wrote:

I think it's legally shaky ground in that YES they should have refused payment but TECHNICALLY you nicked his cheque so wrote a fraudulent one(albeit unintentionally).

I'd go for grovelling apology longstanding customer give me my money back etc etc BUT also ask why cheque paid.They don't like customers to know they never check anything under about £500...

It wasn't a fraudulent cheque.

To satisfy a fraud charge it requires proof then the person committing said fraud intended to permanently deprive the individual/company defrauded of their money by deception.

Their is neither intent, nor deception.

It would fail in any criminal court for precisely those reasons.

Dagobert

M_Thomson wrote:

By the way it is authorised not authorized! We are not American yet although give it a few years he he

For more information on the use of -ize in British English, see the discussion in alt.usage.english:

Scholars and scholarly publications in the UK come down firmly for the -ize

Forty years ago the Times, for one, used -ize. It switched to -ise about 20-30 years ago.

Dagobert

M_Thompson wrote:

kenshaz wrote:

content is the most important.

That is a rather 70's and 80's teaching method point of view. I was taught in the 70's and 80's and part of the 90's yet I disagree with you on that.

I couldn't agree with you more. Misspelt content is unreadable.

Dagobert

MarkyMarkD wrote:

For goodness's sake, will you all think about what happened here before getting on the stupid "banks should refund everything" band-wagon.
...
Look at the bigger picture and stop defaulting to bashing the banks, eh?

I am neither on the "unfair bank charges" band-wagon - in fact, I totally disagree with it - nor am I trying to bash the banks for my own mistake.

I am simply trying to establish what the situation is with regard to the unauthorized cheque, so I can write a polite letter asking for a refund as goodwill gesture.

Old_No.7

Well, if the banks don't think it's cost effective to check every signature on every cheque, fair enough, but they should then accept the occasional (obviously lower) cost that comes with it: be it the odd fraudulent cheque (it can't happen that often or the costs would make them check the cheques for smaller amounts as well) or refunding the charges nice and quick when it's a genuine mistake. Especially as you are both customers at the same bank, you're in a strong position to get your money back on this one, so give it a go.

hilary1

I once ac cidentally wrote a cheque in my daughters cheque book, which was honoured even with my signature on it, and we dont have the same surname!

The banks answere was to tell my daughter to sue me to recover the money (£10).:rotfl: :rotfl:

oldwiring

hilary1 wrote:

I once ac cidentally wrote a cheque in my daughters cheque book, which was honoured even with my signature on it, and we dont have the same surname!

The banks answere was to tell my daughter to sue me to recover the money (£10).:rotfl: :rotfl:

An official bank reply on heased notepaper, or a bank officer's reply, possibly in jest?

Mikeyorks

Dagobert wrote:

Question: can O/H argue that they should not have accepted the cheque as it did not show an authorized signature?

Yes, he can argue that. But they can equally argue contributory negligence on not looking after his cheque book better? So it all starts to get a bit messy and probably then a bit personal.

Better to primarily admit to a simple error - and the fact you clearly attempted to remedy the situation as soon as it was realised. Put your negotiation skills to the fore - and they should eventually waive the charges on the basis of their own contribution, by admitting a cheque onto the account with an inappropriate signature?

But - as post #13 - it's not fraud. It's called a mistake, as clearly evidenced by the hasty and double cash injection to remedy the deficiency?

Your OH could have contacted the Bank and asked the cheque be dishonoured, as soon as you spotted it? (It's not the same as STOPping it - so there's no charge) That would have got round the £34 charge. But then you would have had to explain the bounce to your payee - and dishonouring the cheque back to your OH ... all gets a bit incestuous;)

So ... negotiate.

hilary1

oldwiring wrote:

An official bank reply on heased notepaper, or a bank officer's reply, possibly in jest?

It was by telephone banking but I dont think she was jesting. Especially once my daughter questioned the competance of honouring a cheque signed in the wrong name.