Cheque returned cos words and figs don't match - "return to drawer"?

louisdog

Hi all

I just paid a small company a cheque for over £1k (which is definitely there in my account) and IF.com have sent it back to them marked "return to drawer"; when I phoned IF they said that the words and figures on the cheque differ.

Just wondering though, has anyone else had a cheque returned like that with "return to drawer" as the lady doing the accounts in the company I paid says it would normally say reason "words and figures don't match"?

I think the company think I am not good for the money now because of the reason written on the cheque so wondering if the wording was normal in these circs or unusual.

Thanks!
louisdog

interstellaflyer

I think you made a simple error and that the lady in the accounts department for the company you paid should be checking the cheques for mistakes before banking them, that has been the proceedure in all the companies I've worked for.

louisdog

Thanks, I have asked for the cheque back and have CHAPs it instead so at least I will see what I have done. Still wondering whether the reason given was unusual or not but no way to tell whether she is correct...

interstellaflyer

louisdog wrote: »

Thanks, I have asked for the cheque back and have CHAPs it instead so at least I will see what I have done. Still wondering whether the reason given was unusual or not but no way to tell whether she is correct...

I wouldn't worry about it too much IIRC if the cheque was returned due to insufficient funds it will say so.

Hazzanet

interstellaflyer wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it too much IIRC if the cheque was returned due to insufficient funds it will say so.

Nope; they write "refer to drawer" because if the bank has made an error (i.e. you did actually have the money) you could have a defamation case against the bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheque

"In England and Wales, they are typically returned marked "Refer to Drawer" - an instruction to contact the person issuing the cheque for an explanation as to why the cheque was not honoured. This wording was brought in after a bank was successfully sued for libel after returning a cheque with the phrase "Insufficient Funds" after making an error - the court ruled that as there were sufficient funds the statement was demonstrably false and damaging to the reputation of the person issuing the cheque. Despite the use of this revised phrase, successful libel lawsuits brought against banks by individuals remained for similar errors.[30]"

interstellaflyer

Hazzanet wrote: »

Nope; they write "refer to drawer" because if the bank has made an error (i.e. you did actually have the money) you could have a defamation case against the bank.



"In they are typically returned marked "Refer to Drawer" - an instruction to contact the person issuing the cheque for an explanation as to why the cheque was not honoured. This wording was brought in after a bank was successfully sued for after returning a cheque with the phrase "Insufficient Funds" after making an error - the court ruled that as there were sufficient funds the statement was demonstrably false and damaging to the reputation of the person issuing the cheque. Despite the use of this revised phrase, successful libel lawsuits brought against banks by individuals remained for similar errors.["

After reading the OP properly I realise where you are coming from. note to self, 'read posts properly before commenting'

jonesMUFCforever

In my experience Refer to Drawer has always meant insufficient funds.
Words and figures differ would be the annotation for what OP describes.

If the OP is worried about future trading with the company then he needs to get something in writing from them then make an appointment with the branch manager to discuss.
It may be that the bank will do a letter confirming the true reason for the cheque's return and that would be the end of the matter.

louisdog

Thanks for all your replies.

This is an ongoing contract with the company for another 6 months so I don't want them thinking I have insufficient funds or am a bad payer.

Sounds like a good idea for me to get something in writing from my bank confirming the reason for the cheque bouncing.

The lady at the company said there was nothing wrong with the cheque and it was correctly dated and written. They are going to let me have the cheque back so I'll check it and see if I can see what the error was. If there isn't any error then the company will definitely think I am no good for the money! But I'll take it up with the bank then. Perhaps my handwriting was illegible.

At least they should have the CHAPs tomorrow pm.


Cheers
louisdog

Mikeyorks

louisdog wrote: »

Perhaps my handwriting was illegible.

Your Bank do not see the cheque. So - if the handwriting is poor, that's not the immediate catalyst for your Bank putting RD on the cheque.

If it's a 'small company' they won't do their own cheque processing. But whoever processed it (might just be their own Bank) converted the value from the cheque into an electronic record. And it is that record which debits your account.

For some reason - your Bank has decided to dig out the physical cheque (they're sent to a central point within the Bank) and RD it. When you get it back - have a look at the bottom right hand corner. Whoever processed it initially should have applied a value in magnetic ink (MICR) representing the value they were claiming. Doesn't happen frequently - but they may have called for a value quite different to that on the cheque and which your account wouldn't cope with. In such circumstances your Bank should have processed an adjustment back through Clearing. But I have known them take the easy way out!

louisdog

Update: the company still haven't given me the cheque back but something has been muttered today about a missing hundred, so looks like it was a simple (and stupid) error on my part rather than the "refer to drawer" meaning my account is empty as the lady who banked it implied! Phew!

And the CHAPs cost me £25 :mad: so that will teach me to check cheques more carefully next time